Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kotsinadelis, Peter wrote: > Eric, its partially true. A larger opening/lens mount provides more > space > for things like electrical contacts. Minolta changed theirs when they > came > out with the Maxxum for technical reasons as documented in Sam > Kusumoto's > autobiography (he was the President at the time, I have a copy of this > book > if you are interested.) Canon did it because their FD mount was passe. > Nikon thought it would provide a sort of investment protection, but the > limited diameter is problematic since you have to constantly look > backward > (for compatibility) to advance forward. Minolta and Canon avoided MF > lens > compatibility issue by changing mounts entirely. Smart move! I was trying to avoid comment to this thread, as it's so far off topic, but *some* of us think Nikon 'did the decent thing' with the lens mount. The F5 (& F100) using the latest AFS lenses out perform Canon's AF system *using the old Nikon mount*. When my D1 arrives, I will be able to use all my old manual focus lenses on it. Changing lens mounts and destroying snappers' cash flow may be fun for Canon, but it was a *LARGE* pain in the gluteus maximus for many of its customers. David Morton dmorton@journalist.co.uk