[chongmic]

This topic might had been debated before, but I think is an interesting subject, especially for the smaller market size camera maker. Standardized mount will let consumer try out different brand of lens on their camera, will force the lens maker to produce better product at cheaper price, and an improved economy of scale by producing larger numbers. I guess this make 3rd party lens maker so success although they still have to attach different mount to suite different camera, but at least the same lens formula and construction/development cost are spread out to larger number of lens, thus reducing the sell price for each copy.

Is there a way for consumer to push for a standard mount?

[Wheatfield]

This topic might had been debated before, but I think is an interesting subject, especially for the smaller market size camera maker. Standardized mount will let consumer try out different brand of lens on their camera, will force the lens maker to produce better product at cheaper price, and an improved economy of scale by producing larger numbers. I guess this make 3rd party lens maker so success although they still have to attach different mount to suite different camera, but at least the same lens formula and construction/development cost are spread out to larger number of lens, thus reducing the sell price for each copy.

Is there a way for consumer to push for a standard mount?

Actually, it's a way for the bigger players to kill the smaller ones and it's a dumb idea.
Sorry to disagree so harshly.

[SOldBear]

It doesn't matter if they should or should not.

It's not gonna happen.

Just like all people in the world should speak one language.

[axl]

It was done at the beginning when there was M39 for European makers (Leica, Voigtlander, Schneider etc) and M42 for Japanesse makers.
It was in early to mid 70s that bayonet mounts came out and each maker had their own one. I don't think those days are ever coming back...

[epqwerty]

A standardized mount would never happen unless one of the companies build a new mount that surpasses the abilities of the old mounts or companies take over another. Such as Sony and minolta for takeover. And the m4/3 for panasonic Olympus and whoeve is in that camp for new mount. . As for the big canon and nikon, if they were to make a common mount they could probably survive without big problems but sales would come up/down as lenses are were the money is made and he public would flop around with brands. Smaller companies such as Sony pentax and Olympus would eventually disappear in this scenario as the body are not studs and people would be more inclined to buy nikon or canon. Pentax could maybe survive if they decided to be a lens manufacturer as some of our normal glass is still pretty decent compared to canon and nikon however doom would likely follow.

As for m42 standard pre bayonet days I don't recall nikon or canon joining the camp I could be wrong. But history shows that smaller companies.

[Digitalis]

the M42 screwmount was pretty common, you had makers all over the place making lenses - some lenses were so incredibly bad they were better employed as a paperweight. But the bayonet mount became desirable because screwing a lens into the front of the camera can cost you a few seconds, even with experienced hands - and with less experienced hands make that minutes. But every manufacturer had different ideas on what the specs of the bayonet mount should be, so they all came up with different ones.

Though I will add that in Large format you can use just about any lens you want - the only thing proprietary about large format is the lensboards, each manufacturer uses different methods to attach them to the front standard of the camera. I can use many different lenses, I have the tools to attach lenses to lensboards and the fact that large format cameras are very simple things really, and interchangability is and still remains a key selling point.

but complete interchangability between 35mm camera systems? it's never going to happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

[séamuis]

It was done at the beginning when there was M39 for European makers (Leica, Voigtlander, Schneider etc) and M42 for Japanesse makers.
It was in early to mid 70s that bayonet mounts came out and each maker had their own one. I don't think those days are ever coming back...

Leica went bayonet in the 50’s. so did Nikon with the F mount in 1959. cannon as well with bayonet in 59 also.

[Marc Sabatella]

Isn't that what 4/3 is? A standardized bayonet mount. But the only manufacturers who would be willing to give up what they already have and turn to an incompatible mount - thus alienating every one of their existing customers - would be a company with nothing left to lose.

[bdery]

Isn't that what 4/3 is?

True, that was the purpose. But they crippled the idea by creating micro Four Thirds a few years after launching Four thirds...

[johnyeros]

I think company make a lot more money on lens than body. They're releasing a new body every 6 months it seems. Do you own 6 body or 6 lens ? If they all standardize it, they wont be able to make money from you ... but just one day if i'm wrong I'll take a canon 85m f1.4 with AF on my Pentax body