Originally posted by philbaum Well stated and thought out!
OLD THINKING:
A camera company should have only one mount and dozens of varying lens options.
NEW THINKING:
The number of lens mounts doesn't matter. (Once designed, there is no ongoing expense with them)
Make lots of lens options for the primary lens mount, but for the other less used mounts, a few lenses is all that is needed, e.g. Sony only has a small AF zoom and one AF prime for their compact NEX series. Fuji has one fixed lens for their x100 lens "mount"
DIFFERENT THINKING:
The number of lens mounts matters a great deal if each mount requires a set of unique lenses - more R&D time and money for more models with fewer lenses sold per model. Drives up unit cost.
Buyers will always demand more lens options. This forum is evidence. It becomes a competitive necessity at some point. A few lenses will almost certainly need to become quite a few lenses.
If (perhaps) two mounts could share lenses with adapters:
- Still have greater manufacturing costs to product more unique models, even if they differ only in mount. Probably the reason we cannot get all Sigma/Tokina/Tamron glass in Pentax mount.
- Still have greater cost and confusion from stocking, distributing, and repairing more unique items of inventory. CRIS will now wait nine months for parts from Japan (or Vietnam via Japan).
- Must make compromises to make one lens model work with two bodies of different size, e.g., lens is larger/heavier than needed for the smaller body.
We may be on the train to an increasing number of mounts. This drives unit costs up and the smaller players struggle to compete with the larger players who amortize the extra work over a much larger user base.