Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-11-2020, 04:51 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,346
QuoteOriginally posted by ecostigny Quote
(...)

Canon, on the other hand, ditched their FD mount in favor of the all-electronic EF mount when they started introducing autofocus in their film SLRs. The new mount's wider diameter and shorter flange distance, in addition to its different bayonet mount, required an adapter for FD lenses to work on the then-new EF bodies.
Wider diameter, yes: 54mm for the EF mount vs. 48mm for the FD mount.

Shorter flange distance, no: 44mm for the EF mount vs. 42mm for the FD mount.

This is the reason why Canon only proposed a 4-element optical adapter which acted as a low power multiplier (1.26x) for FD telephoto lenses and no conventional adapter without glass, with which the flange of the FD lens would have to be 2mm inside the EOS body.

The 1.26x FD -> EOS adapter had a protruding front element (similar to the current Canon teleconverters), which meant it would only couple with lenses which could accommodate this protrusion.



11-12-2020, 09:07 AM - 1 Like   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 660
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Strangely, Nikon offers full backward compatibility on the dF and significant backward compatibility for all AIS back to the mid-1970s on their upper tier models. Even stranger...they still sell some of those manual focus lenses.
QuoteOriginally posted by ecostigny Quote
When Nikon introduced autofocus, they did so with their existing F mount. They've added electronic connections, but the physical mount has remained the same since 1958, making compatibility easier to maintain. Nikon only moved to a new mount with their Z-series mirrorless cameras.

Canon, on the other hand, ditched their FD mount in favor of the all-electronic EF mount when they started introducing autofocus in their film SLRs. The new mount's wider diameter and shorter flange distance, in addition to its different bayonet mount, required an adapter for FD lenses to work on the then-new EF bodies.
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
My point was that Nikon offered (and continues to offer) full backward capability to 1958 on the Df even though such had been absent from the line for a long time. Part of the reason why there is such complaint here regarding the crippled mount is that the mechanism is actually very compact and incredibly simply and there is no clear rational why it was removed. Users might be happier if stop-down metering worked better, but it remains a cludge.
The Df is definitely the one to watch - starting at a high price and holding it, yet a very slow burner in the market. If it weren't for the now-low resolution, perhaps it would still be available new. It certainly did the thing it set out to do, with the occasional gremlin along the way.

I think a K-1 III with extra backwards compatibility would be very interesting. It seems to me to make the most sense for a full frame body, to be able to use the legacy lenses at their original focal lengths.
11-12-2020, 10:25 AM   #33
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,784
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
If it weren't for the now-low resolution, perhaps it would still be available new.
Surprise! It is current Nikon product. 16Mpx sounds low, but consider that the D6 only supports 20Mpx, the Df aligns nicely. I know a couple of people that bought a Df new and they aren't selling.


Steve
11-12-2020, 10:39 AM   #34
mlt
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Meridian, Idaho
Posts: 857
As nice as it would be to use my M series primes with full aperture metering control, I don’t see Ricoh changing their mind about altering the current K mount to fully support 35-45 year old lenses. Since I’m manually focusing then anyway, the green button method of metering isn’t that much of a bother.

11-14-2020, 02:20 PM   #35
Pentaxian
ecostigny's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 520
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
Wider diameter, yes: 54mm for the EF mount vs. 48mm for the FD mount.

Shorter flange distance, no: 44mm for the EF mount vs. 42mm for the FD mount.

This is the reason why Canon only proposed a 4-element optical adapter which acted as a low power multiplier (1.26x) for FD telephoto lenses and no conventional adapter without glass, with which the flange of the FD lens would have to be 2mm inside the EOS body.

The 1.26x FD -> EOS adapter had a protruding front element (similar to the current Canon teleconverters), which meant it would only couple with lenses which could accommodate this protrusion.
My mistake regarding my assumption that the flange distance would be shorter with a wider diameter; I should have dug a bit further into the mount specifications that night. I can see how this difference would make the design of adapters that much more challenging.
11-15-2020, 02:51 AM - 1 Like   #36
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,346
QuoteOriginally posted by ecostigny Quote
My mistake regarding my assumption that the flange distance would be shorter with a wider diameter; I should have dug a bit further into the mount specifications that night. I can see how this difference would make the design of adapters that much more challenging.
When SLR manufacturers launched a new mount to add autofocus capability, the trend was to increase both the diameter () and the flange focal distance (FFD):
  • Canon FD ( = 48mm ; FFD = 42mm) --> Canon EF ( = 54mm ; FFD = 44mm)
  • Contax/Yashica ( = 48mm ; FFD = 45.5mm) --> Contax N ( = 55mm ; FFD = 48mm)
  • Minolta SR ( = 45mm ; FFD = 43.5mm) --> Minolta AF ( = 49.7mm ; FFD = 44.5mm)
11-15-2020, 06:15 AM   #37
Pentaxian
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 831
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
When SLR manufacturers launched a new mount to add autofocus capability, the trend was to increase both the diameter () and the flange focal distance (FFD):
  • Canon FD ( = 48mm ; FFD = 42mm) --> Canon EF ( = 54mm ; FFD = 44mm)
  • Contax/Yashica ( = 48mm ; FFD = 45.5mm) --> Contax N ( = 55mm ; FFD = 48mm)
  • Minolta SR ( = 45mm ; FFD = 43.5mm) --> Minolta AF ( = 49.7mm ; FFD = 44.5mm)
Interesting, was it to accommodate the room for an adapter to make the transition for existing users less painful or was there an optical-technical rational behind it?
11-15-2020, 06:23 AM   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,773
f/1.4 rational ?

11-15-2020, 08:57 AM - 1 Like   #39
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,346
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
Interesting, was it to accommodate the room for an adapter to make the transition for existing users less painful or was there an optical-technical rational behind it?
If it had been to accommodate the room for an adapter, the newer mounts would have had a shorter flange focal distance, not a longer one which made impossible to design glassless adapters to use the older lenses on the newer bodies.

The reasons were therefore optical-technical for the larger diameter and technical too for the (slightly) longer flange focal distance.

Asahi Optical have been the only one to keep the same flange focal distance for their three successive lens mounts.
11-15-2020, 09:08 AM   #40
Pentaxian
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 831
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
If it had been to accommodate the room for an adapter, the newer mounts would have had a shorter flange focal distance, not a longer one which made impossible to design glassless adapters to use the older lenses on the newer bodies.

The reasons were therefore optical-technical for the larger diameter and technical too for the (slightly) longer flange focal distance.

Asahi Optical have been the only one to keep the same flange focal distance for their three successive lens mounts.
Oh, wow. Sure, you are absolutely right. I had it the other way around, my bad. Backwards compatibility of new lenses to old mount-cameras probably really is not a real factor...
11-15-2020, 12:15 PM - 1 Like   #41
Pentaxian
ecostigny's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 520
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
Oh, wow. Sure, you are absolutely right. I had it the other way around, my bad. Backwards compatibility of new lenses to old mount-cameras probably really is not a real factor...
The relative lack of focus on backwards compatibility didn't seem to hurt Canon too badly; they claimed to have sold more than 100 million EF mount lenses six years ago. To a manufacturer, a new lens mount is a great excuse to promote buying new glass, especially if that new glass has hitherto-unavailable capabilities like autofocus.
11-16-2020, 04:59 AM   #42
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,227
QuoteOriginally posted by ecostigny Quote
The relative lack of focus on backwards compatibility didn't seem to hurt Canon too badly; they claimed to have sold more than 100 million EF mount lenses six years ago. To a manufacturer, a new lens mount is a great excuse to promote buying new glass, especially if that new glass has hitherto-unavailable capabilities like autofocus.
At the time it did cost them a lot.
A lot of people, still now, will refuse to buy Canon because of that (the mount and the circumstances at the time).

It didn't prevent Canon from gaining a lot of other sales for other reasons (technical being one of them).I don't think Minolta suffered that much although they did change the mount too.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, customization, feature, iii, information, k-3, k-3 mark iii, mark, mark iii specification, pentax news, pentax rumors, shot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lenseep data specification lmd91343 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 10-13-2015 04:37 PM
Question Lens specification table in lens reviews unreadable D1N0 Site Suggestions and Help 4 08-04-2015 12:10 PM
Back to default after "Raw-Fx" button Customization to HDR? uday029 Pentax K-3 19 03-16-2015 01:40 AM
Broken Record, part II : return of the record Gooshin Post Your Photos! 5 09-14-2008 03:21 PM
Official specification K20D from Russian Pentax Dealer ogl Pentax News and Rumors 17 01-23-2008 11:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top