What if - universal mount

[ilya]

What if Canon, Nikon and others agreed on a universal lens mount.

Meaning you could swap Nikkors and Canon L's all day.

Everything would be compatible

Your lens choice more then doubles. You get to pick the best lens in a particular focal length or purpose.

You could then also pick the body you want that best serves your needs - and not have to sell off whatever you used previously if you were "switching camps".

You would not limited by these silly proprietory technologies.

Imagine if Apple only wrote and allowed you to run Apple software. Imagine if all PCs could only run Windows software (well that could happen anyway... :( )

If there was a Universal Mount, the competitive differentiator would then be only quality, price and response to your needs.

So why do Canon and Nikon insist on proprietory technology (not to mention halfwitted Fuji, and the now-wiser Kodak)? I'm not convinced that the barriers are really good for anyone's business. I know they're bad for the consumer. It takes some out of the box thinking to come out to the market and say "hey, the new Mark III can now take Nikon lenses!!!" Imagine that. Am I missing something?

[Scottes]

How much did you spend on your camera? Me, $1500.
How much did you spend on your lenses? Me, $4100

Why would Canon want to take the chance of having me spend that $4100 on Nikkor lenses?


There's also differences in engineering and technology - some people think/know that X is the best way of doing something, while others disagree and think/know that Y is the best way.


And by holding technology proprietary, companies do there best to ensure that some 3rd party can't do the same thing. (Though some do, through reverse-engineering, of course.)


It's all about money. While your universal mount would be nice, I don't blame the companies for doing what they do. I'd do the same.

[ilya]

How much did you spend on your camera? Me, $1500.
How much did you spend on your lenses? Me, $4100

About the same

Why would Canon want to take the chance of having me spend that $4100 on Nikkor lenses?

Because there are probably just as many folks holding Nikons that want Canon glass. Think about it, its a closed loop system. The balance breaker comes when folks switch camps. Or whichever camp gets the newbies faster.

It's all about money. While your universal mount would be nice, I don't blame the companies for doing what they do. I'd do the same.

See above.

You are really saying that no one will go first, because if the other guy doesn't do it, you're screwed. That's true.

But my point is that this proprietary approach in any other industry would be screaming bloody murder. Also, when Canon becomes a monopoly (and it could very well happen - Kodak saw the writing on the wall), then it will be worse then Msft, as you won't have an Apple or Linux etc to escape to.

IMHO

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is one of the objectives that Olympus has tried to accomplish with the DSLR 4/3 system. The lens mount is an open standard..

... again,. i wonder when and if Kodak will jump on this band wagon...

But the fact that even lens companies like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are uninterested in the open standard lens mount is telling.

All the money is in the system.. not the bodies. But it's the body that locks you into the system.

Do Ford parts fit your Toyota?
It's not going to happen.

[PacAce]

What if Canon, Nikon and others agreed on a universal lens mount.

Meaning you could swap Nikkors and Canon L's all day.

Everything would be compatible

Your lens choice more then doubles. You get to pick the best lens in a particular focal length or purpose.

You could then also pick the body you want that best serves your needs - and not have to sell off whatever you used previously if you were "switching camps".

You would not limited by these silly proprietory technologies.

Imagine if Apple only wrote and allowed you to run Apple software. Imagine if all PCs could only run Windows software (well that could happen anyway... :( )

If there was a Universal Mount, the competitive differentiator would then be only quality, price and response to your needs.

So why do Canon and Nikon insist on proprietory technology (not to mention halfwitted Fuji, and the now-wiser Kodak)? I'm not convinced that the barriers are really good for anyone's business. I know they're bad for the consumer. It takes some out of the box thinking to come out to the market and say "hey, the new Mark III can now take Nikon lenses!!!" Imagine that. Am I missing something?

Isn't that what Olympus is doing with it's latest 4/3 dslr along with some other parties like Fuji, I think, etc?

[cgratti]

How much did you spend on your camera? Me, $1500.
How much did you spend on your lenses? Me, $4100

Why would Canon want to take the chance of having me spend that $4100 on Nikkor lenses?


There's also differences in engineering and technology - some people think/know that X is the best way of doing something, while others disagree and think/know that Y is the best way.


And by holding technology proprietary, companies do there best to ensure that some 3rd party can't do the same thing. (Though some do, through reverse-engineering, of course.)


It's all about money. While your universal mount would be nice, I don't blame the companies for doing what they do. I'd do the same.

In the same sense it can hurt products drastically. Like in the case of Gateway or Dell computers, the motheroards are designed for only DELL/Gateway cases. You cant buy a ASUS motherboard and stick it in a Dell/Gateway case. For that reason alone I will never buy a DELL or GATEWAY computer, I will build my own whereas I can get the best parts from the best makers, and swap it if I find some other vender makes a better product. Anyone remember the 3dfx video cards? Those cards rocked, then they sold out to Nvidia and they dont make them anylonger, what if those cards were made for specific motherboards? Those people who had them would need a whole new motherboard, me I just bought a new videocard and slapped it in. PROBLEM SOLVED.... So if the company starts making inferior products or goes out of business, your stuck with them or you change to a whole new company, which costs ALOT more cash. It would be nice if you could mix and match them, you wont ever be able to. But it would be nice. JMO...

[ilya]

It may not happen, but it would be nice. It won't happen because Canon and Nikon are too entrenched, and its too risky of a move (to come together on an open standard)

But what I'm thinking is that it may be good for business. Just using myu own thinking - in addition to my favorite Canon lenses, I'd probably be putting some money on the table for a couple of Nikkors. Heck, I'd probably have a Nikon back up body. My guess or vision or whatever is that each of us would spend more money with both. The PIE would grow. That's just my opinion.

Also wondering, why would the smaller players not offer universal mounts? I can guess that Sigma's Dx only works with Sigma lenses because they want to prop up the optics sales. But who here would ever buy a Sigma body? I never would.

For same reason I'd never buy a Fuji body. I'd just buy into a Nikon. Their strategy I don't get.

If I were a smaller player, a choice of mounts would be the only way to survive. If Nikon is losing money, how the heck do those guys figure they'll make money on a tiny niche market with little to no differentiation?

[ilya]

This is one of the objectives that Olympus has tried to accomplish with the DSLR 4/3 system. The lens mount is an open standard..

... again,. i wonder when and if Kodak will jump on this band wagon...

But the fact that even lens companies like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are uninterested in the open standard lens mount is telling.



What makes you say that? I suspect that Sigma, Tamron, Tokina are very interested in an open mount system. Unfortunately its not up to them. This would be the best thing that ever happens to these folks. Imagine the efficiencies of making one mount for the entire universe. Imagine being able to not having to deal with all the rechipping nonsense. Imagine aligning your design strategy once instead of twice...

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have to agree with you on smaller companies like Sigma... when the rooled out there first SLR I wasl like "What? Why on earth did they make there own mount?"

They should switch to 4/3rds!

[ilya]

I have to agree with you on smaller companies like Sigma... when the rooled out there first SLR I wasl like "What? Why on earth did they make there own mount?"

They should switch to 4/3rds!

Hey, I was curious about the 4/3rds thing, how does that work, what are the advantages?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think most of it can be found in this DPReview timeline;

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/

[Tom W]

I have to agree with you on smaller companies like Sigma... when the rooled out there first SLR I wasl like "What? Why on earth did they make there own mount?"

They should switch to 4/3rds!

Hey, I was curious about the 4/3rds thing, how does that work, what are the advantages?

4/3 is the aspect ratio. Where 35 mm is 3/2 (or 2/3 depending on how you look at it) width-to-height ratio, the 4/3 is a 4:3 ratio. 4/3 matches the 1024 by 768 ratio and the 800 by 600 - IOW, it matches the screen ratio.

Kind of weird that they would go for a less-wide appearance, when television is moving towards wide-screen.

Anyway, I see it simply as a solution for which there is no problem. Other than Olympus and a couple of others might be trying to invent the standard to knock the big boys (Canon, Nikon) off their throne.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The intent of the system was not about aspect ratio,..

The intent was reducing the size and cost of lenses (and cameras) for digital SLRs by removing the chains to the old 35mm systems,..

..for example with a 10D and it's smaller sensor size,. more than 1/3rd of the glass you mount on the 10D is doing nothing,. wasted weight, and therefore wasted money.

Olympus is saying "why wait for full frame,. a half size sensor CAN BE full frame if the lenses are designed for it"

The idea is sound,. and with improvements in technology we should be able to get Higher pixel densities into "4/3rds" sized sensors without as much noise.

Where Olympus fell flat on it's face was when actually released the E1 system,. it was not "cheap" enough.

The whole damn point of the system was smaller lighter = less expensive.

A 300mm that will give you a 600mm "equivelent".. but for some Odd reason Olympous defeated the purpose by pricing it all too high!

The E-1 needs to sell for less than the 10D,. and it's lenses are way out of control,. the 300mm prime needs to be priced equal to or less than Canon's 300mm,. not twice as high!

[MediaMagic]

Because there are probably just as many folks holding Nikons that want Canon glass. Think about it, its a closed loop system. The balance breaker comes when folks switch camps. Or whichever camp gets the newbies faster.



Sounds like an expensive game of Digital Red Rover, no?

[KiwiRob]

SDS i'd just like to point out that Sigma is in the process of releasing lens for the 4/3's system.

I totally agree with you that Olympus priced the E1 way to high, I personally liked it better than the 10D but it was too expensive and the price of accessories like flash and battery grip just pushed the system right out of my ballpark. However all said and done I hope Olympus and Minolta succeed and with the added competition to Canon and Nikon should bring down the cost of Digital. I would like to think if/when Canon upgrade/replace the 10D it will come in at a lower price point.

[Tom W]

The intent of the system was not about aspect ratio,..

The intent was reducing the size and cost of lenses (and cameras) for digital SLRs by removing the chains to the old 35mm systems,..

..for example with a 10D and it's smaller sensor size,. more than 1/3rd of the glass you mount on the 10D is doing nothing,. wasted weight, and therefore wasted money.

I prefer to think of it as "waiting", not wasted. As in waiting for a FF sensor.

[Mikesht]

The whole damn point of the system was smaller lighter = less expensive.

A 300mm that will give you a 600mm "equivelent".. but for some Odd reason Olympous defeated the purpose by pricing it all too high!

The E-1 needs to sell for less than the 10D,. and it's lenses are way out of control,. the 300mm prime needs to be priced equal to or less than Canon's 300mm,. not twice as high!

You said it! I was considering that system before I got my 10D and gone Canon (had some lenses from non-digital times though) but for the price they charge I could get my 10D and 2 L lenses at no risk. Whoever is setting the price on Olympus should think again IMHO.

[Mikesht]

I have to agree with you on smaller companies like Sigma... when the rooled out there first SLR I wasl like "What? Why on earth did they make there own mount?"

They should switch to 4/3rds!

Hey, I was curious about the 4/3rds thing, how does that work, what are the advantages?

In a latest addition of eDigitalPhoto magazine, there is an article called "Fashionable SLR", where Photographer Joe Farace describes his experience photographing New York fashion show with an Olympus E-1
See it if you are interested, but the conclusion was that it's comparable with the similar models ( I guess it means 10D and such).
To me personally this conclusion is not enough to switch, having invested considerably in L glass and having such a great camera as 10D, but for those who is just starting... BUt than again, the body itsef is $1800 or so, and then lenses... All in all I think they made a bo-bo in their pricing politics.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Untill there s a more develpoed system,. the E-1 and 4/3rds will flounder.

As you say, there is no compelling reason to invest,. 4 or 5 lenses all overpriced.. and little else...

An SLR is not about the Body,. the Camera is about as capable as the competitiors,. D-100, 10D even Sigma SD9/10...

All three of which offer far more of a system to buy into.

E-1 and 4/3rds is a great concept,. it is ahead of it's time. If Olympus wants it to succeed, they need to do a little more homework.

[CoolToolGuy]

Nikon has a long history of charging extra for their name alone. When 8mm video camcorders first came out, there were three identical models from Olympus, Nikon, and I can't remember the third brand. We're talking identical here, except for the name and model number. Nikon charged $150 more than the other two, and they know they can get away with that. Why would they (or any other leading maufacturer) ever willingly go down a generic path :?:

On the other side, the partners in the APS format were Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Kodak. They did that in the hopes of becoming the leaders in a new format which, at the time, was needed for photography. Turns out the winner was digital :? :D

Olympus wants to become the leader in this new digital format. They were moderately successful taking 35mm smaller, physically, in the '70s and '80s, and they want to take on Nikon and Canon in the same way now. It may catch on, but they want the biggest slice of that pie. They can charge more for it now, but if it catches on the competition will drive their prices down. :shock:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Bruce Watson]

It's all about Brand Equity. The name has perceived value to the consumer.

Just look back at the number of passionate debates in this, and other fourms, about the better 'system', Canon, Nikon, etc. as in "buy the Canon accessory because it is part of the Canon system and therefore is superior."

There are many who will passionately argue with measurbator vision that a brand name "A" lens/flash/body is better than brand "B" regardless of price even though those differences may not be quantifiable in practical use.

You can bet money that large manufacturers will contine to want brand distinction just as the automotive industry has done for years.

Why do people buy Harley Davidson motorcycles? Blind brand loyalty.

(Hopping on my BMW and driving away before the Hardley Ableson crowd starts flaming away!) :twisted:

[Tom W]

Nikon has a long history of charging extra for their name alone. When 8mm video camcorders first came out, there were three identical models from Olympus, Nikon, and I can't remember the third brand. We're talking identical here, except for the name and model number. Nikon charged $150 more than the other two, and they know they can get away with that. Why would they (or any other leading maufacturer) ever willingly go down a generic path :?:

On the other side, the partners in the APS format were Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Kodak. They did that in the hopes of becoming the leaders in a new format which, at the time, was needed for photography. Turns out the winner was digital :? :D

Olympus wants to become the leader in this new digital format. They were moderately successful taking 35mm smaller, physically, in the '70s and '80s, and they want to take on Nikon and Canon in the same way now. It may catch on, but they want the biggest slice of that pie. They can charge more for it now, but if it catches on the competition will drive their prices down. :shock:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

I don't know that APS was really needed - it never really caught on, or at least never threatened 35 mm. I know that I never had an interest in what looked at the next wave of "instamatic" cameras. In hindsight, APS was way beyond the Instamatic, but why trade 35 for something less?

BTW, I had (well, still have) a halfway decent Olympus point-and-shoot 35 from the mid-1980's. At the time, it was one of the better P&S cameras around, though its features would be woefully lacking now (2X zoom, etc.). I thought it was really compact - that is, until I went with my S-230 and then S-400.

Anyway, in a world of Canon Powershot Pro-1's and Sony 828's on one side and 10D's, Rebels, and D-70's on the other, I don't know if there is a void big enough for Olympus to fill here.

Myself, I'd prefer FF and I suspect that in 5 years or so, it will be an affordable replacement for the 10D. In the meantime, I'll shoot happily along, knowing that I have a multitude of cameras available for which I can use my lenses.

[Tom W]

It's all about Brand Equity. The name has perceived value to the consumer.

Just look back at the number of passionate debates in this, and other fourms, about the better 'system', Canon, Nikon, etc. as in "buy the Canon accessory because it is part of the Canon system and therefore is superior."

There are many who will passionately argue with measurbator vision that a brand name "A" lens/flash/body is better than brand "B" regardless of price even though those differences may not be quantifiable in practical use.

You can bet money that large manufacturers will contine to want brand distinction just as the automotive industry has done for years.

Why do people buy Harley Davidson motorcycles? Blind brand loyalty.

(Hopping on my BMW and driving away before the Hardley Ableson crowd starts flaming away!) :twisted:

Best keep that Bimmer north of the border. ;)

J/K, of course. There's nothing inherently wrong with brand loyalty. I've always had a Ford in my garage. I've had other brands besides, but Ford hasn't done me wrong. Why divorce a brand if its not treated you wrong?

Anyway, I'm not really in favor of a universal lens mount system - it would stifle innovation in the long run. A competitive marketplace is the best way to provide innovation. As long as the various parties strive to outdo each other, there will be innovation.

[ilya]

What better way to encourage innovation and competition then to make lenses a commodity?

[Tom W]

What better way to encourage innovation and competition then to make lenses a commodity?

Why would any manufacturer of any product create any innovations if they had to share them with their competition? If Canon "L" glass is better than, say, Olympus's best effort (and this is just a supposition here), why would Canon want to give that quality to someone else's camera body? Where would the incentive be for anybody to make the best product if it benefits their competitor?

[ilya]

We all know that the money is in lenses. If your offering doesn't hold up in a "free market", then you'll lose. You'll have separate and complementary markets in lenses and bodies. Its not quite about "sharing" them with the competition. Its all about putting out the best product to serve the new, and significantly expanded market.

[Tom W]

We all know that the money is in lenses. If your offering doesn't hold up in a "free market", then you'll lose. You'll have separate and complementary markets in lenses and bodies. Its not quite about "sharing" them with the competition. Its all about putting out the best product to serve the new, and significantly expanded market.

I don't know that the money is in lenses. I've not had one wear out yet.

Anyway, that said, I suppose I've been a little argumentative here, but its really up to Canon, Nikon, et. al. to decide if they want a common mount. If it were in their best interest to do so, then they would do it. Its their companies and they can do what they want.

IOW, the market is free right now.

[CyberDyneSystems]

ROFLMAO

IF the mount is Universal,. IT would NOT be an EOS mount anymore,. and therefore.....




...are you ready?





Well,. the thrread no longer belongs in the EOS forum now does it?

ROFL

[CoolToolGuy]

I don't know that APS was really needed - it never really caught on, or at least never threatened 35 mm. I know that I never had an interest in what looked at the next wave of "instamatic" cameras. In hindsight, APS was way beyond the Instamatic, but why trade 35 for something less?

Anyway, in a world of Canon Powershot Pro-1's and Sony 828's on one side and 10D's, Rebels, and D-70's on the other, I don't know if there is a void big enough for Olympus to fill here.



APS was not about folks like us that spend hours upon hours a week debating this stuff - it was about folks that needed an hour of instruction at the Ritz store to understand how to load and use their 35mm camera. Now, please folks, that was a glaring oversimplification, and if you are a fan of APS that was just offended, please give me a little latitude. The facts are that 35mm, which was never developed (pun not intended) for the general public, was a little too overwhelming for them and some improvements were needed. Instamatic in its various forms didn't do it, and something had to be done. IMHO the industry waited too long, and the rest is history.


As for Olympus, well I am and probably always will be a Canon bigot (brand loyalist if you choose), but they hit the 35mm market at a pretty good time, when SLRs were just hitting their stride for the general public, and they got a pretty good share of the market pushing 'smaller is better' camera gear. I think they hit the DSLR market at an even better time, within a year of the first consumer DSLRs. There will always be a market for the folks that want more than the Pro-1, F828, etc. can deliver, but are not interested in taking out a second mortgage for lenses. I wish them luck, but I'm likely to stick with what I've got.

And Tom, not to rag on you too much, but the money certainly is in the lenses - in the SLR market, its always about the lenses. A good poll would be to add up the money spent in each of three categories - bodies, lenses, and everything else, and see where we all stand percentage wise. Working photo professionals should be a separate category, because their hardware are the tools of their profession, but I would not be surprised in the least to see lenses at the top.

But ultimately, its all about the dollar (pound, ruble, yen, whatever), and how each brand can get the most profit for themselves.


Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

APS was not about folks like us that spend hours upon hours a week debating this stuff - it was about folks that needed an hour of instruction at the Ritz store to understand how to load and use their 35mm camera. Now, please folks, that was a glaring oversimplification, and if you are a fan of APS that was just offended, please give me a little latitude. The facts are that 35mm, which was never developed (pun not intended) for the general public, was a little too overwhelming for them and some improvements were needed. Instamatic in its various forms didn't do it, and something had to be done. IMHO the industry waited too long, and the rest is history.

I understand where you're going - I'm probably not the typical consumer. I didn't even know what APS really was until 3 years ago - I simply dismissed it. I just never saw the value of re-inventing what a 35 mm P&S could do. Even loading film was easy - just pull the stringer to the red line and close the back - the camera did the rest. :)


As for Olympus, well I am and probably always will be a Canon bigot (brand loyalist if you choose), but they hit the 35mm market at a pretty good time, when SLRs were just hitting their stride for the general public, and they got a pretty good share of the market pushing 'smaller is better' camera gear. I think they hit the DSLR market at an even better time, within a year of the first consumer DSLRs. There will always be a market for the folks that want more than the Pro-1, F828, etc. can deliver, but are not interested in taking out a second mortgage for lenses. I wish them luck, but I'm likely to stick with what I've got.

Considering what Olympus wants for lenses, compared to what's available for EF mount, I'd say that you're much better off financially with an SLR. You can equip a DigiReb with a 50 mm, the kit lens, and a tele zoom for less than $500 (not including the body).

And Tom, not to rag on you too much, but the money certainly is in the lenses - in the SLR market, its always about the lenses. A good poll would be to add up the money spent in each of three categories - bodies, lenses, and everything else, and see where we all stand percentage wise. Working photo professionals should be a separate category, because their hardware are the tools of their profession, but I would not be surprised in the least to see lenses at the top.

Perhaps for those of us that are enthusiasts or professionals, lenses account for a good chunk of money (myself included as an enthusiast). But look at what most 35 mm owners have spent on lenses. Now I may be way off base here, but I'd guess that the average user has a kit lens and another zoom. Maybe even a cheap prime. But buying "L" glass for a normal consumer is the rarity, not the norm.

Put a $1000+ digital body into the equation and the lenses suddenly become even less proportionately. Then wait 2 years and watch the consumers get a new body because it has twice the megapixels as the old one. That's a cash cow there IMHO.

But ultimately, its all about the dollar (pound, ruble, yen, whatever), and how each brand can get the most profit for themselves.


Have Fun
Rick 8)

Well, yes, profit is why they're in business. I certainly don't strive to work without a paycheck - my guess is that neither do the folks at Canon, Nikon, or elsewhere. After all, if making cameras and lenses stops being profitable, they'll stop doing it.

[CoolToolGuy]

Perhaps for those of us that are enthusiasts or professionals, lenses account for a good chunk of money (myself included as an enthusiast). But look at what most 35 mm owners have spent on lenses. Now I may be way off base here, but I'd guess that the average user has a kit lens and another zoom. Maybe even a cheap prime. But buying "L" glass for a normal consumer is the rarity, not the norm.

Put a $1000+ digital body into the equation and the lenses suddenly become even less proportionately. Then wait 2 years and watch the consumers get a new body because it has twice the megapixels as the old one. That's a cash cow there IMHO.



And when the body gets upgraded to double the megapixels, what kind of body do they (we) get? The same brand, since there is some investment in glass made for that brand. The same thing applies to that average person who has the kit lens and one zoom that they bought for their film EOS camera ten years ago. They're going to start with the DSLR that will work with the lenses they own.

I have a friend who has had pretty good digicams for several years - Fuji, mostly. When we started to talk about DSLRs, he said his wife wanted a Digital Rebel, and I talked it up. Then he mentioned that he had several Nikon lenses from his film days, so what about Nikon? I told him the D70 was coming, so that's what he is focusing on. He's invested in Nikon glass, and he's just a hobbyist. He's going DSLR with Nikon, whenever it is that he goes.

Canon took a hit when they abandoned the FD mount, and Nikon played it up. Nikon got some mileage out of the fact that they didn't change their mount. But in fact, what is the value of a manual-focus Nikkor lens on a D70? Probably the fact that it got that Nikkor owner to buy the D70, and then get some new lenses because, after all, 'I can't take advantage of all the features of the D70 unless I upgrade my lenses.'

I still think it's all about the lenses. They are the hook that creates the brand loyalty. :wink:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

And when the body gets upgraded to double the megapixels, what kind of body do they (we) get? The same brand, since there is some investment in glass made for that brand. The same thing applies to that average person who has the kit lens and one zoom that they bought for their film EOS camera ten years ago. They're going to start with the DSLR that will work with the lenses they own.

For folks like us, that is quite true. I've not even considered Nikon or others for a new body 5 years down the road. Of course, I hadn't considered them when I bought the Elan and I had NO compatible lenses - just the reputation of a 1970's Canon SLR that I still own.

Anyway, there's plenty of consumers at the other end of the spectrum that have a cute little Rebel and 28-80 kit lens somewhere in their closet that won't even think about it when they wander out to buy a digital camera. And I suspect that 5 years from now, folks with a DigiReb and 18-55 lens won't even think about their present equipment compatibility when they go out to replace it.



I have a friend who has had pretty good digicams for several years - Fuji, mostly. When we started to talk about DSLRs, he said his wife wanted a Digital Rebel, and I talked it up. Then he mentioned that he had several Nikon lenses from his film days, so what about Nikon? I told him the D70 was coming, so that's what he is focusing on. He's invested in Nikon glass, and he's just a hobbyist. He's going DSLR with Nikon, whenever it is that he goes.

Canon took a hit when they abandoned the FD mount, and Nikon played it up. Nikon got some mileage out of the fact that they didn't change their mount. But in fact, what is the value of a manual-focus Nikkor lens on a D70? Probably the fact that it got that Nikkor owner to buy the D70, and then get some new lenses because, after all, 'I can't take advantage of all the features of the D70 unless I upgrade my lenses.'

I still think it's all about the lenses. They are the hook that creates the brand loyalty. :wink:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

I will concede that a lens collection will draw people back to their own brand, just as a body will draw people to buy compatible lenses of whatever brand.

But that wasn't my initial argument - the initial statement that was made (not by you) that "the money is in the lenses", and that is what I was arguing against in the first place. Yes, money is made in lenses, but I don't see much profit margin in the kit lenses that most people buy with their cameras. And given the price of digital bodies, I suspect that there's a ton of money made there and will be until the relatively new technology settles down a bit.

Perhaps, in retrospect, we may have been looking at this in different terms. I was looking at absolute profitability of individual products, whereas you were looking at how people may purchase other products (bodies) based on their ownership of the initial product (lenses).

Regardless, its still Canon's decision as to whether they wish to share their technology with others. I'd never be in favor of forcing them to do so.

[CoolToolGuy]

Perhaps, in retrospect, we may have been looking at this in different terms. I was looking at absolute profitability of individual products, whereas you were looking at how people may purchase other products (bodies) based on their ownership of the initial product (lenses).

Regardless, its still Canon's decision as to whether they wish to share their technology with others. I'd never be in favor of forcing them to do so.

Geez, it takes a lot of time to discuss individual points, so in reference to the above, and to summarize - I was trying to think why it would be in Canon's interest to go with a generic lens mount, and I keep coming back to the fact that as a leading brand name it is in their best interest to have a proprietary lens mount and protocol - and that is why its all about the lenses.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

Geez, it takes a lot of time to discuss individual points, so in reference to the above, and to summarize - I was trying to think why it would be in Canon's interest to go with a generic lens mount, and I keep coming back to the fact that as a leading brand name it is in their best interest to have a proprietary lens mount and protocol - and that is why its all about the lenses.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

It takes time because its Sunday, I'm working nights this weekend, and I'm doing about 8 different things today, including laundry, dishes, and balancing the checkbook. So if I start posting about Tide, Bleach, and Accounts Payable, I hope you'll understand. :)

Anyway, its been a long and winding discussion. What was the original topic anyway? ;)

[CoolToolGuy]

Anyway, its been a long and winding discussion. What was the original topic anyway? ;)

The crux of the issue is: Are you anywhere near Carthage, TN? I buy tools from a guy down there. Just wondering. :?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

Anyway, its been a long and winding discussion. What was the original topic anyway? ;)

The crux of the issue is: Are you anywhere near Carthage, TN? I buy tools from a guy down there. Just wondering. :?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

No, I'm about 100 miles from Carthage, in Chattanooga. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of "cool tools" do you buy from there?

[CoolToolGuy]

Anyway, its been a long and winding discussion. What was the original topic anyway? ;)

The crux of the issue is: Are you anywhere near Carthage, TN? I buy tools from a guy down there. Just wondering. :?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

No, I'm about 100 miles from Carthage, in Chattanooga. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of "cool tools" do you buy from there?

My niche is special tools - things you don't see every day that are made for a specific task. Things like valve adjustment feeler gauges for Porsche 911, special wrenches to get at particular places, and an adjustment tool for the windshield washer jets known as 'frog eyes' so you can aim the washers at the exact point you want to hit. And if you ever had a German car in the '60s and '70s and went to the dealer for regular service, you may have gotten a little chart with the results of the compression test. I may have one of the largest selections of the MotoMeter compression testers that produced those charts - and they are all for sale.

The place in Carthage is Samstag Sales
http://www.samstagsales.com
His niche is German tools, although he has branched out a little. I have only dealt with him via email, but he is an excellent source for tools. Hazet, Stahlwille, Heyco, etc. - he has a lot of that stuff (but I can beat his price on Stahlwille! :wink: )

Well, how's that for topic drift :?:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

Anyway, its been a long and winding discussion. What was the original topic anyway? ;)

The crux of the issue is: Are you anywhere near Carthage, TN? I buy tools from a guy down there. Just wondering. :?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

No, I'm about 100 miles from Carthage, in Chattanooga. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of "cool tools" do you buy from there?

My niche is special tools - things you don't see every day that are made for a specific task. Things like valve adjustment feeler gauges for Porsche 911, special wrenches to get at particular places, and an adjustment tool for the windshield washer jets known as 'frog eyes' so you can aim the washers at the exact point you want to hit. And if you ever had a German car in the '60s and '70s and went to the dealer for regular service, you may have gotten a little chart with the results of the compression test. I may have one of the largest selections of the MotoMeter compression testers that produced those charts - and they are all for sale.

The place in Carthage is Samstag Sales
http://www.samstagsales.com
His niche is German tools, although he has branched out a little. I have only dealt with him via email, but he is an excellent source for tools. Hazet, Stahlwille, Heyco, etc. - he has a lot of that stuff (but I can beat his price on Stahlwille! :wink: )

Well, how's that for topic drift :?:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

I can remember back in the day when a specialty tool was a box wrench. :)

That said, the Germans aren't unique for needing special tools - one look at a Ford or GM shop manual will show all kinds of special tools with 12 digit alpha-numeric part numbers. Like that valve-spring compressor that I have that seems to only fit the Ford 2.3 L 4-cylinder engine used in the late 1970's until the mid '80's. I used it once! :)

BTW, to keep the topic adrift, did you know that the Ford Explorer's single overhead-cam 4.0 L V-6 (not the overhead valve engine - different animal) was made in Germany?

EDIT: I see that he carries Klein tools. I used to use them extensively when I still worked out in the field as a substation relay tech. They're good.

[CoolToolGuy]

I can remember back in the day when a specialty tool was a box wrench. :)

That said, the Germans aren't unique for needing special tools - one look at a Ford or GM shop manual will show all kinds of special tools with 12 digit alpha-numeric part numbers. Like that valve-spring compressor that I have that seems to only fit the Ford 2.3 L 4-cylinder engine used in the late 1970's until the mid '80's. I used it once! :)

BTW, to keep the topic adrift, did you know that the Ford Explorer's single overhead-cam 4.0 L V-6 (not the overhead valve engine - different animal) was made in Germany?

EDIT: I see that he carries Klein tools. I used to use them extensively when I still worked out in the field as a substation relay tech. They're good.

My background is in Porsche and VW, and for some of these tools, you would never know it is a special tool unless you already knew what it was. So if it is not a general 'cool tool', I don't dabble outside of the Porsche/VW arena.

The Germans are crazy for special tools. They made a special spring compressor for the suspensions on the VWs and Porsches that was made out of that funny-looking jack that was in the 356s and early Beetles. One day I was trolling the swap meet at a VW show and I saw one. I asked about it, and the guy says 'Oh, that old jack? Somebody hacked it up. 5 bucks' Thank you very much and I'll take that $230 special tool home and add it to my collection. :P If there is a way to require a special tool for the job, they will find it.

German engine in an Explorer? Better not say that too loud down there in TN land :wink:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

My background is in Porsche and VW, and for some of these tools, you would never know it is a special tool unless you already knew what it was. So if it is not a general 'cool tool', I don't dabble outside of the Porsche/VW arena.

The Germans are crazy for special tools. They made a special spring compressor for the suspensions on the VWs and Porsches that was made out of that funny-looking jack that was in the 356s and early Beetles. One day I was trolling the swap meet at a VW show and I saw one. I asked about it, and the guy says 'Oh, that old jack? Somebody hacked it up. 5 bucks' Thank you very much and I'll take that $230 special tool home and add it to my collection. :P If there is a way to require a special tool for the job, they will find it.

German engine in an Explorer? Better not say that too loud down there in TN land :wink:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Not to worry - there's a huge Nissan plant just outside of Nashville. And Mercedes right down the road in Birmingham, AL. Its apparent that plenty of people around here drive something that isn't listed on the NASCAR register.

There seems to be a couple of different car groups here among the youth. Some choose the 4 wheel drive, dual exhaust pickup truck, while others go for the coffee-can exhaust on a Honda. Even among adults, there's a strong prevalance of after-market stainless steel exhaust systems. I even put a Borla on my Escape just to fit in. :)

What's really humorous to me is when a kid drives by in his Honda, bass a-thumpin', with the trademark Coffee-can exhaust and rubber-band thin tires, but with a Dale Earnhardt "3" sticker on the back window. Strange mix.

Anyway, as for tools, I've pretty much stuck to the standard-type stuff. Always seek good quality though - Snapon, S&K, older Craftsman (they still warranty them), Channellock, and the like make up the bulk of my hand tools. I've got a few Kleins too.

How does this fit in with Photography? Well, perhaps I'll take a picture of some tools or one of those NASCAR Hondas. :)

[CoolToolGuy]

What's really humorous to me is when a kid drives by in his Honda, bass a-thumpin', with the trademark Coffee-can exhaust and rubber-band thin tires, but with a Dale Earnhardt "3" sticker on the back window. Strange mix.

How does this fit in with Photography? Well, perhaps I'll take a picture of some tools or one of those NASCAR Hondas. :)

Geez, rubber-band tires. They have their place, but you got me started.

Please note: If you are the owner of a Hummer or a Hummer enthusiast reading this, this is your opportunity to exit the thread or put on your 'tolerant' hat.

For my money, there aren't many sights more amusing than seeing a Hummer going down the road with the big chrome wheels and the rubber-band tires. Chrome wheels, fine, but if you bought a $50,000 vehicle specifically designed to be able to climb a 16-inch high wall, why did you put tires on it that are made for smooth roads only? I know, its all about 'look at me', but I just don't get it. I LOL every time I see one on the road. :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:

As for what the tool discussion has to do with photography? For me, I was in photographic hibernation until 3 or 4 years ago. I knew digital was going to bring me out of hibernation, but I was waiting for a reasonable DSLR. I wanted to sell the Cool Tools on eBay, and I needed pictures. A cheap 1MP Kodak, and I was on my way. Of course, that 1MP with fixed focus and no zoom just wasn't cutting it, so A20, G3, Drebel - here I am! 8)

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Bruce Watson]

[quote]For me, I was in photographic hibernation until 3 or 4 years ago. I knew digital was going to bring me out of hibernation, but I was waiting for a reasonable DSLR.[quote]

I wonder how many of us in this forum have been on this same path? By that I mean waiting for digital technology/price to come to the right intersection.

In school I was a photo nut. Then I went to work in a weekly paper as a reporter/photographer/darkroom tech/coffee boy.

Thought I had died and gone to heaven, all for the princely sum of $125 per week (yes, that was a long time ago..)

After settling down with a more profitable career and family I continued to dabble, especially kid and family shots. Sure, I had more equipment and knowledge than the P&S crowd, but had gone into a hibernation mode.

My digital Renaissance occurred when we bought a Sony Mavica floppy camera for work. Wow!

That quickly led to an HP 2 megapixel, followed by a G2, then a 10D to make use of my Elan lenses and then a 300D as backup.

Then came a whack of new lenses, an S9000 printer, a CP 300 printer, film scanner to digitize the older stuff and the list goes on.

Suddenly, I was back in the game with two full bags of gear. I had come to the realization that the current technology was allowing me for a (relatively) low price to live out my early dreams as a budding photographer.

Absolute control of the image from shot to print and mount. From the number of posts from newcomers, I am getting the impression there are a lot of us rediscovering the hobby as a result of the excellent value for the money in today's DSLRs.

Cheers,

Bruce

[kraterz]

Now why would I want to use Nikkor lenses on my Canon? The AF on those Nikkors (except for the ultra expensive AF-S lenses) is crap. My cheap 28-105 USM mounted on a cheap Rebel-Ti can thrash the expensive F5 with their 28-105.

As for the 4/3 "system" and the Olympus offerings, it's too little and too late and too flawed. While most camera makers are looking at large sensor size because of the lower noise and higher image quality, Oly decided to use a sensor 1/4 the area of 35mm film. Look at the results... the Oly shots at 200 ISO are noisier and have less definition compared to 10D shots at 400 ISO. And the cost!? The E1 system offers far less value for money. I wouldn't be surprised if they close shop in a couple of years.

[ilya]

I guess the healthy strategic discussion intended for this topic ran its course... with the first religious outcry of Nikon sux and Canon rules. But it held together remarkably well.

Too bad, I was just getting ready to get a petition going. :roll: :roll: :roll: