William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The Nikon F was the first "modern" 35mm SLR. * It was introduced in
> 1958, and set the standard for "system" SLRs. The remarkable thing about
> the Nikon F is that almost any Nikkor lens ever made can be used on any
> Nikon camera, including the F5.
Mechanical yes, but not the meter coupling. Newer N*kon cameras do not
support meter coupling with older lenses (including the F5), with non AF
lenses they only support a limited amount of metering, exposure
functions. The (partial) exeption is the F4.
> It won't have all the modern features
> (of course), but it _fits_ and the auto-diaphragm works. (I'm not sure
> if the older lenses with the external coupling prong can be modified to
> provide full-aperture metering on the newer cameras. Someone please fill
> me in on this.)
How useful is an auto-diaphragma lens without meter coupling?
> This is simply _incredible_ for a 40-year-old camera system. NO OTHER
> SLR has kept this degree of compatibility. Everyone else -- except
> Olympus -- either went out of business or made substantial changes to
> their lens mount.
You forgot Pentax, Yashica for AF and Leica, Contax for MF lens systems.
Nik*n made very substantial changes in there lens mount desing, for
several times they added and removed functions on the lensmount.
Remember the short time the AF mount exists and how many change the
made, which have prohibited some lenses or camera bodies from working
together in an usefull way. (D-lenses, lenses with build in motor).
Using AF on an MF body is of no particular joy, it´s more a emergency
measure. Manual focusing on the flimsy build AF lenses is ... (cancled
to protect the youth). The mayority of AF lenses are of inferior optical
quality compared to there MF precursors, caused by ultra light weight,
low cost materials (and "economic" lens designs).
There are exeptions, in the plus US$ 1500 class, and even they focus
manualy not as good as a real MF lens.
> As for Olympus... The OM System (or more specifically, the lenses)
> remain "compatible" precisely because Olympus _has not_ updated it.
Fine, I can only congratulate Olympus to it, I´m not missing a feature.
If you are missing a feature, maybe you made an mistake by choosing
Olympus?
> It is therefore ludicrous to compliment Olympus for maintaining
> compatibility, when that stability is largely due to the fact that the
> system hasn't been updated in a decade!
Sorry that´s nonsens, Olympus has not only protected my investments with
an compatible lens mount, but with system wide compatibility of all
accessories!
Think of other systems, a new camera means new screens, new motors, new
camera backs, etc.
> Although the OM System was an unqualified success, it never undermined
> the position of Nikon or Canon, the two leading "professional" SLRs.
And so what?
> This mitigated against any major (ie, obsolescence-inducing) changes to
> the Olympus product line, precisely because there weren't enough owners
> to permit it. ***
So N*kon did not change lens mount (as you said) because of missing
customer base and Canon did because the had a bigger customer base?
Isn´t this a little bit contradictory?
> Indeed, the true success of the OM system lies in its influence on other
> camera lines. Their manufacturers recognized their cameras had become
> unwieldy, and gradually made them smaller.
I have problems to follow you, I see only cameras growing biger and
clumsier, F5 EOS1-3.
Regards
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|