Oh, no, you've got me started...
I never could figure out why when Canon went autofocus everything had to
get so BIG. I had a waist-pack that could hold an AE-1 or F-1 and 3
lenses (and some other stuff). It couldn't come close to holding my EOS
5 any anything but the smallest lenses (EF 50mm f/1.8 & EF 28mm f/2.8).
I also couldn't figure out why filters have gotten so big. Canon
managed to get the light it needed for the FD 24mm f/2.8 though a 52mm
filter, why did it need to go to a 58mm for the EF version.
Also, the range of EF filters are a complete scatter-shot. The original
FD lenses used mostly 55mm, with a rare few 58mm and a few 72mm on the
fringes. The final series of FD lenses managed to squeeze most of the
55mm filter lenses down to 52mm. Now we have 52mm, 58mm, 72mm, 77mm.
Canon could have just standardized on 58mm for all the early lenses. I
do understand why they went to a 77mm standard (super-wide zooms).
Oh, and don't get me started on the ruggedness, simplicity and logical
naming of the FD lens hoods compared to the random scattering of names
used on the EF lens hoods. ...and their flimsy construction, flimsier
attachment AND huge bowl-shape.
Mr. Bill
Marc Lawrence wrote:
Jane Waters wrote:
Especially an OM1.... that has to have been the lightest slr
that was ever created.... I loved mine. Oh, the heady days
of film cameras...
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
