Bill Gillooly wrote:
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).
Well, starting with the lens, the EF mount had the contacts to contend
with. Then there is the strength of a somewhat larger mount. Moving on
to the body, there is a lot of logic inside the body that does more than
the AE-1 or F-1 ever had to do. All the FD cameras did was expose and
move film. Now they make sure focus is good, expose media, process the
image, buffer images for n frames per second,and so on. The logic takes
up space, even with VLSI, Very Large Scale Integration, the more
features that you get take up some space. Then the logic and the
autofocus lenses take power so the body needs more than a PX625 cell to
provide that power.
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.
This question is tougher since the "hole" that lets the light come in is
supposed to be a ratio of the diameter and the focal length......
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).
You forgot 67mm! This is another unanswerable question since I don't
know of too many camera buyers that buy Canon filters. So it probably
not a marketing ploy on Canon's part.
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.
I came from Olympus OM to Canon EOS. 49mm filters. No fancy names for
lens hoods. Some Canon engineer or marketeing guru might understand the
names but they sure don't make sense to those of us that buy and use
them.
Like the hood for my 28-135 IS.....EW-78Bii..... What happened to the
EW-78A, or 78B, or 78Bi ??????
And you didn't mention the cost of these new hoods! How is a piece of
molded plastic worth what we end up paying for them?
There are times when I really miss my OM-1n!
Mr. Bill
Bob
--
/////
( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I plan to live forever. So far so good...........
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
