William Robb wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: The JCO survey > > > >>Cant you read my posts? Canon did not "simply bail on their base" >> > > > They completely abandoned their FD user base. > I'm not debating that the FD mount wasn't compatable with the new > available technology, BTW. > What Canon did was stop manufacturing FD mount cameras almost > immediately after releasing the EOS cameras. > All the people who had bought FD mount cameras suddenly no longer had > any way of buying a new replacement camera body if the one they had > became unservicable. > The FD lens owner could not mount their old lenses onto the new cameras. > Period. > This pretty much screwed anyone who had a good selection of FD glass, > which at the time was some of the best glass coming out of Japan. > > To use your own phrase (more or less), it was a support issue. > > And yes, I can read your posts, but they don't make a whole lot of > sense, as they tend to ignore things like facts. > > William Robb > > >
Ironically, Canon was forced to introduce a new low-end FD body which lasted for a number of years (the T50, made by Cosina) after they tried to kill FD, they didn't succeed until 1991 or so. Minolta sold MD kit right until the end, with the X700, and even Olympus introduced their last OM body in 2000 (both of which were made by Cosina of course). Canon technically could have supported FD via an adaptor if they'd gone with a slightly shorter register on EF mount, but they chose to be gratuitously incompatible with FD to force the purchase of new glass (apart from Macro lenses, which oculd be adapted or the use of the rare and expensive adaptor with optics, which was also a 1.28x TC and cost 2/3rds of a stop of speed). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
