Do you not understand how simple it would have been for Canon to keep the FD register on EOS thus allowing non-optical adaptors for FD/FL glass?
-Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Do you even know the technical differences > Between the FD and EOS mounts? EOS mount > Has things (improvements ) that FD mount could never do. > Canon decided it was better to start from scratch > On the EOS lensmount rather than do what pentax > Did which was shoehorn AF into what they already had. > BUT, since pentax did this, there is no reason why > The K/M cant be fully supported even with the current mount. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:01 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: The JCO survey > > >> Don't you understand the CANON made VAST >> Improvements to their lensmount when they >> Went to EOS which caused the incompatiblity >> With FD whereas pentax hasnt even changed the >> Mount at all? (only disabled features). HUGE difference. >> If pentax HAD to drop K/M support in order >> To make DSLRS that would be one thing but they >> Didn't have to and still don't have to. > > This didn't preclude them from continuing to make a few legacy bodies to > > support the legacy lenses. > Nor did it preclude them from engineering the EOS mount in such a way as > > to allow non optical adaptors to mount FD lenses. > Pentax managed it with the K mount when they moved away from the M-42 > mount. > Canon chose to end FD mount support in order to force sales of new > lenses. > IOW, it was an economic dcision based on corporate greed, and a lack of > concern for the fact that LENSES not bodies last forever practically and > > long term Support of the lenses is of utmost importance. > > William Robb > > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
