I'm sure it was, and I'm also sure that it was promulgated by insecure Canophiles trying to assure themselves that their equipment of choice was the "superior" choice.
Anthony Farr wrote: > P. J. Alling observed: > "Does anyone remember the argument that the K mount wasn't wide enough for a > full frame sensor, that only Canon had a lens mount wide enough to support > it, and every other manufacturer would have to redesign their lens mounts." > > Reply: > I think that argument was a bit of a furphy*. > > Canon may boast the biggest mount in the class, but some of that size is > lost to the internally located electrical connections. By putting the data > transfer on the surface of the mount, Pentax made much more of the mount's > interior usable for image formation. Dropping mechanical aperture support > was, I conjecture, as much about reducing clutter inside the mount as about > reducing costs. (JCO needn't debate this point with me because I'm not > interested beyond this brief observation.) > > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy > > regards, > Anthony Farr > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. >> J. Alling >> Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2008 1:01 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: OT: Nikon D700 hands-on >> >> I just find this little tidbit interesting. Does anyone remember the >> argument that the K mount wasn't wide enough for a full frame sensor, >> that only Canon had a lens mount wide enough to support it, and every >> other manufacturer would have to redesign their lens mounts. Well >> Nikon's F mount is a smaller diameter than the K mount and they seem to >> having no problems at all. >> >> > > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
