Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: RE: [Leica] God, no Canon vs. Nikon...
From: Greg.Chappell@bankofamerica.com
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:43:23 -0500

Where is all this coming from???? Did it spill over from a Nikon or Canon
users group list?

That's where it belongs.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ruralmopics@aol.com [mailto:Ruralmopics@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 10:10 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: RE: [Leica] God, no Canon vs. Nikon...


Canon needed to change their mount. It was a pain in the neck and quite 
limiting, really.

Bob (some things need to change) McEowen


In a message dated 11/30/99 9:08:03 AM, peterk@lucent.com writes:

>Eric, its partially true.  A larger opening/lens mount provides more space
>
>for things like electrical contacts.  Minolta changed theirs when they
>came
>
>out with the Maxxum for technical reasons as documented in Sam Kusumoto's
>
>autobiography (he was the President at the time, I have a copy of this
>book
>
>if you are interested.)  Canon did it because their FD mount was passe.
>
>Nikon thought it would provide a sort of investment protection, but the
>
>limited diameter is problematic since you have to constantly look backward
>
>(for compatibility) to advance forward.  Minolta and Canon avoided MF lens
>
>compatibility issue by changing mounts entirely.  Smart move!