In a similar vein to my thread of the relative merits of IS and VR, but this is more widely spread.

Again, not intended to provoke a flame war, but rather some genuine intelligent discussion, this thread (I hope) will take a look at the relative merits of the EF and F mounts.

As we all know, Canon uses the EF mount, which is physically incompatible with any previous Canon lens mount. Nikon uses the F mount, which is still physically compatible with all F mount lenses from more than 40 years ago.

However, sometimes, the F mount compatibility is little more than physical. There seem to be a lot of incompatibilities in the F system (albeit my point of view being that of a canon user). For example, yes you can fit an old manual focus nikon lens to the F5. However, you can no longer use matrix metering if you do. Yes (I think) you can fit a G-series lens to an older body, but it won't work in some modes (or maybe not at all on even older bodies) because of the lack of aperture ring. And woe betide you if you should leave the aperture ring in any setting other than auto when trying to use an AE mode that automatically controls the aperture.

And new technologies introduced into the Nikon F lenses have problems too. VR can only be used on the very latest bodies (Five I think?). AF-S can't be used on all AF bodies (eg N8008 (F-801?)). Nikon have only just now released some AF teleconverters (better late than never I guess). But VR doesn't work with them.

No, Canon is not perfect, but the change in lens mount means that there are far fewer of these "gotchas" in the system. The ones I know of are: IS does not work with older bodies when using teleconverters (but it does work without the teleconverters). E-TTL flash system is a lot better than the older A-TTL, but both an E-TTL flashgun AND body must be used (however, I think Nikon is similar with D metering, which even requires a D lens to be used...any Canon lens works with E-TTL).

So, Canon has a greater compatibility now, in that you can buy a 600mm F4L IS USM, and use it on an old EOS 600 body, and use the IS and the USM to their full effect. Or, you can buy a 50-200mm zoom (one of the early EF lenses, circa 1987-1989) and put it on an EOS 1V, and use all features of the camera's metering. With Nikon, if you have an early AF body (N8008 for example) you can put an 80-400 VR on it, but you can't use the VR. Or you can put a 600mm F4 AF-S on it, but only use it manual focus. Or you could buy an F5 (or F100, or D1X), and put an early Nikon AF lens on it. You'd loose Matrix metering, and D flash metering. You can't put some of the older lenses (AI I think) on it (the F5 at least) and use it without having a modification made to the camera.

My conclusion is that although Nikon massively softened the blow of changing to an AF system way back when in 1987(ish) (when I was but 5 years old....), but Canon have since shown that the choice they made was correct by being able to introduce new techonolgies without compromise or incompatibility. The fact that Nikon have managed to keep up as well as they have is a tribute either to their ingenuity, or the loyalty of their customer base. Imagine what things might be like if Nikon had changed their mount, and didn't have to make these compromises?

But why did nikon suddenly feel, with the release of APS, that a new mount was needed? Canon just released a couple of APS bodies for the EF lens mount, and a few lenses that while aimed at the APS market (22-55, 24-85, 55-200) were also full-frame 35mm coverage. Since the demise of APS (does anyone really believe it will outlast 35mm or digital?), it would seem nikon's investment in the new mount was wasted, as (sensibly) their digital cameras are using the F mount, as, indeed, Canon's are using the EF mount.

So, this is a relative look at the two systems, based around their lens mounts. Nikon struggle to include new technology, shoehorning it in with resultant incompatibilities. Canon have a lot more headroom, and while they've taken a couple of wrong turns (the powerzoom (thankfully they gave that up after one lens, unlike minolta....), the barcode reader (given up after two bodies)), they've taken a lot of correct ones (IS, USM, EMD, all EF lenses report focus distance info, no mechanical communication from camera to lens).

Please, some genuine input? Perhaps some input also from minolta or pentax (or whatever else) users?

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 07, 2001

Answers

I am missing your point !!! What did you want to say?

Of course I come from the Nikon side and have another view. Mount is the mechanical bajonet, which was not changed by Nikon that is why in principle all lenses fit on all cameras (there was a slight change when AI was introduced). I have never heard that the APS cameras use other mounts. And Nikon is just updating there TC's, the version came out at the beginning of the 90's

Additionally there are the electronic contacts which came with the AF-cameras. And there were the faults which Nikon made, they kept adding new incompatible feature like AF-S and VR which does not work with cameras designed at a time when they did not think about these fuinctions. I have no expert knowledge on that but I would think that with a more design these problems could have been avoided. Anyway these electronic contacts and camera electronic is independent of the mount.

Altogether there advantages and disadvantages, Canon is advantage was the larger mount (it is argued that the 50/1.0 was only possible with the EF mount) and the possibilities of a new design. Nikons advantages was the compatibility with old lenses, was an important advantage at the beginning, but is still interesting, which the figured out when they designed the new manual focus FM3 (I personally like it that I can still use my nearly 20 year old FE).

-- Siegfried Boes (boes@first.gmd.de), August 07, 2001.

Ah. My apologies. Indeed, they did not change the mount for APS (I should have researched that one better). There were, however, some IX nikkor lenses released, that did not give full-frame coverage for 35mm. This obviously does not carry the cost implications I was implying.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 07, 2001.

I'll speak for Pentax. Here's the good news:

With the exception of one low-end body (The MZ-50/ZX-50), every bayonet-mount Pentax lens will work properly on every bayonet-mount Pentax body. With an adapter ring, screw-mount Pentax lenses will work properly on bayonet-mount Pentax bodies (you must use stop-down metering, but the lenses will focus to infinity, unlike the Canon FD to EF converters).

Now for the bad news:

Pentax does not offer any USM/Silentwave or IS/VR lenses. The most expensive current Pentax body offers 6 focus points (one more than the Nikon F5, but 39 less than the Canon EOS-3), only winds at 2fps (vs 8-10 for Nikon/Canon). The flash syncs at only 1/180, and the shutter tops out at only 1/6000.

Here are my recommendations (worth what you pay for them):

If you want to use old lenses on a new body, buy a Pentax or a Nikon.

If you want the whizziest technology, buy a Canon.

If you want a great user interface, buy a Minolta.

If you want a "classic" user interface, buy a Pentax.

If you want to take pictures, take pictures and quit worrying about all of this stuff.

-- Mark Erickson (mark@westerickson.net), August 07, 2001.

FYI, for less than $40, you can buy a (purely mechanical) adapter with which you can mount any Nikon F-mount lens on any Canon EOS body. You get infinity focus, but must focus manually and meter stopped-down.

-- Dave Herzstein (dherzstein@juno.com), August 08, 2001.

Amen to that Mark. I mostly shoot in medium and large format and use Nikon occasionally (when I feel like shooting 35mm). I've never understood why Canon users are so enamored with technology. Technology DOES NOT make one a great photographer nor produce excellent photographs. I'm not bashing Canon, as I feel it is a great company with great products (I've used their manual and AF products).

However, I usually see that Canon users always espouse the virtues of their high tech toys. I feel a small part of this silly attitude is Canon's fault. But I'm sure it's more the fault of the users. I'm glad medium and large format is overwhelmingly dominated by all manual tech deficient equipment. The photographs produced by these larger cameras are better than 35 mm not just because of film size, it's mainly due to people creating photographs instead of obessing over the foolishness of gear.

It's interesting that the quality of lenses and equipment have increased over the years, but the quality of photographs and people's skills have substantially decreased too.

As an example, I went out on a photographic excursion with three friends who brought two EOS 1V's and an EOS 3. I only had my 10 year old Ricoh point and shoot (I was too lazy to bring my old Nikon FM2). All three of them had assorted L lenses while I had a fixed 35mm, slightly scratched lens. After shooting, we all compared out photographs. Lo and behold, my photographs were considered the best by the other three!. They were puzzled that I could take superior photographs with "inferior" equipment, while the photographs taken with their whizz-bang toys were mediocre at best. My answer to them, "Obsess over photography, not over technology". My friends eventually sold all of their EOS gear and got some old Canon F-1's (I told them to get it since they like Canon). Of course their photographs dramatically improved since they stopped worrying about technology.

So the Canon versus Nikon mount issue? Who cares. AF, USM, IS, DO does not make up for a skill deficient photographer. Go ahead and collect your expensive toys if that makes you happy. But it still doesn't make you a photographer.

Cheerio

-- floren (flcpge@yahoo.com), August 11, 2001.

Mark, I also agree with your comments. I think your recommendations are right on! Have you seen the newest Minolta body? What a great user interface!

Floren, Canon users are hardly the only ones enamored with technology. Why has Nikon started releasing AF-S & VR? Because they saw the market need to do so. Gosh, even real live pros use whiz-bang technology…and their photos sell. Of course many Canon users espouse their equipment. Nikon users espouse their equipment, Minolta users espouse their equipment. Hasselblad users look down their noses at everybody (just kidding). The vast majority just use their stuff, and don’t hang out on web forums talking about it – there’s a place for everyone.

It’s no surprise that the percentage of “snap-shooters” vs pros & serious artists using high end equipement has increased dramatically over the years. This is only a natural extension of the modern manufacturing process bringing good quality down to the consumer level. This is by no means the demise of the “art” of photography – which is still very vibrant, alive, and kicking.

The reason you see a higher percentage of quality pictures from medium & large formats vs 35mm is the outrageous investment that must be made – a serious step up from consumer entry 35mm offerings! The media is more expensive, as are the bodies and lenses. An amateur must make a serious decision to move up and fork out a lot of money. AND then they lose all those gee-whiz features they had gotten used to in 35mm photography. People with medium format & larger cameras tend (and I do mean “tend”) to be more serious about the art, or are making a living from it. People’s skills have not decreased – those of us who have gained some skill have not lost them simply because our camera can focus for us or choose the exposure for us. Composition, lighting control, & perspective are skills that do not depend on whiz-bang. There are just more people who have never even cracked open a book – let alone taken a class – taking pictures these days. The moment Hasselblad makes a 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ body & lens kit for $500, let me know. I’m sure you’ll see a dramatic decrease in the percentage of good photo’s being taken in medium format. :-)

I’m sure that if you had taken up your friends EOS cameras & L series lenses, you could have taken some pretty decent pictures as well -- that is, if you could get over your revulsion for cutting-edge gadgets (heh, heh, just poking fun). As you say, it comes down to the photographer, not the equipment. But come on, you’ve got to admit that a good photographer with good equipment can take better pictures than a good photographer with poorer equipment! Lens sharpness & contrast are nice no matter who you are. Spot metering modes have their advantages in scene exposure over center-weighted, etc. As to your friends taking better pictures because you convinced them to sell all their EOS gear and go with old gear – I’ve got to say I think that’s a load of BS! I’d say that their pictures improved because you opened their eyes to the fact that pictures don’t take themselves, no matter how many gadgets you have. They’re just paying more attention to composition, etc. now that they’ve seen a pro like you at work. Despite all the buttons on my camera, when I look through the viewfinder I pay attention to what I see, and go for the effect that I'm trying to envision --not which program mode to choose or how cool my lens is.

If collecting expensive toys doesn’t make you a better photographer, neither does being a ludite. I’ve seen many rotten pics from “serious” manual-everything wanna-be’s – so your corollary that simple equipment makes the better photographer is ridiculous! If only consumers and not pros see the need for more technology in their equipment, why have advances come (albeit slowly) to the medium format world? Auto-winders instead of cranks – what, arm power isn’t enough? Eye level finders instead of waist level finders, built in light metering (wow, what a concept!). Program mode exposures. Autofocus. Why add these things if the people “who really know how to take pictures” don’t want them?

Don’t be a ludite. Technology has its place – it just doesn’t take the place of classical training and talent.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 13, 2001.

James

That's the biggest bunch of shit I've ever heard. My friends, by their own admission, realize whiz-bang toys stifled their development as in photography. They HAVE become better photographers because they rid themselves of this stupid obsession with equipment. They focused on composition, lighting, and the other nuances that are responsible for great photographs. They personally thanked me for ridding their obsession with toys. And they will NEVER go back to autofocus, autoexposure, automatically crappy pictures again. All three are already makin investments in medium format.

As for sharp contrasty lenses, I use lenses made during the 30's and 40's. I'm not wowed by new lenses. Crap is still crap, it's just sharper, contrastier crap taken with new lenses.

I'm lucky because I learned photography from someone who steered me away from the rabid and insane techno-obsession crap that's rampant in the 35mm world. Otherwise, I'd probably be in the same boat as the other poor saps.

Buying used medium and large format is cheaper than high end 35mm... which is they way I started. The film is more expensive, but then again you shoot more carefully. You're forced to worry about image quality. I'd rather be good than lucky; shooting off 10 frames per second in the hopes of getting an image is lazy and pathetic.

The Adams, Westons, Cartier-Bressons, etc... all took pictures with manual, use your brain, equipment. Even though their works are technically not "as good" as modern photos because of films, lenses, cameras or whatever, their photographs are greater than photographs produced with the latest whizz-bang crap. I'd rather use less than stellar equipment and have the skill to create great photographs. It's better than owning and obsessing over expensive toys while remaining mediocre the rest of my life.

-- floren (flcpge@yahoo.com), August 14, 2001.

Floren,

I accept your passionate response, and agree with your main points while still disagreeing with your original premise. Quality gear does not automatically make poorer photographers. It is succumbing to laziness that may do so. Yes, it is too easy to leave everything on "full auto," -- the answer is not stripping features off the equipement, but training the monkey behind the viewfinder. Modern equipment has made possible areas of photography that were in the past simply impossible. The Adams, Westons, Cartier-Bressons are all rightfully renowned photographers, but their very subject matter was determined by the equipment they used (or is it the other way around?) Adams used large format with glass plates – and he mixed the emultions and prepared the plates himself. Breathtaking landscapes. Weston photographed portraits, with strangely posed figures. Intriguing perspective on human form. Cartier-Bresson photographed street life. Fascinating images of the human condition. All of these are wonderful subjects for photography, and will always be. However, are you positing that they are the only worthwhile and “artistic” forms of photography? Have you never seen a photograph capturing the more dynamic moments in life that you appreciated? I would suggest that the photographic fields of nature, athletics, and journalism have benefited greatly from modern camera equipment. You may not consider them art – but then, I’ve got an oil painter friend that doesn’t believe anything involving a lens could possibly be art. It's all a matter of perspective.

It isn’t the whiz-bang toys that stifle people’s development in photography. It’s most people’s misinformed or uneducated belief that pictures will take themselves if you have fancier equipment. That’s where people like you, and places like this forum come in. It’s an opportunity to open people’s eyes about how to be a photographer and not just a shutterbug. I think that it’s complete bullshit that your friends HAD to give up their equipment in order for them to learn to take better photographs. I don’t believe that you could not have taught them composition, lighting & perspective on ANY camera that they had access to – from a disposable to a digital. You seem obsessed with hating modern tools, rather than properly despising modern ignorance – the bane of all good things.

I’m also willing to bet that you have partaken of more modern tools than you may have realized. Do you ever use an in-camera light meter, or do you swear by an antique no-battery germanium actuated incident light meter? Do you shoot only in black & white, or have you taken advantage of those new fangled COLOR emulsions? Can you see absolutely NO APPLICATION for autofocus lenses? What could Cartier- Bresson have done with one? Or a compact zoom for that matter? How many pictures did he forgo because the moment changed too quickly for him to compose, meter & shoot? His magic was in capturing the moment, and telling the human condition – not in capturing the precise exposure or angle.

You forget that Adams, Weston, & Cartier-Bresson are all unique paragons of their field, and for all of the masses who strive, very few will reach their level. It’s the striving that’s important, and the willingness to learn technique & apply it – and continually grow. I strongly disagree with your main premise, that technology is crap and only leads to crappy pictures. The equipment has almost NOTHING to do with your main complaint – that a higher percentage of photos taken are crappier now than ever before. What has changed is the number of people involved in the field, and how truly few of them have had ANY training whatsoever.

You can have the most expensive or best equipment in the world, and never take a decent photograph. You can have the cheapest pin-hole camera ever devised and win acclaim, fame & a slap on the back. Ergo, equipment is the TOOL. What makes ART, is learning, dedication & talent. Get the picture? :-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 14, 2001.

Floren-

Why can an EOS 1V not be as manual as an F1? Set it to manual exposure mode, with manual focus, put in a split circle screen...why is it any less manual than an F1? Just because it winds the film on? If you choose to use it that way, you have access to a range of far better lenses than your 30's or 40's antiques.

Most of your arguments are nonsensical, saying that technology is the bane of photography. It plainly is not. Why is the F1 acceptable, when, for its time, it was the most technologically advanced camera there was? Or is it just because you've had 30 years to get used to it? So, maybe in 2017 you'll start to accept a slow, noisy AF camera while the rest of us have fast, accurate silent ones. Perhaps not.

Technology is a tool. The problem you seem to have is with brainless photographs made by brainless photographers. That is something completely different than whether the technology is worthwhile. Yes, so AE and AF make for not thinking...but they can be used to very good effect also. I would point you to the work of people like George Lepp, Chris Gomersall, Art Morris and Art Wolfe. Outdoor photography has, arguably, benefitted more than any other branch of photography from the technological advances. Maybe you don't need that, but some of us do.

If you are so uncaring as to which is better, this or that, why did you even bother posting to this thread?

Like I said, technology is a tool. I like having high-quality tools to work with. Just because the tools are good, doesn't mean that they will do the job for you.

One of the things I love about photography is that it isn't easily definable: It is part art, part science, part luck. You have to have an artistic view to make a picture that is genuinely pleasing. You have to have a scientific view to get the technical details right. You have to be lucky. It seems to me, as you're pushing the artistic side, that the technology reduces your thinking on the scientific side, leaving you free to compose and make a more artistic image.

My mother is an oil painter. She uses photography as a tool. Go out somewhere, and she will take a lot of pictures to record what is there...the pictures may not be hugely interesting, but then she uses them to paint from, and so they are merely a tool in the artistic process. She doesn't care about camera gear, and that's fine. She used to use a Canon F1, and then an F1n, but changed to EOS, and finds the extra features (like AF and AE) very useful. Don't assume that everyone that uses a camera is out to create the world's best image.

Of course, the best camera in the world will not make you the best photographer. The worst won't make you the worst. Of course it all comes down to the photographer, but that's no reason to denounce technology. As it is Floren, you seem to have turned an interesting thread on technology into a flame war.

I'll finish with an apt quote: "Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes." - Anon

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 14, 2001.

Ah, the F1...I remember positively drooling over that camera when it was released! The ruggedness, interchangeable viewfinders & screens, the handling. I use to stop by the local pro shop twice a month just to hold one in my hands. I should look into finding one, as a solid cornerstone to my collection! Isaac, you are right. That thing was absolutely cutting edge when it came out, and Canon really played it up. I still remember the ads with engineering grids and lists and lists of specs. That camera is probably solely responsible for making me the photographic technophile I am today! It does my heart good to know that these tanks are still out there, capturing images even after all of these years! ;-)

As much as I love modern photographic technology, with its electronically controlled shutters, aperatures, exposures, etc. -- I've got to say that there's something magic about a well engineered mechanical marvel that can still function without a battery. We gave all of that up for our EOS bodies, there being no point in having manual film advance and shutter trip when aperature control & shutterspeed control depend on electrical current. Thankfully, modern 35mm cameras seem amazingly reliable, and carrying a spare set of batteries isn't too difficult.

* Isaac, my appologies for getting off subject -- and thank you for posting a question that has led to passionate & interesting exchanges of viewpoints!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 16, 2001.