Plea for lens mount and format naming standardization
Nov 16, 2018 16:37:07 #
OK, we're not going to get an industry-standard lens mount. The introduction of mirrorless
was the perfect opportunity, but the industry missed it. Sony, Nikon, Canon etc. don't want
their lens models to compete head-on for quality and price -- they want to lock the camera
buyer into their brand of lenses (so they only compete with Soligar, Tamron, etc. not each
other). Fine.
They couldn't even manage to standardize FFD for mirroless, which would have been a first
step towards eliminating the lens mount "Tower of Babel". So we're stuck with Nikon Z at
16 mm, Nikon 1 at 17 mm, Fuji X at 17.7 mm, Canon EF-M and Sony E at 18 mm.
OK, that's water under the bridge.
But why not have a standard committee for naming lens mounts and variants?
The industry just doubled the number of lens mounts in production. It's never too late
to adopt a naming system, rather than just winging it.
Also, why not label bodies and lenses with the mount name? Manufactures do label
lens mount caps and body caps. . So why not label lenses and bodies?
The current naming systems are chaotic at best. What do non-AI, AI, AI-S, AF and
AF-S have in common? What, exactly, does the "-S" in AI-S mean vs. the "-S"
in AF-S?
What does the "-S" mean in "Canon EF-S" it means an APS-C size sensor -- nothing
to do with standardized calibrated aperture sense or "silent wave motors" as in the
Nikon examples above.
There is another huge, new source of confusion: the proliferation of subminiature
formats. Once upon a time, there was one "miniature format": 135 film. The
camera frame was 36 mm x 24 mm (with a few early ones 1 mm smaller). Today
digital sensors are made in at least a dozen formats.
Why can't even "full frame" have a common designation for all manufactures?
Why "FX", Nikon? What tells one that Canon EF, Nikon FX, Pentax K-1,
Sony α, Sony FE, Leica M (without other modifiers) are all full frame?
One of the most popular sensor foramts, APS-C, means a different size for Canon (EF-S)
then the rest (Sony α, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X).
BTW, if there is a usage error in the above designations--that's a great illustration
of my point!
If ever there was a need for a standards committee, now is the time. Confusing
designations does not benefit manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers or the end user.
It's an inefficiency and a top reason why lenses get returned to the seller.
This is the 21st century: cameras and lenses are not a cottage industry. And
"business as usual" means watching smart phones replace digital cameras--
over 70% of the camera market (global unit sales since 2011) is already gone.
(I apologize profusely if this post is heresy, "being negative", "anti-mirrorless",
or any other ad hominem slur dredged up by shills to distract people from the
real point. Adopting a standardized naming system for mounts and formats
would benefit everyone.)
was the perfect opportunity, but the industry missed it. Sony, Nikon, Canon etc. don't want
their lens models to compete head-on for quality and price -- they want to lock the camera
buyer into their brand of lenses (so they only compete with Soligar, Tamron, etc. not each
other). Fine.
They couldn't even manage to standardize FFD for mirroless, which would have been a first
step towards eliminating the lens mount "Tower of Babel". So we're stuck with Nikon Z at
16 mm, Nikon 1 at 17 mm, Fuji X at 17.7 mm, Canon EF-M and Sony E at 18 mm.
OK, that's water under the bridge.
But why not have a standard committee for naming lens mounts and variants?
The industry just doubled the number of lens mounts in production. It's never too late
to adopt a naming system, rather than just winging it.
Also, why not label bodies and lenses with the mount name? Manufactures do label
lens mount caps and body caps. . So why not label lenses and bodies?
The current naming systems are chaotic at best. What do non-AI, AI, AI-S, AF and
AF-S have in common? What, exactly, does the "-S" in AI-S mean vs. the "-S"
in AF-S?
What does the "-S" mean in "Canon EF-S" it means an APS-C size sensor -- nothing
to do with standardized calibrated aperture sense or "silent wave motors" as in the
Nikon examples above.
There is another huge, new source of confusion: the proliferation of subminiature
formats. Once upon a time, there was one "miniature format": 135 film. The
camera frame was 36 mm x 24 mm (with a few early ones 1 mm smaller). Today
digital sensors are made in at least a dozen formats.
Why can't even "full frame" have a common designation for all manufactures?
Why "FX", Nikon? What tells one that Canon EF, Nikon FX, Pentax K-1,
Sony α, Sony FE, Leica M (without other modifiers) are all full frame?
One of the most popular sensor foramts, APS-C, means a different size for Canon (EF-S)
then the rest (Sony α, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X).
BTW, if there is a usage error in the above designations--that's a great illustration
of my point!
If ever there was a need for a standards committee, now is the time. Confusing
designations does not benefit manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers or the end user.
It's an inefficiency and a top reason why lenses get returned to the seller.
This is the 21st century: cameras and lenses are not a cottage industry. And
"business as usual" means watching smart phones replace digital cameras--
over 70% of the camera market (global unit sales since 2011) is already gone.
(I apologize profusely if this post is heresy, "being negative", "anti-mirrorless",
or any other ad hominem slur dredged up by shills to distract people from the
real point. Adopting a standardized naming system for mounts and formats
would benefit everyone.)
Nov 16, 2018 16:51:27 #
Bipod wrote:
OK, we're not going to get an industry-standard le... (show quote)
EF is a mount designation.
Rf is a mount designation
Nothing to do with sensor format.
FF or full frame has been around clear back to film days and if that was changed by a manufacturer it is their issue for not adopting the standard they used for decades.
APSC was also a film format long before sensors and all used it as well only recently (Relatively) did that get changed by a manufacturer from the standard nomenclature for who knows what reason.
F mount never changed. The subsequent designations denoted various operability features that the lens had.
Canon did change the name of the same mount which confuses the crap out of Nikon users which is OK. But their R, FL, FD and FDn were all the same exact mount like the Nikon F mount was for Nikon. The letter designations were given to denote different operability features of the lens and NOT the mount.
Same for Pentax and Minolta.
None of the mounts had anything to do with sensor format.
EF-S was given the S for shorter distance from back of optics to the sensor Nikon did the same for DX lenses even though distance stayed the same as the full frame lenses the image circle was smaller.
There is no real confusion in this as the Canon EF/EF-S are the 2 mounts for the larger cameras. The M mount is for a small er series of Canon bodies.
Nikon stuck with the F mount until finally going to the Z mount and again all the things you complain about are operability desgnations and most have nothing to to with format and none with the mount itself until the Z mount came along.
Nov 16, 2018 16:52:18 #
It would be great if lens mounts and lens features were standardized. I don't think the camera and lens makers are interested in doing that. They want to devise their own nomenclature to differentiate their products from the rest of the pack. Verizon Fios and Comcast Xfinity are good examples. They could just say Verizon fiber optic and Comcast cable but that's too drab.
Nov 16, 2018 17:02:10 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Bipod wrote:
OK, we're not going to get an industry-standard le... (show quote)
Not everyone wants a copy of what everyone else is using. Those of us who think for ourselves like to have a choice.
Nov 16, 2018 17:12:30 #
There would still be different titles for the same thing with different manufacturers. Main reason would be that the rival would sue because of the name usage. There could be a secondary standard, but they are not interested in letting the consumer know that their camera or lens is very similar to their competitor. That does not sell camera's or lenses.
Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 #
Remember when the camera industry tried to launch it's own camera memory cards?
Olympus and FujiFilm had their own proprietary one: the xD card.
The SD Association (SDA) international standards organization put an end
to that nonsense. SD won, xD died.
The electronics industry demands standardized media formats.
Also standardized mounts ("packages") for components. And many,
many electrical interfaces are standardized.
Is there anyone here who wishes each brand of digital camera took a
different, propreitary memory card? Thank heaven standardization won!
The SD standard has benefitted not just users, but the industry as a
whole--especially retailers, who don't have to stock different memory
cards for each camera brand.
Other things that are standardized in the US include TV and cell phone
signals, rail gauges, CDs and DVDs, AC grid voltage, land line telephones,
gasoline and diesel fuel, paper sizes, fastenters (nuts and bolts, nails,
rivets, etc.), canning jars, golf balls, ammunition, and lumber.
Nowhere have their been more stanadards then in the computer industry.
Text representation: ASCII character set, Unicode, etc.
Microcomputer: PC compatible (and what a success that was)
Processor: Intel x86, IE32, IE64.
Expansion bus (in chronological order): ISA, EISA, VESA, PCI, PCI Express.
Mass storage device ATA, ATAPI, SCSI SPI, SCSI AS/FCP/UAS, etc.
Removable media: 5 1/4" floppy, 3 1/3" floppy, SD card, CDR -- just to name a few.
Without standardization snf modern life would not be possible.
Olympus and FujiFilm had their own proprietary one: the xD card.
The SD Association (SDA) international standards organization put an end
to that nonsense. SD won, xD died.
The electronics industry demands standardized media formats.
Also standardized mounts ("packages") for components. And many,
many electrical interfaces are standardized.
Is there anyone here who wishes each brand of digital camera took a
different, propreitary memory card? Thank heaven standardization won!
The SD standard has benefitted not just users, but the industry as a
whole--especially retailers, who don't have to stock different memory
cards for each camera brand.
Other things that are standardized in the US include TV and cell phone
signals, rail gauges, CDs and DVDs, AC grid voltage, land line telephones,
gasoline and diesel fuel, paper sizes, fastenters (nuts and bolts, nails,
rivets, etc.), canning jars, golf balls, ammunition, and lumber.
Nowhere have their been more stanadards then in the computer industry.
Text representation: ASCII character set, Unicode, etc.
Microcomputer: PC compatible (and what a success that was)
Processor: Intel x86, IE32, IE64.
Expansion bus (in chronological order): ISA, EISA, VESA, PCI, PCI Express.
Mass storage device ATA, ATAPI, SCSI SPI, SCSI AS/FCP/UAS, etc.
Removable media: 5 1/4" floppy, 3 1/3" floppy, SD card, CDR -- just to name a few.
Without standardization snf modern life would not be possible.
Nov 16, 2018 18:04:04 #
Bipod wrote:
Remember when the camera industry tried to launch ... (show quote)
Let's standardize all tires to be the same, all engines to be the same with interchangeable parts.
Perhaps all airliners should be the same and standardized engines as well.
Nov 16, 2018 18:07:16 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Architect1776 wrote:
Let's standardize all tires to be the same, all engines to be the same with interchangeable parts.
Perhaps all airliners should be the same and standardized engines as well.
Perhaps all airliners should be the same and standardized engines as well.
If everything was standardized with interchangeable parts what a boring world this would be.
Nov 16, 2018 18:15:03 #
mwsilvers wrote:
If everything was standardized with interchangeable parts what a boring world this would be.
I agree.
That is my point regarding cameras.
Standardization is stupid for most products.
Tell Apple owners that they must use Android and Windows OS only no more Apple OS allowed so all can be standardized.
Nov 16, 2018 20:32:24 #
Nov 16, 2018 20:39:26 #
You want standardization good for you! I don't and lucky me camera manufacturers don't follow you plea.
Nov 16, 2018 21:11:03 #
Bipod wrote:
OK, we're not going to get an industry-standard le... (show quote)
This is really a silly thread. Do you not understand how business works?
On another note, in your opinion, which is going to happen sooner? An actual photograph posted by you, or a standard lens mount?
Nov 17, 2018 01:32:26 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Let's standardize all tires to be the same, all engines to be the same with interchangeable parts.
Perhaps all airliners should be the same and standardized engines as well.
Perhaps all airliners should be the same and standardized engines as well.
It could be just like NASCAR where Toyota's and Chevies and everything else are all the same.
Nov 17, 2018 01:47:10 #
tdekany wrote:
This is really a silly thread. Do you not understand how business works?
On another note, in your opinion, which is going to happen sooner? An actual photograph posted by you, or a standard lens mount?
On another note, in your opinion, which is going to happen sooner? An actual photograph posted by you, or a standard lens mount?
What's wrong with silly, it generates conversation.
To answer the question, photograph posted because lens mounts will never be standardized.
Standardized lens mounts would require a lot more than matching mechanics. The soul or life force of a digital camera is the software that makes it work. Standardized camera operating systems can't and won't ever happened, just like lens mounts.
Is it just me or does anyone else see similarities between the OP and Chris T? I'm not saying they are the same, I'm just noticing a lot of similarities.
Nov 17, 2018 02:30:17 #
The entire world needs a standard unit of measurements. It would be a long and difficult process, but the United States needs to switch over to the metric system. NASA's Mars climate orbiter was lost because of how data was interpreted. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory mistook acceleration readings measured in English units of pound-seconds for metric newton-seconds.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.