Yes, I came to a similar conclusion, just as Canon started changing their mounts, if they hadn't it would have been Canon for me too, but it was enough, I still have my first Nikon, and the lenses, my favourite is a 50cm f5 cat that I still use for small boats and wildlife.
In the late 1960s, I was within a millimeter of purchasing a new NIKON F body, partly because a fellow engineer had one, and bragged about it so much. And, one day, he brought it into the lab, so I could get a hands-on feel for it. At that time I had a cousin who had a CANON PELLIX & an FT. I compared the two cameras in my mind, and when I saw my colleagure remove the lens, and then reinsert it, he had to ensure that the aperture coupling pin on the viewfinder engaged w/ the notch in the lens, that small technicality bent me into the direction of the CANON cameras, He fumbled with it for what was a few milliseconds, maybe, but in my mind, it seemed like an eternity! That was the convincer for me. The next time I saw my cousin, I asked him to get out his camera. Then I asked him to remove the lens, and hand me both items separately. I CLOSED my eyes & did NOT cheat. I grabbed the lens, & the camera, and reattached the lens onto his CANON FT without the slightest hesitation! The following week I bought a CANON PELLIX & a CANON FT. I still have BOTH bodies & a slew of lenses, although now they're pretty much relegated to the top shelf of an unfilled closet. The last time I used them was to capture some fireworks displays from the roof of our house. Florida is flat, so capturing 4th of July fireworks displays, professionally-presented is a fun thing to do, especially from the roof of your ranch-style house!!
Ann: I shoot w/ film & digital cameras. Recently, I had an opportunity to visit a Buddhist Temple on the outskirts of Tampa, as a photographic field trip. I decided to use one of my film cameras for a change. I shot two rolls of print film, and returning home, I stopped at my local CVS pharmacy. They informed me that they removed the "wet" film processing machine over a year ago, but suggested that I go to another CVS store a few miles down the road. So, I did. Their machine was not working, but the photo person suggested I take it to another nearby CVS store. At this store, the machine needed a filter, but since the fellow saw my plight, he said he'd send the two rolls to another CVS store further away. The upshot was that in all cases, they respective photo clerks reiterated that CVS is in the process of removing ALL their "wet" processing machines (NORITSU) from all their facilities throughout their chain. And, for me, this experience had its plus side & minus side. On the minus side, what once would have taken only an hour to complete, now took almost 5 days; on the plus side, I wasn't charged for their work, since I was so inconvenienced!
By the way, I have not gone to a WAL*MART store recently w/ film developing requests, but the last time I had slide film processed, they were the ONLY source for it. And, that was over 2 years ago. So, I don't know if they're still offering slide film processing as a "send-out" service. FUJI has maintained that they will continue to manufacture AND process slide film for the foreseeable future. KODAK has completely abandoned all film processing services, and is now only selling ONE formulation of their EKTACHROME slide film.
Talking purely 35mm/dslr Nikon's F mount has had electronic's added, but my 1.4 5cm still fits and meters on my new 'pro' dslr Nikon's with the mod'd ap ring, that's the point I was making, OLD Nikon F mount glass is still useable, the UASF use them for optical expermimental stuff, but old Canon slr glass is much cheaper. Of course a lot on Canon users also buy older Nikon glass and a simple adaptor to use them, keeping Nikon glass prices up!
I think you'd be better off IF you did some research before spreading some misinformation regarding CANON camera series. Early CANON SLR products used a screw-in lens, ala LEICA, etc. In the 1950s, they switched to their "FL-mount" which is a bayonet mount design, making lens-changing a very effortless, quick process. They continued that basic mount style until the introduction of the EOS line of cameras in 1986, when it was superceded by the "EF" mount, and larger, modified bayonet mount. The FL mount was updated in the early 1970s to the FD mount w/ the introduction of the AE-1, and F-1 cameras because they had advanced the metering technology to be more automatic & coupling to the lens. However, a person owning a previous generation CANON camera, designed only for the FL mount, could still use the new "FD" mount, except they could not switch the lens into the "A" position on the f-stop ring. When the EOS line was envisioned, CANON realized that they be communicating a lot more data between the camera body & the lens (autofocus, auto exposure, etc.) so they upgraded the mount to the present-day EF mount, which, by the way, stands for Electro-Focus.
Now, switche gears to NIKON...... In the early days, NIKON also used a screw-in mount. Then, in the late 1950s, with the introduction of the "F", they made the NIKKOR lenses with the external coupling to the aperture ring. Then NIKON produced some more cameras since then, both film & digital which constantly updated & upgraded their lens mounts, so that today, a person investing in NIKON equipment has to be selective because SOME modern NIKON lenses have feaures built into the lenses, others have these features built into the camera body.
So!, you tell me WHICH camera company has produced MORE disparate mounts in the past 50 or 60 years????? I think that "award" goes to NIKON!!!
p.s. I have been an avid semi-pro photographer for the better part of 60 years, and so I know of where I speak. And, still have some of my original purchases of CANON equipment, dating back to the 1950s!
It might be a bit butt ugly on the outside but its the internals that make it interesting. If you ever take one of these apart they are mechanically quite complex. Its not going to change the world but it does demonstrate how a moderately complex device can be fabricated. I'm sure if they had something other than a SLA printer to do this it would have looked slightly better.
Makes me wonder how hard it would be to print a large format camera aka Hasselblad. Then you would really have something.
taimoortariq, the idea of some of these "print your own ___ [fill in the blank" projects all over the place is to explore just what can be done with these machines, especially the low end ones. A recurring theme I see is customization, assuming that the user can tweak the design. I wonder about what level of self-sufficiency is possible for non-engineers is designs need tweaking and when materials are rather exotic and must be sourced and purchased.
With the 3D printers on the rise, I wonder how long it will take for it to become a utility for household. Certainly, it would lead to people becoming self sufficient in creating there own parts, there may be inbuilt features for regular parts utilized at home. It would certainly be quite a useful device to have at home.
@Dave, I agree, although this project serves great for learning and future development, that can be achieved using 3D printers but it is not a very good business plan. To pay 50euros for a camera is not reasonable, not forgetting that analog cameras are outdated. If there was a unique device which is otherwise not avaliable at a cheaper price, it would have done the trick.
A new service lets engineers and orthopedic surgeons design and 3D print highly accurate, patient-specific, orthopedic medical implants made of metal -- without owning a 3D printer. Using free, downloadable software, users can import ASCII and binary .STL files, design the implant, and send an encrypted design file to a third-party manufacturer.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.