OLD_CURMUDGEON, a quick online search told me that Walgreen's advertises 35mm film processing, as do several mail-in services in the US, UK and Singapore. I also know that many art photographers--both those who shoot pictures of art and those who do photography as art--do not want to move to digital because it still can't reproduce what high-quality, high-speed film can do. So pro photo labs still exist. They're just not everywhere or aimed at high-volume markets like consumers.
That was the point I was attempting to make.... the "R" lens, the "FL" lenses & the "FD" and "new FD" lenses were all interchangeable over a very long span of camera bodies, from the 1950s until 1986 when CANON changed to the EF mount out of technological necessity. And, while I'll agree that I can't mount my EF-S 10-22 on my 5D Mk II, I CAN put ALL of my other EF glass onto my EOS 1N, 1V, 5D Mk II or 7D without any problem! I still maintain that CANON has considered their customers with more regard than NIKON.
Interesting that you SHOULD mention the "R" 50mm/0.95 lens...... I HAD the FL version of that lens for my PELLIX & FT, but VERY STUPIDLY sold it, and to this day I don't know why!! I saw one at a camera equipment show in the Holiday Inn in downtown Tampa about 15 years ago. The lens wasn't in great shape.... lots of wear, but the glass didn't look bad. He wanted about $500 IF my memory serves me.....
On a positive note, however, I still have in my FT PELLIX (QL) bag, the FLP38, which is not unlike the new EF pancake lens being offered for the EOS cameras. Interesting how it is, "as things go around, they come around!"
Its really impressive to see that university students participating in 3D printing in terms of there projects . By all this i can feel that 3D printing is the next upcomming technology, I am really excited to hear about 3d printed analog camera but does these cameras will have different labs or different developing techniques other than other cameras ?
I was wondering just who decided to call film cameras "analog cameras". Yes, their recording method is analog. BUT, what do you call electronic cameras that use an analog recording method? Most of these are video cameras using tape. However, if you do a little research, you will find that there were also some still electronic still cameras which recordeded images by analog methods. It could even be more complicated since there were cameras that used CCD image sensors, which are digital, but used analog tape to recorde the images. Then video switched to digital tape before it switched to memory cards.
My point is that this is not a binary proposition. It is not as simply as calling something 'analog' simply because it is not digital.
Canon changed the coupling mechanism. But so did Nikon.
Otherwise, they only made it incompatible once. The original SLR lenses from 1955, the R-series, worked interoperably with the FL lenses (1965), both were breech mount bayonette. The FD series were still interoperable, but added the additional auto aperture coupling pin.
It was only for EOS/EF lenses that they broke compatibiltiy at the mount level (well, again, if you want to consider EOS M, but then you'd have to consider Nikon 1 as well, and no one wins here).
Given that no mechanical lens will couple automatically with an electronic camera, and that the EOS lens mount to focal plane distance is less than the breech mount series (so you can use any R, FL, or FD lens with an adapter), I'd personally call it a wash.
For the record, I have both Canon and Nikon film and digital SLRs, though my main system is Canon. Also, Olympus OM-series and Digital Pen series cameras. To date, I have more OM-series lenses than any others, but Oly kind of walked away from SLRs after the OM-4. Which led me to switch, eventuually, to Canon... they had electronics in the days of film far in advance of anyone else. At least that year.
I'm not sure which Canon SLR system you mean here... please educate me.
I used to be a collector of Canon Rangefinder cameras, which of course used the Leica M39 screw mount, up until the Canon 7, which had the external bayonette for the 50mm f0.95 lens only.
Far as I know (though I didn't collect these), the first Canon SLRs were the R-Series. The R-Series lenses were breech-bayonette mount -- you set the lens with a pin or two (two in the R-series, one on the FL-series), and rotated a ring to lock down the lens, rather than rotating the lens.
The R-series (1955) and the FL-series (1964) used the same breech-lock bayonette. R and FL bodies could use either lens.
The FD lens system also employed a breech-lock bayonette, though they gradually moved from using the ring to moving the whole body of the lens when mounting, so it seemed more like a conventional bayonette, but the actual mount still didn't turn against the camera body.
The EF lens, of course, switched to a completely incompatible (without adapter) conventional bayonette. Though just for grins, it turns in the opposite direction of Nikon's...
Nikon definitely used the bayonette for their first generation SLRs.. same basic bayonette they use today. And yeah, they changed to electronic coupling over time, and (like Canon) added APS-only lenses, but the mount itself hasn't changed.
On the other hand, the EOS mount to film plane was wider shorter than most, so you can adapt nearly anything in SLR land to an EOS camera. And change was a good thing.. Canon moved to electronics much sooner than most other camera makers, and with a clean start.
In those early days, the 40's and 50's, Nikon made M39 lenses for other cameras (and Canon made at least one lens that fit Nikon's), but their rangefinders used the Contax rangefinder mount (sort of ... their focus coupling was different), which was a bayonette mount, not a screw mount. I don't know of any Nikon that used a screw mount.
@taimoortariq oh, absolutely. I think the initial development was a really cool hack, simply to be able to say that you made a functioning 35mm camera from a 3D printer. Though I could probably carve one from oak, if I decided to spend the next year at the task :-)
What boggled me was the idea of selling this. It's an amazing thing to have done this yourself, and the notion of open source mechanicals is cool today, but very likely a revolution we can hardly even imagine, in the long run. This can ultimately be Star Trek stuff. But commercializing this as-is.. I don't the sense in it. Maybe if you're working on a history of 3D printing or something, but not for practical photography.
On the other hand, given it 10 or 20 years, and start mixing open source HW and SW. There could come the day that you'd actually be able to make a pretty good digital camera at home. And I'll tell you, that's a day I hope to see!
Rob: One thing that you MUST put on top of your agenda is to pester the software fgolks @ DESIGN NEWS to work on the ongoing problem of disasterously slow screen refresh. This blog, as well as all the others, takes forever to load & display. I know it's a problem because I e-mailed someone else @ DESIGN NEWS a while ago, and that person acknowledged the problem. It's painfully slow, and it's NOT just this PC. I've had it occur w/ frequency on other PCs, regardless of processor power.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.