35mm adapter with super 8?

Post by **boohoo** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:46 pm

I wonder why they chose canon FD mount? Nikon makes perfect sense, but m42 would have been much better.

Post by **downix** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:35 pm

Licensing cost I would wager.

Post by **Shion** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:00 am

Licensing cost for M42? It seems to be such an old, ubiquitous mount that I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Canon and Nikon were probably chosen because they are the most popular SLR brands overall (right?). I'm guessing Canon FD was chosen over EF because EF lenses have no aperture ring, making them very difficult (impossible?) to stop down without electronics.

-Bon

Post by **mattias** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:28 pm

tlatosmd wrote:A viewfinder that can be too tiny to focus with even at S8's native DOF?

good point, but i think since you're looking at a ground glass it should work ok. i mean if it works with a 200 line video viewfinder. ;-)

/matt

Post by **boohoo** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:07 pm

Canon and Nikon were probably chosen because they are the most popular SLR brands overall (right?).

Like I said before nikon makes sense. However I am pretty sure that minolta and olympus were just as popular when the FD mount was at its peak. M42 and pentax lenses are litterally everywhere, but they choose FD? No big deal I guess, I haven't emailed them yet but do they offer anythind else but FD and nikon? An old minolta mc mount f1.2 or m42 f1.2 are less than half the cost of a nikon f1.2. Wide open these lenses let in so much light that it can definatley help overall focusing.

Post by **tlatosmd** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:20 pm

mattias wrote:
tlatosmd wrote:A viewfinder that can be too tiny to focus with even at S8's native DOF?
good point, but i think since you're looking at a ground glass it should work ok. i mean if it works with a 200 line video viewfinder. ;-)

That's the point! Even whenever I'm shooting digitally, *I* need a big half-portable monitor to focus manually. :lol: