Why didn't anybody created an universal lens mount?
Sigma, Tamron, Tokina could create all the lenses from now on to an universal mount.
Then the lenses is attached to an adapter to fit the desired camera.
Then if you have multiple systems, all you have to do is buy multiple adapters for each camera brand and buy only one lens.
Why won't they do it?
Micro four thirds is the modern example.
There are several older versions, like M42, M39, etc.
The reason you don't see it more frequently is that camera manufacturers aren't really camera manufacturers, they're lens manufacturers. The camera, for the most part, is an afterthought, a reason to get you to buy lenses.
What was the adaptall mount
>>2823990
flange distance
>>2823990
Money
>>2824002
the lenses with these hypothetical mounts are ofc engineered to make up for that.
the real reason is that when buying a camera, one of the factors is what lenses are available, sony bought zeiss to get exclusive lenses for their cameras, having high quality lenses is a major sales point
>>2824019
>Sony bought Zeiss
Wat. I hope you know Zeiss is a massive manufacturer of all sorts of high tech equipment and optics. Maybe they bought the rights to slap the Zeiss name on their shitty lenses.
>engineered to make up for that
So the lenses would have to have a longer flange length than any possible mount you want them adapted to, and the design would have to be compromised to meet that requirement. That's especially silly if you want a universal mount for SLRs and mirrorless together because there's a huge difference in flange lengths.
Why create a universal lens mount? It'll just make it easier for competitors to steal your lens designs.
>>2824019
>sony bought zeiss to get exclusive lenses for their cameras, having high quality lenses is a major sales point
That never happened.
They've been in partnership for a long time, but it got a lot stronger once Kyocera (Contax/Yashica) went under.
Originally the partnership was for camcorders, a market that Kyocera were not involved in. You'll notice a lot more from Sony/Zeiss post-2005.
Well there was M39 and M42.
It wouldn't be very financially successful for, say, Nikon to have a universal mount with Canon if the Canon 50mm prime is the same quality and cheaper.
>>2823990
>M42
>>2823995
Came here for this.
>>2824442
Did op ever mentioned Nikon or canon lenses? Read OP, it is sigma, tamron. Brands that so lenses for all systems.
>>2823990
Because the different manufacturers have different mounts with different capabilities and implementations that require differences of more than just the mount on the lens.
For instance, aperture control, and and autofocus.
A lens that can be made specifically for Nikon will perform better than a lens made for all mounts and kludged to work on Nikon with an adapter.
Making it work with all mounts also means it would need to have all the tech for all the brands in it, and would need to be larger on say, Canon, to account for the flange distance of Nikon, etc.
The MAIN reason is that most people don't own multiple systems, and why would they?
Samyang has the T2 "adapter mount".
With the right adapter any T2 lens can work on any brand camera.
I think it's only used with very cheap lenses though.
People probably expect a "proper" mount when it's a serious lens.
>>2823990
>Then if you have multiple systems, all you have to do is buy multiple adapters for each camera brand and buy only one lens.
because most people have one camera with multiple lenses, not the other way around
>>2823990
I think it's part of the competition in the photography market, but if you pay attention, you'll get same lenses for every DSLR, the same variations, same zoom length with the same aperture, it is just the opinion of the costumer which one to choose (Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sony, etc.)
why would you want to make a universal mount when you could make a proprietary one and make mad cash?
>>2823990
We had it at one point. It is/was called M42.
But honestly this isn't hard to figure out. It's about money. Why standardize on a mount when you can strongly incentivize buying brand lenses and have vendor lock in? Think someone shooing on a D5 with their 10 y/o Nikon lens collection is going to switch to Canon just because? Nope, they have an incentive to stay with Nikon.
It's all about money.
>>2825240
We still have it. It's called micro four thirds.
You're also the fourth person in this thread to point m42.
>>2825240
>sony makes cameras where you can use lots of lenses easily
>makes the cameras way more expensive
fucking
>>2825244
Just buy a used A7 you can get them for like under $1000. That's hardly expensive.
>>2825253
b-but I want an a7s
they're still sorta expensive
>>2825256
Adapters are also expensive.
>>2825260
not really
I mainly want it to use my fd lenses though
because all cameras have different autofocus systems with different approaches to driving the motor
hell, look at nikon, where sometimes the motor is in the body and other times it's in the lens
they can't even maintain consitency within their own lineup
Buying the camera with the shortest flange focal distance and lenses with the longest flange focal distance will give you the effective equivalent of a universal lens mount.
That's basically what I do with my Canon lens and Sony body.
