Canon, Nikon mirrorless = Disney and FOX on DVD

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Another body
manufacturer would be nice, I agree.

Yes, at least one more. What I think would really make a sort of
tipping point would be if there were enough bodies being produced to
attract the interest of the high-volume lens makers Tamron, Tokina
and Sigma.

Sigma does make Four Thirds, but not Micro that I can find.

And Micro is the only flavor of Four Thirds that makes sense to me.

I suspect Panasonic and Olympus are pretty happy not
to have that, right now!

I wonder. You may well be right, but on the other hand if there were enough
makers that m4/3 became a real standard, Panasonic and Olympus might benefit
too. It didn't seem to hurt Pentax or Praktica when all those other
manufacturers started turning out M42 screw-mount cameras. For the first 15
years or so that I owned SLRs, I bought various different makes *because*
they had that "universal" screw mount.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:52:30 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Another body manufacturer would be nice, I agree.

Yes, at least one more. What I think would really make a sort of
tipping point would be if there were enough bodies being produced to
attract the interest of the high-volume lens makers Tamron, Tokina and
Sigma.

Sigma does make Four Thirds, but not Micro that I can find.

And Micro is the only flavor of Four Thirds that makes sense to me.

I suspect Panasonic and Olympus are pretty happy not to have that,
right now!

I wonder. You may well be right, but on the other hand if there were
enough makers that m4/3 became a real standard, Panasonic and Olympus
might benefit too. It didn't seem to hurt Pentax or Praktica when all
those other manufacturers started turning out M42 screw-mount cameras.
For the first 15 years or so that I owned SLRs, I bought various
different makes *because* they had that "universal" screw mount.

People always seem to give the credit for the M42 to Pentax/Practika when
it had already been out for some years with the Edixa series of cameras.



--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:52:30 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Another body manufacturer would be nice, I agree.

Yes, at least one more. What I think would really make a sort of
tipping point would be if there were enough bodies being produced
to attract the interest of the high-volume lens makers Tamron,
Tokina and Sigma.

Sigma does make Four Thirds, but not Micro that I can find.

And Micro is the only flavor of Four Thirds that makes sense to me.

I suspect Panasonic and Olympus are pretty happy not to have that,
right now!

I wonder. You may well be right, but on the other hand if there were
enough makers that m4/3 became a real standard, Panasonic and Olympus
might benefit too. It didn't seem to hurt Pentax or Praktica when all
those other manufacturers started turning out M42 screw-mount
cameras. For the first 15 years or so that I owned SLRs, I bought
various different makes *because* they had that "universal" screw
mount.

People always seem to give the credit for the M42 to Pentax/Practika
when it had already been out for some years with the Edixa series of
cameras.

It was generally called the Pentax-Praktica (or Praktica-Pentax) mount at
least in the U.S., but my understanding was that it actually originated on
the Contax S. I remember the Edixa having it (a friend of mine had one), but
I don't know when Edixa started using it.