Shoot this thread down if it turns out to bear little legitimacy, but I want to test the waters by stating something that I have felt to have considerable merit for discussion in terms of practicality. I would love to hear viewpoints on this, pro or con.
I have always felt that the Canon mechanicals (FTb, TX, etc.) are over-engineered when compared with other equally worthy examples such as Pentax Spotmatic, H1a, K1000, Minolta SR-T, etc. Taking Spotmatic as idealistically normative, when one looks inside a Spotmatic body one can see a mechanical logic that is pruned down to its basic essentials. When one opens up a Canon mechanical body, one feels that another act is to follow, or perhaps the denouement, after the photography business is finished.
Why so? Let me ask this in another way: How is the pared down Spotmatic deficient to the complex Canon? The difference is rather striking. The number of gears and shafts and other moving parts in the Canons causes one to think that that proliferation must be the result of some obscure necessity. Is it? The Spotmatic people took a full four years of R&D before they would allow their ‘simple’ body to be sold to the public. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that such simplicity was not borne of ostensible engineering ‘downgrading’ but, instead, was allowed because of a complex and formidable thought process which, finally, allowed the semblance of simplicity to manifest (much like a concert pianist will demonstrate how easy it is to play well, but ONLY after years of torturous study.) Spotmatic’s success story is legendary. Its original cost compared well with Canon’s and hindsight has shown this camera to have achieved all that Asahi wanted in terms of profitability. As a person who does minor repairs to most mechanicals, I will say, without equivocation, that the Spotmatic is far less prone to jamming than are the Canon mechanicals.
Changing the curtain tension becomes a microcosm of the whole. On the Canons, each curtain’s tension is modified by first loosening a screw holding a pawl which engages the inclined teeth of the wheel on top of each curtain roller. Removing the pawl’s reach into these teeth allows one, finally, to turn that wheel so that you can tighten or loosen the tension. One must be certain to make sure that, upon re-tightening the pawl’s screw, the pawl’s arm is securely meshed with the both wheels’ teeth. All this must be done with both care and agility, as access to those wheels is cumbersome and requires deft action on the part of the repair technician. On the Spotmatic there is a simple worm screw which directly governs the wheel for each curtain: sweet and simple. Again, why?
And it does not stop with the bodies. Take the normal lenses for each mount: say the 1.8/50 FD compared with the 1.8/55 Takumar in M42. Look at the mounts for a start. The Canon mount is prone towards internal collection of dust, debris, and general grime while the M42 mount remains clean. Now, I ask, has anyone ever disassembled each one? The Canon lens is a nightmare to put back together and the M42 is almost entirely straightforward and even fun to do. Again, why? If your deviant response is that mounting the Canon lens is quicker than mounting the Takumar, you are technically correct, but missing the point. All I had said about the simplicity and cleanliness of the M42 mount transfers readily to the PK mount, the Minolta MD mount, and almost all other mounts whose ability to mount quickly equals or surpasses Canon’s.
Why did Canon have to be so darn complex and what was their theory justifying such machinations? - David Lyga
I have always felt that the Canon mechanicals (FTb, TX, etc.) are over-engineered when compared with other equally worthy examples such as Pentax Spotmatic, H1a, K1000, Minolta SR-T, etc. Taking Spotmatic as idealistically normative, when one looks inside a Spotmatic body one can see a mechanical logic that is pruned down to its basic essentials. When one opens up a Canon mechanical body, one feels that another act is to follow, or perhaps the denouement, after the photography business is finished.
Why so? Let me ask this in another way: How is the pared down Spotmatic deficient to the complex Canon? The difference is rather striking. The number of gears and shafts and other moving parts in the Canons causes one to think that that proliferation must be the result of some obscure necessity. Is it? The Spotmatic people took a full four years of R&D before they would allow their ‘simple’ body to be sold to the public. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that such simplicity was not borne of ostensible engineering ‘downgrading’ but, instead, was allowed because of a complex and formidable thought process which, finally, allowed the semblance of simplicity to manifest (much like a concert pianist will demonstrate how easy it is to play well, but ONLY after years of torturous study.) Spotmatic’s success story is legendary. Its original cost compared well with Canon’s and hindsight has shown this camera to have achieved all that Asahi wanted in terms of profitability. As a person who does minor repairs to most mechanicals, I will say, without equivocation, that the Spotmatic is far less prone to jamming than are the Canon mechanicals.
Changing the curtain tension becomes a microcosm of the whole. On the Canons, each curtain’s tension is modified by first loosening a screw holding a pawl which engages the inclined teeth of the wheel on top of each curtain roller. Removing the pawl’s reach into these teeth allows one, finally, to turn that wheel so that you can tighten or loosen the tension. One must be certain to make sure that, upon re-tightening the pawl’s screw, the pawl’s arm is securely meshed with the both wheels’ teeth. All this must be done with both care and agility, as access to those wheels is cumbersome and requires deft action on the part of the repair technician. On the Spotmatic there is a simple worm screw which directly governs the wheel for each curtain: sweet and simple. Again, why?
And it does not stop with the bodies. Take the normal lenses for each mount: say the 1.8/50 FD compared with the 1.8/55 Takumar in M42. Look at the mounts for a start. The Canon mount is prone towards internal collection of dust, debris, and general grime while the M42 mount remains clean. Now, I ask, has anyone ever disassembled each one? The Canon lens is a nightmare to put back together and the M42 is almost entirely straightforward and even fun to do. Again, why? If your deviant response is that mounting the Canon lens is quicker than mounting the Takumar, you are technically correct, but missing the point. All I had said about the simplicity and cleanliness of the M42 mount transfers readily to the PK mount, the Minolta MD mount, and almost all other mounts whose ability to mount quickly equals or surpasses Canon’s.
Why did Canon have to be so darn complex and what was their theory justifying such machinations? - David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator: