Talk:Lens mount

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Photography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Throat sizes?

What is up with this "throat" column in the table? Whoever edited this has fouled up the thread specifications, such as the M42x0.75 T-mount thread, which is now garbage.

Unsigned by: Rkinch ("Throat" sizes is spurious)

Throat sizes? response

To clear things up some more:

Added a Legend table at the bottom explaining each column
Separated "Frame size" (8, 16, 35mm, ...) from "Camera type" (digital, still, movie, CCTV)
Separated "OEM model line(s)" from "Type Name"

Previously:

bayonet/breech/screw, diameters, and thread pitches

were all in one column "jumbled up" across rows (there was not consistency between rows).

Reasoning (for separate diameter column):

With as many variations as there are - (diameter, thread pitch, type) really needed to each be in their own separate columns.
"Major" or "Throat" diameter is not "spurious": while "flange focal distance" in relation to "frame size" tells you something about a lens's relative focal properties (telephoto versus wide angle relationship), it told you nothing about how much light a lens mount family can gather or how heavy they might be relative to others (i.e. larger mount diameters gather more light and are generally heavier).

The "shorthand notation" M42x0.75 (or M42x1) really means:

ISO 68-1 metric thread size (see below),
Nominal major diameter D=42mm x pitch P=0.75mm per thread (or 1mm per thread);

so the (D) 42mm and the (P) 0.75mm are appropriately placed in separate columns

Compared to "mm", an "M" provides some additional information:

it means that the thread is cut to ISO 68-1 specifications with:

60 degree angle (which defines a height H), and
outermost 1/8 and innermost 1/4 rounding (of height H).

LeheckaG (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added citations/references for 4/3. FYI - 4/3 is intentionally designed to try to be 1/2 lighter and 1/2 smaller (than corresponding "35mm" Nikon F and D-series and other contemporaries), so it is factual that 4/3 major diameters (D) are NOT ~50mm (which would be as big and heavy as Canon EF and EF-S systems). 4/3 (D) is ~43-44mm and micro-4/3 is ~37-38mm (See Notes section in the article). Digital Photography Review has it "wrong" - DPR is citing the lens/mount female "outside diameter" instead of the major (D) which is the camera body female mount inside diameter or the male lens mount outside diameter. LeheckaG (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture

"Creating screw threads of the necessary precision, across many camera and lens manufacturers, is too troublesome."

This is just some conjecture on my part. Can anyone offer information supporting or challenging my suggestion? Imroy 20:25, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

A registration distances

M42×1 screw mount registration distance is 45.5 mm (±0.02--0.03 mm), but not 45.46 mm. (See GOST 10332-72 and this document, for example: http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/flektogon-2-8-35-adb-lk.tif ) K-mount registration distance is 45.5 mm (±0.02mm) too, not 45.46 mm (±0.03--0.04 mm). KengRu (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the important distance is somewhere inside the film emulsion, not to the front of the film. Does that help? Gah4 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge idea

This was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focusing lens mount, I'm posting the mergeto and mergefrom tags to encourage discussion. Stifle 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lens mounts

It should be noted that the use of different lens mounts on photo cameras was not primarily due to marketing considerations but due to a patent dispute. There was a broad consensus among camera manufacturers to us a standard mount to replace M42 as it was not adequate for electronic controlled cameras in the late 70's. This consensus was destroyed when one of the manufacturers obtained a patent for the suggested mount and wanted royalties from all others. Alf photoman 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea who that was, or any books or articles talking about it? I know for pretty sure that that's what happened in rangefinder cameras; Leica screw mount was obsolete, Leica invented the M bayonet mount and patented it. It didn't hurt, of course, that marketing considerations also encouraged makers to use incompatible mounts. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, use of the M42 mount was not 'universal' in the first place; Canon, Nikon etc were already using proprietary mounts by that point. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I recommend that the table in list of lens mounts be moved into this article. Neither is big, and there's no reason for two articles on the same subject with one being just the table. Dicklyon 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no immediate outcry, I went ahead. If anyone objects, say so here or back it out. Dicklyon 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but shouldn't it replace the other list in the earlier section? It seems rather redundant now. --Imroy 22:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other organization may have some use. Probably it would be best to separate out the list into categories like those. But I don't know the history of who thought what would be more useful, so I decided to do no more yet. Feel free. Dicklyon 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Mounts

Better add to this article some information on common new mounts. Four Thirds mount (Olympus E series, Leica Digilux 3 SLR, Panasonic Lumix SLR) Sony and Zeiss share one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.198.131 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJI Zenmuse DL-Mount

We should also add the new DL-Mount by dji: [1]. Bonomont (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lens mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon

The Canon rangefinders that I know of use the same lenses at LTM Leica, but the table indicates that they are different. Are they? Gah4 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they're the same. All Canon rangefinders with interchangeable lenses were Leica-compatible. I've removed that row in the table. Nmw25 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

The discussion of lens mounts could usefully include more history - If I recall correctly the 39mm screw was the first or first widespread one, and then other screw specifications, then bayonets, and now wider locks followed. I don't know the details sufficiently to just write it. I'm suggesting adding it to the existing material rather than starting a new section called history. Midgley (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photography / Still

What's the distinction between "Photography" and "Still" in the Primary Use column? The article body doesn't define either of these terms, so just going off their conventional definition they seem completely redundant to me, unless I'm missing something?

Nmw25 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of lugs for bayonet mounts

This seems like relevant information to include, as it is notable that, for example, larger cine lenses use four lugs where most bayonet mounts use three. One example where the distinction is important is the Kinor 16SP and 16SX lens mounts, where the primary difference is the number of lugs.

Should this be included as a column, or as a notation in the mount type column, EG, "bayonet (4 lug)"? Okto8 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]