Is it just me or does anyone else see that the micro 4/3 mount is almost identical to the Olympus Pen F mount and the 4/3 mount is almost identical to the Olympus OM mount. There are obviously some slight differences but I think the origins of these lens mounting systems are clear. The fact that Olympus was in on the development of the 4/3 and micro 4/3 systems from the get go suggests that the similarities were not in fact coincidental.
Roots for roots, why is it Oly's 3/4 physical format is not the original Pen's and Robot's (18 x 24 mm) format, but Kodak' Instamatic 110 (13 x 17 mm)?
I seem to remind that Kodak was part of the early 4:3 alliance, as far as to manufacture the Olympus e-1 CCD. Therefore, it would be quite unsurprising their R&D based their developpement work on formats they had optics built for long before. Cheers,
To OP: And this should come as a surprise or what? I fail to see the relevance of this thread. At least put some pics with the mounts
I think it's just how you see your lenses. Many mounts, such as Pentax K, Konica, 4/3, M4/3, and OM, all use three prongs on a bayonet. But the diameters, prong dimensions, etc, all differ. Then consider the Canon FD, which is a breech lock where the prongs are on the camera body. A real wierdo is the Miranda, which has four prongs, is also a breech lock, and has a screw thread in the middle that would seem to take Pentax M42, but doesn't, so it fits almost nothing. I gots these lenses, but you don't wanna see pics.
But are they? Post pictures showing not only their similarity, but their dissimilarity to other mounts of the same general size...
