Universal bayonet mount.

Mention of a common lens mount in a recent thread, set me thinking.
What if, say in 1975, when Pentax changed from screw thread to bayonet, all the camera manufacturers got together and decided to introduce a common new lens mount. The "U" Mount, for want of a better name. How would things be different, now? - Would there be fewer, or more camera manufacturers.. I doubt there would be the brand loyalty to any particular make. None of the tribalism we see now. Would The Pentax User website, or any other manufacturer specific site or forum exist?
If a Pentax lens could be fitted to a Nikon body, and an Olympus lens to a Minolta, and work just as the camera's manufacturer's own lens would, which body a photographer used would be of little, or no importance. It would all be about the lenses chosen, wouldn't it?

I doubt that a common mount would have been very profitable for the big manufacturers. Things would have been very different now, I'm sure... But better, or worse?
Would any of us want a common Dslr lens mount, now?

Micro Four thirds. Its already there. Will it replace and overtake the future market?? I don't think so. Does it give people more choices.
Yes What a lovely thought....to be able to use the best of all the brands on one camera body.(with help of some adapters) I love it.

I dont think it is quite so simple or Utopian, there are other issues such as back focus and flange distances but remember Pentax was late to the bayonet mount. Some manufacturers lenses focus in the opposite direction so nobody could have checked away their legacy. Thinking of cars I wouldn't want to fit Trabant parts to my Mercedes.

In film days IQ was determined by the film developer combination and the lens, now the camera body and the lens determine IQ, everything else being equal of course.

Every system has it pro's and con's. I agree. M4/3 has to develop and grow to maturity before it can offer a valid choice to the masses. BUT......Its there right now, gives some excellent choices for certain types of photographers and economic figures show there is enough market to win for the future. Personally I think it's more of a blessing for the market then for instance the introduction of a FF dSLR body for the price of a K-X.

As a side note:
I still like to think a good eye, great light and content capable of creating emotion are the main ingredients for a great picture.
All the hardware like lenses or cameras just being tools for the job, some obviously better tools. But...still tools.

Doesn't just stop with the lens mount, though.
Which auto-focus method are you going to use with your hypothetical U-mount?
From that, which shake reduction system will you fit?
The logical end is a factory in China (or maybe Transylvania) making camera bodies and putting "YOUR" badge on.
Geoff

Didn't Pentax and Zeiss intend this to happen when they invented the K mount in the 1970s? Sure I read that somewhere?

Although I've always been surprised by how few Zeiss K mount lenses I see for sale - there was a 28mm prime last month but I didn't bother as I can't see it being better than the Pentax-M 28mm f3.5!

Yes, obviously the AF system would have to be standardised too, along with the film register distance. Shake reduction would be an in camera thing, so manufacturers could do that any way they wanted.
Although not universally adopted, Pentax's K mount did come quite close. It was adopted by Ricoh, Chinon, Petri, Cosina and Agfa. Perhaps others that I don't know about, too. Even Zenit produced a K mount SLR.

Interestingly, Kodak did it the other way around. Some years ago they made a pro Dslr which you could have in either Nikon or Canon mount.

I didn't know Zeiss had anything to do with the K mount.

Pentax was from even Zeiss.
I also believe the SMC coating is also quite close to Zeiss MRC coating, ain't sure about that though.