# FF Mirrorless Poll: if new mount is thin, how many new lenses will we see?



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

Just curious what everyone's thoughts are on how much new-mount glass we would see if Canon does indeed offer a thin-mount FF mirrorless setup.

I am not asking how many lenses we will see at launch. I am referring to the 'end footprint' of the new mount's lens ecosystem, i.e. many years down the road. 

*COMPANION POLL HERE:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35293.0*

- A


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 3, 2018)

Expectation for Canon's *self-perception* of how many lenses being introduced constitutes a good amount at launch:
Placeholder - 1-2 lenses
Good Start - 3-5
Incredible Priority - 6

*Users' perception* of amounts at launch:
1-2 lenses - Really just a body that is used only with an adapter
3-5 lenses - Mostly an adapter body with one or two options for something small
6-9 lenses - Mostly an adapter body, but with potential to pick up native mount glass over time that is deserving (which means 25-35 percent of releases)

The big issue with the difference between those two sets of perceptions isn't what happens at launch, but rather what happens 18 months after launch, when people's expectations of a new mount lineup haven't materialized, and they have 3 crappy kit lenses, 3 lenses that are just slightly worse than new third party glass, but smaller, and 3 lenses that are fantastic. 

The question of whether Sony should be tested will shift from Sony's various deficiencies - such as lens lineup, awful service, and Martian interfaces - to whether or not the Canon bodies are at least 80 percent as good as the Sony ones - the inflection point after which people are willing to consider switching.

It'll be messy. The biggest winner among all players will be Sigma, who will be offering a complete, fast, excellent lineup in all mount flavors.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> The big issue with the difference between those two sets of perceptions isn't what happens at launch, but rather what happens 18 months after launch...



Good post (in general), but I wanted to highlight that little nugget of insight above. 

I agree that some folks will be all-in expecting an FE sort of full mirrorless portfolio regardless of all common sense saying it won't happen (due to limited size savings for bigger/faster lenses, Canon famously underwhelmingly-supporting it's non-EF mounts, EF already existing to serve that need, etc.). And those folks will be in tears if Canon doesn't bring a steady gravy train of thin-mount glass and announce that EF is shutting down soon. :

But those folks are lost. 

Canon isn't Sony, and to act like Sony with EF being such a juggernaut (both good and bad: good to have, but bad to have to design/build/inventory/maintain/obsolete) simply isn't going to happen. So let those folks cry -- the tears are on their unreasonable expectations, not on Canon's inability to satisfy them.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

Side predictions (if the mount is thin):


Will we see L lenses on FF mirrorless? Yes. They'd be leaving way too much money on the table not to do this. (May they call these premium lenses something else, give them a blue ring instead of a red ring, etc.? Possibly, but the price point and marketing prestige will be there.) 


Will we see Ring USM, truly mechanical FTM focusing, etc? Really hope so, but we haven't seen anything but FBW for EF-M to date...


- A


----------



## timmy_650 (Jul 3, 2018)

I think it will depend on how good the adapter is, if there isn't any difference with the AF. I think we will see less FF-M mounts. My understanding is that wide angle is where we can see the improvement in lenses so we might see more of those lenses. But on something like 70-200 f2.8 on a mirrorless wont be any smaller than a dslr.

While writing this, I was thinking about if you have two bodies lets say 5D and FF-M, the EF will be able to go on the 5D and FF-M but FF-M lenses probably wont be able to go on the 5D.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

timmy_650 said:


> While writing this, I was thinking about if you have two bodies lets say 5D and FF-M, the EF will be able to go on the 5D and FF-M but FF-M lenses probably wont be able to go on the 5D.



That's exactly right. Same as trying to put an EF-M lens on an EF-S mount. You can't.

And that's the wild card. Is Canon preparing for a massive migration from EF to FF mirrorless like FD was to EF? 

Most folks would say 'hell no' for a dozen correct reasons.

Others on this forum seem very skittish like a decision to go with a thin FF mount is the beginning of the end for EF for ...reasons that don't really make enough sense to walk away from the staggering investment and advantage EF represents today. 

So, no, EF isn't going anywhere in my book unless these FF mirrorless bodies are _*so*_ sexy, pricey and successful in the market that it underwrites remaking (most of) EF in the new mount. I just don't see that happening, especially in a following (and not leading) market introduction timing. _Maybe_ we'll get a mount conversion service or something like that, but it will just be EF lenses with a mechanical lens tube. I just don't see any future where EF goes away -- not until science-fiction tech like lightfield, curved sensors, etc. arrives, and that's not happening in these kind of products anytime soon..

- A


----------



## timmy_650 (Jul 3, 2018)

I could see the running an AD campaign why EF lenses are good for their FF-M camera but just make specialty lenses for FF-M like pancakes and smaller lenses.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 3, 2018)

If Harry is to be believed, you forgot the option of 'something that will fit on a smartphone'


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 4, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> If Harry is to be believed, you forgot the option of 'something that will fit on a smartphone'



Ergonomics? What are those?

Physics of lens size? That's not a thing.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2018)

The underlying question is how many cameras will be sold? If a Mirrorless camera series sells very well, than we would see more lenses. It takes many years to develop new lenses, Canon has only a few teams that develop one lens at a time, it can take them 2-3 years. That limits the number of lenses. Thats why I would prefer a Mirrorless that uses EF, it will take 20+ years to build up a good selection.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 4, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > If Harry is to be believed
> ...



Big Sony lenses are white so maybe they license from Sony...?


----------



## fullstop (Jul 4, 2018)

"eventually" ALL (new) Canon lenses for FF sensor cameras will be "EF-X" new mount.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Wow. We are all over the map with this survey.

We have roughly equal responses that Canon will just offer a few tiny thin-mount lenses vs. _Canon will rebuild almost all of EF in the new mount_.

Wow.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 5, 2018)

The key word here is *eventually*.

In 20 years they won't be making EF lenses any more.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 5, 2018)

Just to compare, when the EF mount launched here were the lenses available within the first year:

* 50mm f/1.8 
* 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5
* 35-105 f/3.5-4.5
* 100-300 f/5.6
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
28mm f/2.8
70-210 f/4
100-300 f/5.6L (First L series EF lens, I have this lens  )
135mm f/2.8 soft focus
300mm f/2.8L
28-70 f/3.5-4.5
50mm f/2.8 Compact Macro
50-200 f/3.5-4.5

Four slowish zoom lenses at launch and a 50mm. The only 'major' lens in the first year was the 300/2.8


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Just to compare, when the EF mount launched here were the lenses available within the first year:



I think that if Canon goes thin, they need to tread delicately with future-looking actions and statements to reinforce that EF won't become the equivalent of the A mount.

So in the first year -- if it's a thin mount -- I don't see Canon doing any of the following:


Putting out a huge spread of lenses -- it would raise fears that EF is going away.


Putting out anything that will render the body + lens combination as big as the FF equivalent combination -- it, too, would imply that EF is going away (if it's _not_ all about being small -- [gulp] ). So that means not signing up for pro f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes in the early stage of the platform.


Making any outright commitments or statements that the new mount will be as big and comprehensive as EF someday --> this implies Canon is in a rebuilding phase and that their current EF professionals are not Canon's priority. This could drive an exodus to other manufacturers.


Saying anything other than "The EF adaptor works _perfectly_" -- the same as a native EF mount. If they undermine the adaptor, state that it has certain limitations or body-lens-communication fine print and people will get really wound up and demand a full EF mount mirrorless body.

But I did ask 'eventually' with the poll. My gut says that EF is simply too big and too important and too real/on-the-shelf/financially committed to walk away from. I see EF living on for _at least_ 10 years, likely much longer so I'm treating that in the 'eventually' phase. Only when Canon makes other changes -- like moving to curved sensors -- will abandoning EF make financial sense, IMHO. That would be the revolutionary change worth investing dollars and risk into: the lenses could get so much tinier/lighter.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But I did ask 'eventually' with the poll. My gut says that EF is simply too big and too important and too real/on-the-shelf/financially committed to walk away from. I see EF living on for _at least_ 10 years, likely much longer so I'm treating that in the 'eventually' phase. Only when Canon makes other changes -- like moving to curved sensors -- will abandoning EF make financial sense, IMHO. That would be the revolutionary change worth investing dollars and risk into: the lenses could get so much tinier/lighter.
> 
> - A


It really boils down to sales. If a lot of mirrorless sales happen and buyers are switching to mirrorless in large numbers, we could see DSLR's going away in 10-20 years, or even very quickly. The market can switch almost overnight if a new product is popular.

Canon has been worried that a Mirrorless model will flop, just like their previous attempts with pellicle mirrors did. I don't expect that to happen. 

I firmly believe that the price of mirrorless cameras could be lower. Cost to manufacture is closely related to the number and complexity of parts, and elimination of moving mirrors, sub mirrors, exposure and AF sensors, pentaprism come to mind. The Autofocus sensor has to be calibrated on each camera. Some of those moving parts also figure in the cost to maintain a camera and cost to Canon for warranty service.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2018)

I'm a visual person and I'm trying to wrap my head around the EF-X / protrudes into the mirror-space idea.

So does this look right? (Not do you like it, but is this what folks meant with that idea?)

Thx,
A


----------



## BillB (Jul 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm a visual person and I'm trying to wrap my head around the EF-X / protrudes into the mirror-space idea.
> 
> So does this look right? (Not do you like it, but is this what folks meant with that idea?)
> 
> ...



This EF-X approach could be used to avoid retrofocus wide angle designs needed for use with DSLR cameras.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 8, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Just to compare, when the EF mount launched here were the lenses available within the first year:
> 
> <snip, 12+ lenses>
> 
> Four slowish zoom lenses at launch and a 50mm. The only 'major' lens in the first year was the 300/2.8



When EF was launched, it wasn't backward compatible with existing FD lenses.

There's a snow ball's chance in hell that Canon's mirrorless FF camera would be incompatible with EF. The new mount might be thinner and/or have extra pins, but it will be compatible with EF, possibly via an extension tube like EOS-M.

As Sony's ecosystem shows, the size benefit is there for the limited case of slow wide lenses. I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 9, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).



Canon has shown in the M series they are happy to make a new mount and new lenses if they think it necessary. The difference with the FF mirrorless is that if you say 'in 6 months time we will release a FF mirrorless with a new mount and it will not be compatible with EF lenses' the potential purchasers will say "so there is no difference between buying a new body and completely new lenses badged Canon and buying a new body and completely new lenses badged Sony; so why would I take the risk of Canon getting MILC right when I know SOny does so much so well. Why not just buy Sony now."
If you make them compatible with EF lenses you have one option for a relatively cheap entry into FF MILC.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 9, 2018)

EF-X will be fully backwards compatible with legacy EF lenses via a small, simple, precise and (relatively) inexpensive adaptor. Just like the Canon EF-M/EF adaptor. Canon will offer one, for sure.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).
> ...



As EOS-M is compatible with EF lenses, it didn't. On the contrary, it shows Canon wanted to strike a balance between the benefits of making smaller camera & lenses *without* breaking backwards compatibility with existing EF lenses.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.



yes. But not fully comparable. Canon EF/EF-M adapter is 1. original Canon, 2. well-made and stable, 3. not expensive and 4. retains full lens IQ and AF functionality [within "LiveView" capabilities]. 
Which is not necessarily the case with third-party to Sony E-mount adapters.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.


For most autofocus A-mount lenses on E-mount Sony, you need an adapter with an AF motor and a mirror inside, and the AF performance is quite poor.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.
> ...



I was questioning the assertion that EOS-M is compatible with EF lenses. It isn't. How efficient the adapter is is a different question.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

All Canon EF lenses can be mounted on EF-M mount by use of a simple little Canon adapter. 
All Canon EF (and T/S) lenses are *fully compatible* with and fully functional on EF-M cameras - within the respective lens' [AF-drive] limitations for operation in "liveView" mode [DPAF LiveView mode on some EOS M camera models].

Canon EF-/EF-M adapter is very well designed, solid quality, fits precisely, locks well and is "affordable". Handling is even simpler than Canon Tele-Extenders, because you don't have to watch out for glass (rear) element. There is no reason to assume this would not also apply to a future Canon EF/"EF-X" mount adapter.

ofc we can further discuss semantics of what "fully compatible" means.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> All Canon EF lenses can be mounted on EF-M mount by use of a simple little Canon adapter.
> All Canon EF (and T/S) lenses are *fully compatible* with and fully functional on EF-M cameras - within the respective lens' [AF-drive] limitations for operation in "liveView" mode [DPAF LiveView mode on some EOS M camera models].
> 
> Canon EF-/EF-M adapter is very well designed, solid quality, fits precisely, locks well and "affordable". Handling is even simpler than Canon Tele-Extenders, because you don't have to watch out for glass (rear) element. There is no reason to assume this would not also apply to a future Canon EF/"EF-X" mount adapter.
> ...



I suggest you go back and read the context of my original remark.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 11, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



It's an extension tube (tube with pass through electronics), not an adapter. In other words, while the flange distance changed, the electronics (contacts and protocols) remained the same, which makes the differences fullstop has listed.

To be more explicit, suppose Canon made a new mount with new electronics, and made an adapter for it that translates from EF to whatever (same as adapter to Sony FE does), there are two likely problems-

1. Bugs in the adapter electronics.

2. Something will be lost in translation from EF protocols to new mount's protocols. There's a reason adapted Canon EF lenses don't work as well as Sony FE lenses on Sony cameras. If I recall correctly from reviews, AF doesn't work as well (lower fps, some AF points not working at all), and fps is lower.

Which brings me back to the question - what is it in the EF mount electronics that is unfit to serve as a mount for FF mirrorless, even when extended, say with extra pins?

[Yes, I'm separating the mechanical question of flange distance and throat diameter from the electronics itself, as Canon did with EOS-M.]


----------



## fullstop (Jul 11, 2018)

should not "2 electrical contacts/pins suffice? for anything? with the right lens mount/communications protocol? ;-)

with DP-AF sensors and position/orientation/acceleration sensors, Canon cameras should have all needed information to totally AI-analyze a scene in CPU/s? including distance information for every single pixel! 

future EF-X lenses could be built "fairly dumb"? all thats really needed is "move AF element/s forwards or backwards by X amount"? 

plus possibly power zoom (surely a horrible thought for many fellow forum dwellers who already cringe with focus by wire) - "move element/s forward/backwards by x amount". 

only in-lens IS might require more real-time data transfer/bandwidth than easily possible. no?

but it could also be done with multiple pins as in today's EF lenses. yes?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> should not "2 electrical contacts/pins suffice? for anything? with the right lens mount/communications protocol? ;-)


That would be expensive or unreliable. In practice, you need at least 4 (ground, power, rx, tx).



fullstop said:


> with DP-AF sensors and position/orientation/acceleration sensors, Canon cameras should have all needed information to totally AI-analyze a scene in CPU/s? including distance information for every single pixel!


No, it also needs information about the lens.

And unsharp image is unsharp image, dual pixel or not.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 11, 2018)

ok, thx! So 4 contacts, fine! Still a potential 50% saving on current # of pins. LOL ;D


re. "lens info", yes camera needs basic lens info - but that's static data, maybe 1 Byte? Actually even a unique lens code should suffice? Effectively hindering 3rd party mfgs to "spoof" Canon lens codes with their own products might be a bit more complex. 

Do lenses really need "any intelligence built in" at all? Could it not all be handled by camera, that just needs to send simple commands to lens' aperture/iris, AF drive, IS system [if built in] and zoom position [if zoom lens]? "Actuator" move element/s X in direction positive or negative Z by amount x, do it now, do it fast, report back, verify, closed loop? 

I would prefer all the AI / command center and user controls over it in camera body and lenses as simple as possible [including no lens rings, no manual focus facility at all, but very robust and IP67 sealed] and less expensive. I only buy/own 1 camera [at a time], but multiple lenses. Same line of thinking why I prefer to have FF sensor in camera and more compact and economical, slower aperture lenses instead of crop sensor and faster, more complex and expensive lenses [e.g. f/2.0 instead of f/1.4 primes or f/4 zooms instead of f/2.8].


----------



## Kit. (Jul 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ok, thx! So 4 contacts, fine! Still a potential 50% saving on current # of pins. LOL ;D


Canon uses different motor and digital power and ground contacts, which makes digital less noisy. It also has a separate camera-driven clock line, which historically was making the electronics slightly cheaper.

Then, there are separate pins to detect the presence of teleconverters.



fullstop said:


> re. "lens info", yes camera needs basic lens info - but that's static data, maybe 1 Byte? Actually even a unique lens code should suffice? Effectively hindering 3rd party mfgs to "spoof" Canon lens codes with their own products might be a bit more complex.


The current approach seems to store more info about individual parameters of the lenses (measured at the test bench). Anyway, making newer lenses incompatible with older cameras just because of the protocol is not a solid business idea for Canon, because it would definitely decrease its customer loyalty.



fullstop said:


> Do lenses really need "any intelligence built in" at all? Could it not all be handled by camera,


Ideally, the lenses should be able to report what they are and where they are. The rest is possible to be done in the camera, if the camera and the lens share that same model of "what and where".



fullstop said:


> I would prefer all the AI / command center and user controls over it in camera body and lenses as simple as possible [including no lens rings, no manual focus facility at all, but very robust and IP67 sealed] and less expensive.


That's basically saying "I don't want to be able to meaningfully use telezooms".


----------



## USsp40uk (Jul 11, 2018)

If they have new lenes my name for the new lenses EF-M(L) as follows:

new M-EF M(L) adapter
35mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.4
200mm f/4
400mm f/4
10-22mm f/2.8
16-35mm f/4
70-200mm f/4-5.6
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

Some new and improved M lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 12, 2018)

USsp40uk said:


> If they have new lenes my name for the new lenses EF-M(L) as follows:
> 
> new M-EF M(L) adapter
> 35mm f/1.2
> ...



Mirrorless (= short flange distance) FF allows size reduction only for wide (= focal length shorter than FF diagonal) & slow lenses.

That means most of those lenses will be as big as equivalent DSLR versions, probably longer by flange distance difference.

As example, the ultra wide zoom for EOS-M (crop sensor) isn't the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It's the 1/3rd stop slower & 1mm longer on the wide side, Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6.

Therefore I wouldn't expect 35mm f/1.2 & 10-22mm f/2.8 either.

The smaller 16-35mm f/4 is likely, though.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 14, 2018)

It will have a brilliant 50 1.2 that weighs 2KG


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 14, 2018)

Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent. If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else. The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus. The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else. Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 14, 2018)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent. If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else. The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus. The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else. Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.



Why on earth would Canon make EF not work with this platform? 

As for what a new mount enables lens design-wise, other than size (specifically the ability to build a handful of lens + body combinations that are tinier than their FF SLR counterparts), we do not know. Advanced communication to the mount, better IS, smoother video pulls, next-gen Nano USM with the ability to have a stills (fast) and video (steady pulls) mode, who knows?

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 15, 2018)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent. If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else. The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus. The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else. Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.



How many "why I am switching" youtube videos are there... 100? 1000? Clicks = $$$ Controversy = more $$$$$ People switch, almost switch (some videos titled that), and switch back. Then there's the "Should I switch" "should you switch" and should we all switch" crowds. Some are sponsored switches. I don't think there is any great avalanche of switching significance either way. Heck, I've owned 12 different car brands. My likelihood of switching camera brands is zero. This forum? Several have threatened to switch for years. Never do. Some have switched and stayed. Some have switched back.

The CR forum population is filled with all kinds, but seems to be mostly filled with top end gear sort of guys... far less likely to switch (in my opinion) than the more fluid Rebel owners.

Then there's the troll or two that probably don't own what they pretend to own. That's just part of being a troll.

I think the new camera will take EF lenses without any kind of adapter. I'm as right or wrong as anyone else. We'll see soon. If an adapter is needed? Oh well. Not the end of the world. Canon will get it right either way.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 15, 2018)

I have quit buying Oldsmobiles.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 15, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I have quit buying Oldsmobiles.



Plymouth is *******!


----------



## Talys (Jul 19, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > I have quit buying Oldsmobiles.
> ...




I quit buying Fords, and look, they stopped making cars.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2018)

;D


----------



## BillB (Jul 19, 2018)

# votes for first and second choices: 9 +12 = 21

# votes for third and fourth choices: 7 + 13 = 20

# votes for fifth and sixth choices: 5 + 13 = 18

spread pretty equally across board


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2018)

When I read about a "thin mount" I am reminded of Celtic spirituality.

I guess I'm weird.


----------

