On 19 Aug 2004 at 20:01, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2004 at 15:00, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>
> > On 19 Aug 2004 at 11:07, Sinha, Shashvat wrote:
> >
> > > > http://members.cox.net/byteseller/EFS-WEB/EFS-WEB.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > What I found interesting is that he used his regular EOS 10D to check out his
> > > modification. If something went wrong, he'd have damaged a $1000 camera. He
> > > could have walked over to a photo store and bought a second hand EOS rebel
> > > body to do the check, probably $100. Heck, I would have lent him mine :)
> >
> > The problem is that mirrors of each type most likely differ slightly
> > in 'swing-radius'....
> > Not that a miscalculation means disaster by default....I have had
> > Minolta AF camera's jam because the Russian 16mm fisheye didn't clear
> > the mirror, by only 1/10mm....slightly unscrewing (M42-adapter) did
> > the trick, without messing focus noticeably.
> > And not that reworking the lens to fit an 10D means it could also be
> > used on a full-frame camera (with all downsides of image-circle)).
>
> Oh btw, you would also want these lenses for the APS-cameras of the
> past of course....:))
> At least for as long as one still can buy APS-film....;))
Of course, unless the rear of the lens can be really cut down, it
will never work on legacy-based camera's like
DCS1/3/5/520/560/D2000/D6000....since those all have a full-size
mirror....;((
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
