Your reply here doesn't match your original Question/comment which was that maybe the aperture Cam was removed to allow larger rear elements. It wasn't because of the reasons I stated. Your response shown below mine makes no sense. Don't quote me and then switch subject. I want talking about FD at all and either were you In this case. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: The JCO survey > No because there isnt room for an extra large element > Like there was in the Canon EOS design. There are > Other dohickeys going around in the mount edge, most > Noticably the aperture stop down lever. The two issues are lens mount to film/sensor plane distance and whether the mechanical linkages on the lens will crash the mirror. The first is a technical design issue, the EOS mount would have to be the same registration distance as the FD mount. Since the egistration distance only differs by 2mm, this would not seem to be much of a problem. The other may be more complicated, and the user may have had to be willing to modify the lens. The price one pays for progress. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
