Anyone try one of these creatures.
Anyone try one of these creatures.
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
They're not great. There are two kinds - ones with no optics that preserve the IQ of the lens, but you lose the ability to focus to infinity (sort of like a very short extension tube), and ones with optics that preserve infinity focus, but the IQ takes a hit, usually a big one because of the cheap optics in such inexpensive adapters.
There's a third option for some lenses - the ultra thin Ed Mika adapters for FD tele lenses, and his conversion for the FD 55mm f/1.2.
More here: http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-arti...-your-ef-body/
converting the long telephoto would be the target. Thanks for the quick reponses.
Mike
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
In that article, Ed Mika talks about the long telephotos. They're a lot easier, apparently you can just loosen a set screw to focus 'past' infinity, then they'll focus to infinity on any EOS body...
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
Well maybe it was dining w/ a physics professor.....
We started thinking about hacking a small senor 14/16 megapixel P&S of some sort and then mounting a DSLR type lense. The idea is to use the "power of the crop" to shoot down the middle of the lens, fast f stop, onto a small sensor and get a very high effective length lens.
As this will be daylight only, not concerned about high ISO noise, pixel density not the big concern.
I expect the first prototype is going to be a "Frankencamera"
Any thoughts?
As it will be done w/ small wrenches just call 211
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
This time i'll show my maths...
Powershot A3300 IS, 16MP 4608*3456 sensor, 1/2.3".
So put that in 2:3 crop is 4608*3072.
1/2.3" sensor is 6.62mm*8.83mm, in a 2:3 crop that's 8.83*5.89mm.
That gives a crop factor of 36/8.83 = 4.07.
600mm f/4.0 lens becomes 2444mm f/16.2
To get the same pixels on target you'd need a 235MP FF sensor.
I think that's right.
Anyway, you're going to be well into the diffraction-limited region of the sensor at that stage, not sure how bad it'd be though, I want to see sample pics!
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
If you're going to put it onto a P&S sensor, you could always just go with a P&S to begin with, forget about the FD-EOS side and just get an FD-NEX or FD-4/3rds adapter, and either a NEX or PEN or Lumix camera. Try here, for example.
Also depends how small a sensor you want? The idea of 14MP on a small sensor is to get a lot more pixel-density (in absolute terms) than a 21MP FF or 18MP APS-C (as many 'pixels-on-target' as a 46MP FF sensor, if i've done my maths right). A NEX-7 may cost more than a 7D on sale, but you get as many pixels on target as a 56.8MP FF sensor.
Starting with the next-size down, you get a (micro-) 4/3rds, a 2x sensor crop factor. Something like the Lumix G3 is 16MP, upscale that to FF size (taking the ratio into account to make it 3:2) and you get 56MP (so i'd go for the nex-7 over that, if it weren't for the pricetag).
Anything smaller-sensor than that again, and you're into hacking something onto a P&S. Like a 14.7MP G10, 1/1.7" sensor is 8.96mm * 11.96mm (11.96*7.96 for 3:2 crop) which is a nice 3x sensor-crop factor. If my maths is right that ends up more like a 117MP FF sensor, that's getting a lot better (and from what i've heard, at iso100 the image quality isn't too bad). So mounting, say a 600mm f/4.0 lens onto that G10 sensor, in FF-equivalent terms it's going to look like a 1800mm f/12 (DOF-wise) lens. That's not bad.
I have no guarantee my maths is right, anyone want to check? (fixed once, think it's better now)
Last edited by Dr Croubie; 01-11-2012 at 05:21 AM.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos