How To Fit A Canon Lens To A Nikon Camera?

Bill Funk wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:18:51 +1000, dj_nme wrote:


My question is asked because the EOS EF lenses are aperture and focus by
wire, the rings on the lens barrel communicate with the body, which then
signals the lens to move the aperture and focus accordingly.


On my EF lenses, the focus is directly linked to the focus ring; it
will focus when not attached to the body.
I just checked to make sure, and on my 28-135 IS lens, I can
half-press, alter the focus manually, and then shoot, and the altered
focus will be shown in the image.

I must have been under a false impression about the EOS mount.
So, the focus ring on an EOS lens does move the elements via mechanical
connection?

This is not focus by wire alone; the focus can be done by the body,
but is easily done by turning the focus ring. The focus ring doesn't
communicate to the body as I understand it.

From what little I've seen of EOS equipment (I use Pentax gear), there
doesn't seem to be an aperture stop-down lever like there is on a Nikon
F mount or Pentax K mount lens.
Do you think it would be possible to control the aperture when it isn't
mounted on an EOS camera, as George Dingwall wants to do on his Nikon
camera?

ASAAR wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:12:09 -0400, ASAAR wrote:


On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:59:12 -0500, ASAAR wrote:
(not really!)


On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:18:51 +1000, dj_nme wrote:
. . .
Looks like the idiots are at it again. If you want to do it right get
a better DSLR to put that lens on.

Please ignore the forged reply.


Please ignore the forger telling everyone my replies are forged. Thank
you.

So how can you prove that this post I'm replying to isn't a forgery as well?
With all three previous posts having the same identifying information in
the headers (same ISP, same "reply-to" address, same organisation, same
"x-newsreader", same "x-complaints-to" address and the same "path") it
does look very much like you wrote all three messages.
In fact, all of the recent posts from "ASAAR" seem to have all come from
the same place.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:06:41 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

Please ignore the forger telling everyone my replies are forged. Thank
you.

So how can you prove that this post I'm replying to isn't a forgery as well?
With all three previous posts having the same identifying information in
the headers (same ISP, same "reply-to" address, same organisation, same
"x-newsreader", same "x-complaints-to" address and the same "path") it
does look very much like you wrote all three messages.
In fact, all of the recent posts from "ASAAR" seem to have all come from
the same place.

If you can't tell from the message content, then assume anything
you want. That is, BTW, exactly the response sought by this bunch
of message forging sock puppet trolls. And likewise, I have no way
of knowing whether this message I'm replying to was written by the
original dj_nme, or if it was another forged message. You do the
best you can or you give up. But then you'll be providing 'aid and
comfort' to the 'terrorists', and will have allowed them to win.

ASAAR wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:06:41 +1000, dj_nme wrote:


Please ignore the forger telling everyone my replies are forged. Thank
you.

So how can you prove that this post I'm replying to isn't a forgery as well?
With all three previous posts having the same identifying information in
the headers (same ISP, same "reply-to" address, same organisation, same
"x-newsreader", same "x-complaints-to" address and the same "path") it
does look very much like you wrote all three messages.
In fact, all of the recent posts from "ASAAR" seem to have all come from
the same place.


If you can't tell from the message content, then assume anything
you want. That is, BTW, exactly the response sought by this bunch
of message forging sock puppet trolls.

If all the identifying info can be so completely forged, the there is no
way of knowing who's who.
The only other way would be to use PGP to "sign" each post with an
unforgable "signature" below the sig delimiter.
It would mean added software and the hassle of making sure that everyone
does it as well.

And likewise, I have no way
of knowing whether this message I'm replying to was written by the
original dj_nme, or if it was another forged message.

I can only say that if you look at the metadata of my posts, it will
have the same info, going all the way back for just over two years.
Before then I had a different ISP.

You do the
best you can or you give up. But then you'll be providing 'aid and
comfort' to the 'terrorists', and will have allowed them to win.

Considering how quickly the flooding trolls usually tire of their
rantings, maybe if we did nothing for a few days they will just go away
of their own accord?

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:36:34 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

You do the
best you can or you give up. But then you'll be providing 'aid and
comfort' to the 'terrorists', and will have allowed them to win.

Considering how quickly the flooding trolls usually tire of their
rantings, maybe if we did nothing for a few days they will just go away
of their own accord?

I've been assuming that he (not they) will soon tire, since I
think it's a lot more work for him than it is for me, and I don't
think that such a freewheeling spirit will continue too long after
realizing that he's committed himself to a very long period of
self-enslavement if he wants to continue his fun for the long term.
And the longer it goes continues, the less 'fun' and the more 'work'
it will be. Even trolls need to rest every now and then.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:36:34 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

If you can't tell from the message content, then assume anything
you want. That is, BTW, exactly the response sought by this bunch
of message forging sock puppet trolls.

If all the identifying info can be so completely forged, the there is no
way of knowing who's who.
The only other way would be to use PGP to "sign" each post with an
unforgable "signature" below the sig delimiter.
It would mean added software and the hassle of making sure that everyone
does it as well.

No, not quite. Nobody would be required to use it, only the ones
that would be interested in verifying identities. I purchased
several copies of the software many moons ago even though 'free'
versions of the software was available. I had met Phil Zimmerman at
a talk he gave, and thought it would be a nice thing to support his
project. I'm not sure if the software's PGP component is compatible
with WinXP. I bought the multiple copies of the software back in
the Win95 days. If the sock puppets get too obnoxious I suppose
that installing it, or an update would be a good option.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:57:23 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:36:34 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

You do the
best you can or you give up. But then you'll be providing 'aid and
comfort' to the 'terrorists', and will have allowed them to win.

Considering how quickly the flooding trolls usually tire of their
rantings, maybe if we did nothing for a few days they will just go away
of their own accord?

I've been assuming that he (not they) will soon tire, since I
think it's a lot more work for him than it is for me, and I don't
think that such a freewheeling spirit will continue too long after
realizing that he's committed himself to a very long period of
self-enslavement if he wants to continue his fun for the long term.
And the longer it goes continues, the less 'fun' and the more 'work'
it will be. Even trolls need to rest every now and then.

I guess the trolls have a lot of stamina.

Ignore the previous forgeries.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:03:38 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:36:34 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

If you can't tell from the message content, then assume anything
you want. That is, BTW, exactly the response sought by this bunch
of message forging sock puppet trolls.

If all the identifying info can be so completely forged, the there is no
way of knowing who's who.
The only other way would be to use PGP to "sign" each post with an
unforgable "signature" below the sig delimiter.
It would mean added software and the hassle of making sure that everyone
does it as well.

No, not quite. Nobody would be required to use it, only the ones
that would be interested in verifying identities. I purchased
several copies of the software many moons ago even though 'free'
versions of the software was available. I had met Phil Zimmerman at
a talk he gave, and thought it would be a nice thing to support his
project. I'm not sure if the software's PGP component is compatible
with WinXP. I bought the multiple copies of the software back in
the Win95 days. If the sock puppets get too obnoxious I suppose
that installing it, or an update would be a good option.

Ignore this forged reply. I would never go to such lengths, then the
trolls would win by making me actually do something.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:46:38 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:18:51 +1000, dj_nme wrote:


My question is asked because the EOS EF lenses are aperture and focus by
wire, the rings on the lens barrel communicate with the body, which then
signals the lens to move the aperture and focus accordingly.


On my EF lenses, the focus is directly linked to the focus ring; it
will focus when not attached to the body.
I just checked to make sure, and on my 28-135 IS lens, I can
half-press, alter the focus manually, and then shoot, and the altered
focus will be shown in the image.

I must have been under a false impression about the EOS mount.
So, the focus ring on an EOS lens does move the elements via mechanical
connection?

Yes.
At least, on the ones I have (17-40, 28-135, 70-300; and the 75-300
and 18-55 I've had).

This is not focus by wire alone; the focus can be done by the body,
but is easily done by turning the focus ring. The focus ring doesn't
communicate to the body as I understand it.

From what little I've seen of EOS equipment (I use Pentax gear), there
doesn't seem to be an aperture stop-down lever like there is on a Nikon
F mount or Pentax K mount lens.
Do you think it would be possible to control the aperture when it isn't
mounted on an EOS camera, as George Dingwall wants to do on his Nikon
camera?

On my 300D (I don't have it anymore) and my 30D, the aperture can be
stopped down with a button on the body.
I don't see a way to mechanically stop the aperture down when the lens
isn't attached to the body.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

Bill Funk wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:46:38 +1000, dj_nme wrote:
snip
Do you think it would be possible to control the aperture when it isn't
mounted on an EOS camera, as George Dingwall wants to do on his Nikon
camera?


On my 300D (I don't have it anymore) and my 30D, the aperture can be
stopped down with a button on the body.
I don't see a way to mechanically stop the aperture down when the lens
isn't attached to the body.

That sounds like a DoF preview button.
I personally would be surprised if the electronic protocol to set the
aperture on an EOS lens is a simple voltage pulse, considering that a
certain company has had such trouble (and infinitely more R&D time and
money than me) in reverse engineering the protocol to make their lenses
work on Canon bodies.