Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The FD to EOS transition
#1
Just curious about what happened when Canon switched from FD to EOS. In particular, I was wondering about the flange distance, where FD was 42mm compared to the 44mm of EOS. Did they say why that change was made?

44mm is still relatively short compared to other current full frame compatible DSLR mounts. Sony are at 44.5mm, Pentax at 45.5mm, and Nikon at 46.5mm (values may be rounded).

I have a converted FD 50mm f/1.2 and it is annoying that when used at distant focus, the mirror hits the lens rear! I have heard of some people shaving their mirrors, but the lens isn't worth it for me.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#2
Quote:Just curious about what happened when Canon switched from FD to EOS. In particular, I was wondering about the flange distance, where FD was 42mm compared to the 44mm of EOS. Did they say why that change was made?


44mm is still relatively short compared to other current full frame compatible DSLR mounts. Sony are at 44.5mm, Pentax at 45.5mm, and Nikon at 46.5mm (values may be rounded).


I have a converted FD 50mm f/1.2 and it is annoying that when used at distant focus, the mirror hits the lens rear! I have heard of some people shaving their mirrors, but the lens isn't worth it for me.
 

I don't know why they changed the flange distance. Given that other companies have longer distances, there  must be mechanical reasons to make the distance not too short, i.e. size of mirror of course. I still have an A1 and several FD lenses. I remember when doing macro with the 100mm macro and several extension tubes, or the bellows, that there was significant vignetting in the viewfinder, i.e. the mirror was not covering the whole light path in that situation. Perhaps Canon increased the mirror as part of the redesign to give better viewfinder coverage? I guess I could have a look to see if the A1 mirror is different from an old EOS film camera.

 

Another thing to investigate is whether advances in shutter development required a bit more space for the shutter?

 

Lastly, the AF system behind the mirror had to be added, although that seems unlikely to have added to depth.
#3
Quote:Just curious about what happened when Canon switched from FD to EOS. In particular, I was wondering about the flange distance, where FD was 42mm compared to the 44mm of EOS. Did they say why that change was made?
A lot of thought went into the EOS mount. The flange distance got a bit longer because that made the mirror box a bit bigger, providing enough room for AF sensors. The diameter is bigger than other SLR mounts, to provide for big apertures easily (50mm f1, 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2). The contacts provided aperture and AF control with in-lens motors. The mount got a bayonet locking mechanism, which turns out to be more reliable and easier to use than the FD breach lock.

Quote:44mm is still relatively short compared to other current full frame compatible DSLR mounts. Sony are at 44.5mm, Pentax at 45.5mm, and Nikon at 46.5mm (values may be rounded).


I have a converted FD 50mm f/1.2 and it is annoying that when used at distant focus, the mirror hits the lens rear! I have heard of some people shaving their mirrors, but the lens isn't worth it for me.
They never considered the FD lenses because an adapter needs to be a certain thickness, which then would have meant an even shorter flange distance for EOS than for FD, and less room for AF sensors. Canon had enough insight in the matter to know what all was involved, after their early AF endeavors (T80 for instance). 
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)