Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think what people are missing here is that the original poster of this idea referred only to lenses with removable heads. I'm now at home and seeing your meessage below took the head off my 135mm f/4.0 Tele-Elmar and held it in front of the lens opening of my Mamyia 645 Pro. The image forms beatifully holding the lens head with the rear element just about even with the lens opening on the body. Holding it this way, unmounted, I can't comment on the issue of coverage, but visually I was able to see an image right across the field of view. I'm very curious to learn what was kudged (or designed) to perform a proper mounting. Probably a bellow unit with a bag. Michael At 06:59 PM 11/04/96 -0400, you wrote: >LUG, > >Given the film plane to rear element distances of these vastly different >systems......I can't see how this "adaptation" can occur. > >I simply tried to hold an M lens in place over the gaping opening of a >Mamiya 645 body to see if there was a shred of focus......not a bit! >Whether focused on infinity or the closest distance.....nada. Zip. > >Of course if I want to rip the reflex mirror out, there is a ray of hope >as the tiny M lens would be required, essentially, to mount INSIDE the >645 body. > >I then tried it with a reflex lens instead of a rangefinder lens - >thinking the similar longer distances of a 35mm SLR lens might be a >better match. Again, not a whole lot to call anywhere near focused. > >What's going on here? Is someone pulling our collective legs? My doubts >will be impossible to erase until I fit an M lens on >MY< Mamiya 645! >(Sounds like the posting of this amazing discovery is about 10 days >late) :):) > >Rgds to all, > >Tom Hodge > > >