'The binocular thing' depends on how the finder is designed (what percentage of the film format the finder covers and with what magnification it displays its image to the eye). The MX has the highest magnification (0,97x) of all Pentax SLRs (AFAIK) so even though the 50 is more 'wide angle' than the 55, the MX finder makes a particular detail appear the same size than with the 55 on the Spotmatic (with its lower finder magnification).
Higher finder magnification is not necessarily 'better' IMO. The MX's 0,97x together with its 95% coverage make the finder image almost too large. I find it easier to overlook and assess a finder image if it is a little bit smaller. Sven Zitat von Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yup. 55mm on the KX and 50mm on the MX. Both do the binocular > thing. This can be a help at times. > > Peter Alling wrote: > > The viewfinder image has a bit to do with this as well. I can't say for > > sure > > why other manufactures changed from 55mm to 50mm lenses as standard normal > > but heres an exercise that owners of both a MX and a SP-F can do. (I think > > this should also work with an esII, KM, KX K1000 and possibly others)). > > Mount > > a 55mm on the Spotty, and a 50mm on the MX, I used the SMCT f1.8 and > > SMCP-M f1.7. > > Focus both on a target then hold each as if for a vertical shot and look > > through > > both finders at the same time. You will notice that the images blend > > together as > > if you were using a pair of binoculars. If you reverse the lens > > combination, a 50 on > > the Spotty and a 55 on the MX this no longer works, (and it was giving > > me a headache). > > This of course shows 1.) Why Pentax decided to change from 55 to 50 as > > their standard > > normal lens. 2.) I have way to much time on my hands. > > > > > > At 04:49 PM 9/14/03 -0700, you wrote: > > > >> Oh, I believe you. I've tested it grossly for myself. Somewhere in there > >> is the true lifesize viewfinder image. > >> But, certainly one choice must stick out as being the most accurate > >> choice, no? > >> Let's see. 58mm. Yeah, that will work. > >> 'Some time later' someone said, "Nope, 55mm is really better. More > >> lifelike. We have all this expensive instrumentation to prove it!" > >> Yet later, it's "Nope. Not quite. 50mm is definitely it. Change all of > >> them to 50mm." > >> "Final answer?" > >> "Yes, final answer." > >> > >> keith <g> > >> > >> > >> "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > >> > > >> > They used 58mm first, then 55, now 50 > >> > because it made the finder 1:1 like I said before. > >> > JCO > > > > > > To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything > > is designed by > > the post office, even the sleaze. > > O'Rourke, P.J. > > > > > > >
