Compared to a 50mm on 135 film it would be about 33mm.
Compaired to rule-of-thumb it would be about 29mm.
But to give a life size image in the viewfinder he would need about 82mm.
Does that make it any clearer?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
graywolf wrote:
Now the istD has a 95% viewfinder magnification that is the same as an
MX. BUT, the screen size is only 2/3rds of that of a 135 film camera. So I would estimate that you would need about an 82mm lense to give a life size viewfinder image, so a 77/1.8 limited or 85 ought to be close.
Okay, now I am completely confused. Seems that should be too high a number, that it should be in the reverse, less than a 50mm, not more. Not that it matters and I am not good at math. And it really doesn't matter. :-)
But it raises another question in my mind. If it depends on the viewfinder magnification as well, would that mean on cameras with less magnification than 95 or 97 % that a 50mm would NOT look normal (through the viewfinder)?
I guess the camera industry arrived at standards, re 50mm, that don't have a lot to do with anything.
Marnie aka Doe Well, some. ;-)
