I had a discussion with a friend the other day, who is much concerned about finder quality. He basically says that the way an image is displayed in the viewfinder has a lot to do with how good the photographer can assess it and how good eventually the final picture will be. I think this is a bit stretched, but at least we both agree that the LX has a very, very good finder image and that things have deteriorated since then... What is also clear is that AF cameras can somehow 'live' with smaller finder images.
As the size of the finder image depends on its magnification we were comparing the magnifications of various cameras. Some values, taken from 'Dimitrov' or from owner literature: MX 0,97 LX 0,95 Z1P 0,8 MZ-S 0,75 *ist 0,7 (there is a trend, n'est ce pas?) Now comes the *ist D with a stated finder magnification of 0,95 (!) which sounds pretty good and while its finder image is said to be larger than the competition it still is much smaller than that of any of the analogue bodies. This of course comes from the fact that it magnifies the smaller sensor. I still think that Pentax is cheating with the 0,95 figure as they base it on a 50mm lens. If stating finder magnifications is to serve a purpose (other than to fill the data sheet), then this figure should be given for a 'standard' lens focal length that relates to the sensor size. This way, a direct comparison of finder image size could be done. Pentax themselves vary the focal length, as for the 67 they state 0,75 for a 105mm lens - and they should have done so for the *ist D as well. Based on a 35mm lens, the *ist D finder magnification figure would look like 0,62 - and would illustrate how small the finder image really is. Sven
