On 22/2/04, GRAYWOLF disgorged: >Well, in this particular case the subject appeared larger because, >despite the >difference in formats, the *istD has a higher magnification viewfinder. >If she >had been using a Nikon D100 and a N80 (for example) instead, the subject >would >have appeared just as if it had been masked down from the film camera, >which is >exactly what it would be. Had she compaired the viewfinder image from the >*istD, >to one from, say, an ME Super they would have about the same appearance >as the >D100 compaired to an N80. > >So, simply put, the effect she sees is caused by the difference in viewfinder >magnification. And has nothing to do with, so called, effective focal lengths.
When Jostein last visited and I got a hands-on with his *ist D, I tried a *very* interesting experiment. *ist D with 28-70mm on, and D60 with 28-70mm on. Set the focal lengths the same on each camera (both were f/2.8 lenses) and held each one up to both of my eyes together. That is, *ist D to one eye, D60 to the other eye, both in portrait orientation. It was easy to hold the cameras to view with same scene in a tungsten lit room at night. What struck me was: I did *not* perceive any appreciable difference in the relative sizes of the image. The Pentax viewfinder seemed a *tad* bigger, but just on the edges of perception. Not like it was really obvious. Bare in mind that the *ist D CCD and the D60 CMOS are not identical in size, so the dreaded 'effective focal length multiplier' (what ever that is) is 1.5 on the *ist D and 1.6 on the D60. I was anticipating a much brighter view in the Pentax over the Canon, but I did not see that. I would love to try this with other DSLRs... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
