The pics will be posted and you and others can make up your own minds, as will I. I did make it clear, more than once, that looking at the results will answer the question. As for the finders having a different magnification, well, unless you know which cameras were used, that might be hard to determine just from my post, John. Of course, once again I'll have to bow to the experts because i don't know squat about which cameras offer what magnification and how that effects what's seen in the finder.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 7/17/2005 2:11:16 PM > Subject: Re: Theory of Equivalency > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 10:53:01PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > We then made a few shots with the two camera/lens combinations. She's > > going to send me the JPEGs from the digi and I'll get the film processed > > after the weekend. The pics will be posted here and you all canargue about > > the validity of the test and whatever else pleases you. To our eyes today, > > theyare not equivalent - they are not the same. Well see what they look > > like when posted here, perhaps Tuesday or Wednesday. > > The only real difference you'll see through the camera is because of different > magnifications in the viewfinders. Anything else is psychological - if you > expect to see a difference, I'm sure you can convince yourself one is there.
