On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the
KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF
dimmer. By
optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification
(concentrating the remaining light on a smaller area) this can be
compensated.
Regarding C: 'history' supports the suggestion that magnification is
linked
with AF-MF: For MF K-mount bodies, the magnification is between 0,82 and
0,97. For Af it's between 0,70 and 0,82...
Hope the above is correct, and helps,
Thanks. First one looks good. I cannot see tradeoff with accuracy, but
There could be a tradeoff if 'accurate' screens are by nature dimmer. I
don't know enough of the workings of matte-screens to judge whether that's
true.
OK. C as you put it is nothing to do with AF and technical decisions,
just cost-cutting.
Could be. But if that were true I find it odd that the most expensive AF
body only reaches the values of the cheapest MF bodies. I would expect
more overlap.
I think a lot of the 'lost brightness' is regained by reducing
magnification, not by making the screen brighter. If that's true, Graywolf
has a point if he says AF isn't just a feature you can turn off...
--
Regards, Lucas
