I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a viewfinder if you think the physical size of the pentaprism/mirror makes any significant contribution to eventual image size.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:55:38PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: > I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't > understand the cost savings in > making a smaller viewfinder. > > John Francis wrote: > > >On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: > > > > > >>Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > >> > >>Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera > >>doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only > >>for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the > >>LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for > >>focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no > >>technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for > >>that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but > >>still cost rules). > >> > >> > > > >There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless > >you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the > >smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). > > > >The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot > >of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To > >get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had > >to give. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to > >move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout).
