I'll admit optics I'm not so good with. I'd hardly try to grind my own
lenses but manufacturing I
know quite a bit about and optics isn't even half the problem.
John Francis wrote:
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).
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
