brighter is not automatically better in a vf. sometimes contrast, ground glass roughness, magnification, etc. are compromised to achieve greater brightness and while they may allow for easier composition, they are not necessisarily easier to manually focus for the reasons stated..... jco
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 11:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??????? Godfrey, the Nikon FM has 93% coverage and .86x magnification, which is distinctly inferior to the MX's 97% coverage and .95x magnification (which is actually more coverage and as much or more magnification than any non-F body from Nikon, the closest for coverage being the F100 at 96% [albeit .76x magnification]. Of course, as a glasses-wearer you may find the MX to have too much magnification (I myself cannot stand the F3 HP finder, but I love the higher magnification non-HP finder). My MX is also at least as bright as my old F90x's finder, which is as bright or brighter than the FM2. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Don, > > I dunno what you're looking at, but I owned and worked with Nikon FM/ > FE2 cameras for 20 years. > > The FM2/FE2 have interchangeable focusing screens that are 1 stop > brighter than the FM, and the FM is on par with the MX as far as my > eye can tell, both for brightness and for magnification/eye relief. > (I fitted the FE2 "E2" screen to my FMs so mine were brighter than > the MX.) > > I always found the magnification and eye-relief a bit too much ... > the F3/T's HP finder with a little less magnification suited my eyes/ > glasses better. > > Godfrey > > On Dec 31, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Don Sanderson wrote: > >> I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. >> Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place >> on an ME Super body. >> Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM >> the view was amazing. Actually: >> T'was a beautiful thing! >
