On 2006-06-26 19:29, John Francis wrote: > Put an MX and a *ist-D up, side by side, one to each eye (you'll > have to do that with the cameras in portrait position), each with > a 50mm lens fitted, and objects seen through the two viewfinders > *will* appear to be the same size (and will appear just a little > smaller than you would see with the naked eye). It's just that > the MX will crop to one rectangualr portion of the total field > of view, while the *ist-D will crop to a somewhat smaller one. > > Most viewfinders, in fact, try to present their image at an > apparent distance of around 1m from the eye. So if you imagine > a wall about 1m in front of you the MX viewfinder (with a 50mm > lens) is just about like looking through a rectangular 30" x 20" > window in that wall, while the *ist-D viewfinder (with the same > 50mm lens) is like looking through a 20" x 13.3" window. But > in each case the objects, as seen through those windows, are the > same apparent size.
Thanks for the clarification. I now understand better what magnification means. I did not expect that what you see in the viewfinder of a DSLR is that much smaller than the image of a full frame. Some people do consider this as an advantage. Personally, I thought the wider, the better, as long as you will see the full image. Former SLRs where a good setup for me. 'tunneling' into a DSLR was an effect that I expected more from the mirror viewfinders (Olympus 4/3rds), while I now feel it's directly linked to the sensor size. But I expected 1:1.5 magnifcation of the viewfinder before (comparing SLR:DSLR). - Martin -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
