Well, I do not have a DSLR, so you may be correct, but every one I looked through had this small image with lots of black space around it, so I naturally thought that they simply cropped the viewfinder to the reduced image size. But if as you imply they actually have a full sized image in the VF then I stand corrected.
Adam Maas wrote: > Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders > (except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher > magnifications on most DSLR's than 35mm film(Digital Rebels and > pentamirror Nikons excepted). > > To match my F3 (0.75x magnification) a DSLR would need 1.125x > magnification to match the magnification of the F3 (0.75 x 1.5). If you > put a DK-21M on the DSLR (1.17x magnification) you'd need a .96x > magnification finder (1.125/1.17) which is damned close to the .95x on > the K10D. > > I've compared the F100 (96%, 0.76x [x1.5x=1.14]) to a D200+DK-21M > (0.95%, 0.94x x 1.17x = 1.0998x) and they're nearly indistinguishable. > > -Adam > > > graywolf wrote: >> And these cameras really need 1.5x viewfinder magnification to match a >> similar 35mm. I suppose the eyepiece is too far from the ground glass to >> do that economically. >> >> Adam Maas wrote: >>> Note the 10D/20D/30D finder is smaller than the *istD or K10D (it's the >>> same coverage, but only .9x magnification instead of the .95x of the >>> Pentax's) > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
