HUH? I looked thru an istD finder and was shocked how small (tunnel vision ) the image looked compared to ANY of my Pentax (full frame) 35mm film bodies. Why are you comparing them to some of the worst slr finders in this regard that arent even pentax made models? I agree with graywolf that they have a long way to go if they ( pentax dslrs ) are all similar to the istD at this point and the goal is to better match the pentax 35mm film bodies views. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
