High magnification finders haeve their own issues. I've yet to see a finder on 35mm over .85x magnification that is easy to see all of the viewfinder area (The MX was particularly bad for that) even if you don't wear glasses. While the MX is easy to focus, it's rather hard to frame images on.
Note that DX format DSLR finders already run much higher magnifications (.95x is pretty much standard for mid/high end bodies and low-end bodies are settling on .8-.85x, which is 10-20% more than the film bodies). Apart from the ME's and MX, with their .95x(ME) and .97x(MX) finders and horridly short eyepoints, Pentax 35mm finders are typically in the .7-.8x range, with 90-92% coverage. The DSLR's are either .95x or .85x with 95% coverage. So you're getting more coverage at higher magnifications, although the effective magnification is slightly lower. You could give up coverage for more magnification, but that would cause more problems these days, as unlike the film era (which crops down both edges on a print unless you do rebates), you typically use the full frame of the uncropped digital image on at least one dimension. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > They arent not the best at VF magnification are they > and magnification is a much more important parameter > with a aps format dslr isnt it?? High eyepoint > is not important to some users at all, especially > those who dont need to wear glasses. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:53 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR > > > I'm comparing them to two models which are considered to have among the > best finders ever put in a 35mm SLR. The F3HP finder is generally > considered the best 35mm finder ever (Matched only by the Leica R8/9) > and the F100 has one of the best finders of an AF SLR (Outdone only by > the F5 and EOS 1v). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> 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
