I've heard that said before, but what kind of tolerances are we talking about? I would think that's it's not as expensive as it may seem, but is used as a value-added feature to raise the price on the high-end bodies.
Not arguing with you, but it just seems to me that everthing has to be manufactured to pretty close tolerances already. A slop of 1 - 5% in other body parts would mean the thing wouldn't fit together. It just seems counter-intuitive to me. The reaosn for looking throught the viewfinder is to see the scene one will capture. In a perfect world it would be nothing more/nothing less. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: New 12MP APS-C CMOS sensor from Sony >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:42:56 -0700 > >The primary reason for less than 100% viewfinder coverage with SLR >reflex optical systems is cost of manufacture and the resulting price >to the users. Optical systems built to this standard require larger, >heavier components with more rejects and more accuracy in assembly by >a multiplicative factor to ensure accurate registration, high quality >viewing, etc. Quality control alone is probably twice as expensive. > >Top of the line, pro SLRs have often had 100% viewfinder coverage >(Nikon F series, Canon EOS 1 and F1 series, Contax RTS series, etc) >but at a hefty premium price that the vast majority of users would >not accept. I see from Boz' site that the Pentax LX had ~98% coverage. > >It's very easy and inexpensive to produce a 100% viewfinder coverage >with a digital sensor and an LCD screen, presuming that the digital >sensor is capable of real time capture. It doesn't cost any more than >producing a viewfinder with less framing coverage. > >G > >On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > IMO, not having 100% coverage in a viewfinder is a far more serious > > issue > > than it being a little dim for one's tastes. Of course we've all > > gotten > > used to it, but I fail to see why, all things considered, that > > viewfinders > > don't approach a view that is within 1% of what is imaged on the > > recording > > medium. > > >-- >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
