----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: New 12MP APS-C CMOS sensor from Sony
> 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. I sent this to the list Sept 02, 2004. I guess it bears repeating. I spell checked it this time.... It's not just positioning of the screen that's important. The lens mount also has to be in perfect registration, and the camera has to be solidly enough built to keep it that way. The mirror alignment is critical, and cannot shift it's rest position at all over some tens of thousand of exposures. The prism must be precisely aligned as well as the viewfinder elements. In order to build a camera with a 100% accurate viewfinder, you cannot use modern assembly line techniques. You are back to the old school of bench building each camera individually past a certain point. 100% accurate means just that. There is no allowable slop in the build. That means shimming each component of the viewing system in piece by piece and ensuring that perfect alignment is maintained. This may not be an especially difficult task, but it is a time consuming one, and ensures that the camera in question will not be a mass produced item. It also ensures that the product will be substantially more expensive than the same camera without the 100% viewfinder. and, from Aug 31, 2004, same thread... When I bought my Nikon F2s, I was told by the rep that a significant portion of the cost of the camera went into ensuring the 100% viewfinder was 100% accurate. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
