of optical viewfinders
What difference does the optical viewfinder make in this case?
As long as it is not a RF, you would notice, whether its an optical or
electronic.
(And it looks like the guys figured it out before he took a shot.)
Once in a while, I pull my camera out quickly, start with changing
I must have come into the middle of a discussion.
Are you saying that you focus with the camera turned off, then turn it
on and hit the shutter button? That sounds like an unusual method of
work.
I'm a little confused here.
gs
George Sinos
gsi...@gmail.com
No, I'm saying that the focusing screen was unusable for manual focusing
when the camera was not powered up. No matter how you turned the
focusing ring the viewfinder seemed dark and unfocused.
Once power was turned on the viewfinder brightened and manual focus was
possible... Well mostly,
Idiot using live view when he has one of the best OVFs in the business...
On 8/2/2012 2:40 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in
the bank account).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
James King
Bob W wrote on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:45:50 -0700:
I've got one of those on my trousers.
What? You mean you have one one that divides into three pieces and
extends less than one inch??? You probably
What difference does the optical viewfinder make in this case?
As long as it is not a RF, you would notice, whether its an optical or
electronic.
(And it looks like the guys figured it out before he took a shot.)
Once in a while, I pull my camera out quickly, start with changing the
mode and
originale-
From: Igor Roshchin
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:20 PM
To: PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: One of the advantages of optical viewfinders
What difference does the optical viewfinder make in this case?
As long as it is not a RF, you would notice, whether its an optical or
electronic
and got down to work.
Cheers,
frank
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. --
Christopher Hitchens
--- Original Message ---
From: Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org
Sent: August 3, 2012 8/3/12
To: PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: One of the advantages of optical viewfinders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
I just got a Zeiss Ikon ZM. I haven't done it yet, but I'm just
waiting for the day that I leave the lens cap on.
--
Kent Brede
http://kentonbrede.com/
--
PDML
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Mark Roberts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
let him who is without sin cast the first stone...
O:(
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
Hate it when that happens. I worried about it using the X2, but fixed
the problem with a little accessory:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25268645/leica-X2-auto-cap.jpg
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Mark Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
I've got one of those on my trousers.
B
Hate it when that happens. I worried about it using the X2, but fixed
the problem with a little accessory:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25268645/leica-X2-auto-cap.jpg
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Mark Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
You can tell he is a pro, he never showed a look of surprise when he took off
the cap.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com
Subject: One of the advantages of optical viewfinders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
Mark Roberts - Photography
Bob W wrote on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:45:50 -0700:
I've got one of those on my trousers.
What? You mean you have one one that divides into three pieces and extends
less than one inch??? You probably shouldn't make a public announcement...
Regards, Jim
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
TMI...
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM, James King jamesk8...@mac.com wrote:
Bob W wrote on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:45:50 -0700:
I've got one of those on my trousers.
What? You mean you have one one that divides into three pieces and extends
less than one inch??? You probably shouldn't make
There's been some discussion about view finders and their virtues. My
1st Pentax slr was actually a Ricoh which used the pentax screw-mount .
I can't remember the model but it's still around the basement somewhere
and I still have the lenses (mostly Sears JC Penny). I picked this
model
I found te discussion on the comparisons among various camera viewfinders
interesting. It brougt back memories of past cameras :-)
As a recent buyer of the K10 and still having the istDL, I honestly have not
paid a lot of attention between the two viewfinders. This PM I took both out
with zoom
On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, John Whittingham wrote:
I thought Pentax DSLR's had probably the best viewfinders of any
sub $1000
DSLR, not that I'd lose any sleep over it -:)
I have compared the Nikon D200 against the Pentax *ist DS. I find
them about equal in viewfinder quality
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, John Whittingham wrote:
I thought Pentax DSLR's had probably the best viewfinders of any
sub $1000
DSLR, not that I'd lose any sleep over it -:)
I have compared the Nikon D200 against the Pentax *ist DS. I find
them about equal
impression, might have been a different lens.
I didn't think it necessary to say that D200/D80/*ist DS/K10D all
have pretty darn good viewfinders. The tiny differences between them
are insignificant.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
it could well have been a
mistaken impression, might have been a different lens.
I didn't think it necessary to say that D200/D80/*ist DS/K10D all
have pretty darn good viewfinders. The tiny differences between them
are insignificant.
Godfrey
If it was the kit 18-135 on the D80
in particular you noticed as different.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:29 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: viewfinders
On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, John Whittingham
for that without the variable
diopter.
Same here.
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a distance of
about 3 to 4 inches. Sole exception: an old Kiev 60 prism that used
graywolf wrote:
Just a bit of historical interest. Back in the 1960's the thing to do
was have an Exacta rotating eyecup adapted to your camera. Not only did
it have a place for a diopter, but the diopter rotated with the eyecup
so you could have your optician make one with astigmatism
I don't think they directly fit anything but the old VX series Exactas,
as I remember there was a place in NYC that adapted them to Nikon F's
that was about 1961-62.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
luben karavelov wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had a special set of lenses made up for that without the variable
diopter.
Same here.
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a distance
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a
distance of
about 3 to 4 inches. Sole exception: an old Kiev 60 prism that used
On 17/11/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
If you're experiencing a quick change in your vision like that, it's
time to go see your eye doctor.
MARK!!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
- Original Message -
From: Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: Viewfinders and no-line glasses - was: Life is beautiful :-)
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I take it normal camera
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're experiencing a quick change in your vision like that, it's
time to go see your eye doctor.
Well, not that quick. My optician says everything is normal for someone
of my age (early 50s). Other than the viewfinder problem, my vision
hasn't
no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a distance of
about 3 to 4 inches. Sole exception: an old Kiev 60 prism that used to
be blurry before now is tack-sharp. The former one that worked well for
years now doesn't.
Now
Now, is there someone around here who can make any sense of all this?
Well, not I - g. I'm wondering though, now, Ralf, how you would find
using the special finders on your new LX (specifically, the FB1 base
fitted with the FC-1 action finder)...
Further info: I am far-sighted and my eyes
I'm wondering though, now, Ralf, how you would find using the special
finders on your new LX (specifically, the FB1 base fitted with the FC-1
action finder)...
The FC-1 has an eyepoint of 60mm, as compared to the other LX finders,
whose eyepoints are generally 15mm or so. To me, the effect of
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had a special set of lenses made up for that without the variable
diopter.
Same here.
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry
for a half minute is that the ME Super viewfinder
looked brighter probably just because the image was so LARGE through
there. Even if both viewfinders have the same intensity of light
coming off of the focusing screen to the user's eye, the older
(larger) viewfinders are going to seem brighter
to use.
CR My impression, based on the non-scientific method of having just
CR looked through one for a half minute is that the ME Super viewfinder
CR looked brighter probably just because the image was so LARGE through
CR there. Even if both viewfinders have the same intensity of light
CR coming off
Hi Bruce ...
A good point, although one I cannot really comment upon other than to say
I've never used a lens as slow as a 5.6 so I cannot make any comparisons.
However, I have used a number of 3,5 lenses on cameras from the original
Spottie through the LX, and have ~just~ started to use them on
Hmm. When I put a 50mm f/1.4 lens on both MX and DS, and bring them
both to my eyes like a pair of binoculars, the image brightness and
magnification is the same. The biggest difference is that the MX
viewfinder is larger and shows a larger field of view, so the total
brightness of the
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Also, the MX viewfinder has a shorter eye relief, which makes it harder to
see the edges of the frame without moving my eye around. The DS sits just
right for my vision with glasses.
Having to move my eye around (and the split finder which did not
On Oct 3, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Also, the MX viewfinder has a shorter eye relief, which makes it
harder to see the edges of the frame without moving my eye around.
The DS sits just right for my vision with glasses.
Having to move my eye around (and the split finder
I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
istD, makes me want to cry.
I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
what would it take for a not full frame camera like the istD to
On Oct 2, 2005, at 9:30, Juan Buhler wrote:
I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
istD, makes me want to cry.
I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
what would it
Hi Juan ...
I essentially made the same comment a few days ago. As nice as the Pentax
DSLR viewfinders are supposed to be, they do not compare favorably with the
view through the Leica, MX, LX, and even the earlier K-body cameras. Thus
far, I enjoy using the Leicas and the MX far more than
...
j
On 10/2/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan ...
I essentially made the same comment a few days ago. As nice as the Pentax
DSLR viewfinders are supposed to be, they do not compare favorably with the
view through the Leica, MX, LX, and even the earlier K-body cameras. Thus
On 10/2/05, Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think about it, there's no way that a smaller screen could
possibly look as big and bright in a viewfinder. Less total light
hitting the surface area of the screen = less light to your eyes. No
way around that without some sort of
Or maybe a full frame viewfinder with the system which Pentax used
with their Panoramic mode... So you can cycle between full
frame/actual framing.
Of course actual framing will be less enlarged but... well, dream!
2005/10/2, Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 10/2/05, Charles Robinson [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: RE: Viewfinders
You've made an interesting discovery in that we often get used to
something - in this case the DSLR viewfinder - and forget what we've lost
or given up. It's easy to say how good the D and DS finders are compared
Juan Buhler wrote:
I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
istD, makes me want to cry.
I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
what would it take for a not full frame
.
Looking through the viewfinders, magnification and brightness
looks as close to identical as I can measure with the naked eye.
Sure, the image area in the MX viewfinder covers a larger angle
than what I see through the *ist-D; that's because of the crop
due to the smaller sensor. And in any case
Which makes critical composing somewhat difficult ... at least it does for
me.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Francis
And in any case you won't find any
AF Camera with as large a viewfinder image as you get in the MX;
there has to be somewhere to display the additional information.
Except to match the MX the *istD viewfinder would have to have a 1.425x
magnification, and you would need to use a 1/2 stop faster lens to get
the same brightness, everything else being equal.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Actually, you'd need a whole one stop faster a lens if you wanted to
enlarge the (cropped) viewfinder image of a *ist-D to match the size
of the viewfinder image in the MX.
But that's not relevant. The complaint was that the *ist-D didn't
have the same brightness, or the same magnification, as
I had the chance to compare DL and Ds side by side in
a shop. I didn't go too deep since I was not going to
buy any of them so I didn't want to take too much time
from the seller.
They had no batteries so the most obvious thing to
compare were construction feeling and wiewfinder.
The DL was silver
About the viewfinder, both had a Sigma 18-125 mounted.
Although my brain was all the time: 'remember, the DS
has a pentaprism and the DL a pentamirror...', my eyes
could't see the difference. Actually, if someone tells
me 'you MUST choose the brighter', I would choose the
DL.
Jaume, did you
I'd check the focusing ability which is easier. I'd bet the Ds...
Carlos Royo wrote:
About the viewfinder, both had a Sigma 18-125 mounted.
Although my brain was all the time: 'remember, the DS
has a pentaprism and the DL a pentamirror...', my eyes
could't see the difference. Actually, if
As I said, it was a quick comparison...and I didn't
perceived differences in magnification when changing
between one and the other. I am sure that, with more
time, I could have find it...
My point is that I expected the difference to be more
obvious.
Anyway, there are other differences that make
Don't forget early Ricoh XR bodies, like the XR-1 XR-1s (manual exposure only),
XR-2 and XR-2s (manual or aperture priority), and their Sears twins, like my
two KS Auto bodies. Some later XR bodies, too (XR-6? XR-7? XR-10?), and their
Sears twins.
Doe any Chinon bodies have an aperture window?
-0700
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
I think MZ-3 has pentaprism which is the selling point.
Unfortunately, it was married with low quality eyepiece, just like
all other MZ models except the MZ-S.
Alan Chan
ICQ: 42516180
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
While your on the subject, what's in the MZ
That's very reassuring to know.
John
John Whittingham
Technician
-- Original Message ---
From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:39:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
Pentaprism.
John Whittingham wrote:
While your
I've never understood the material/construction differences between the
different qualities of viewfinder. Could someone explain it?
Thanks,
Joe
Hi!
JT I've never understood the material/construction differences between the
JT different qualities of viewfinder. Could someone explain it?
Joe I know of two parameters:
1. Penta Prism (old and/or expensive) vs Penta Mirror (modern and/or
cheap) - construction.
2. Coated glass vs Plastic of
poorly made porro prism is a piece of junk.
--
Joseph Tainter wrote:
1. Penta Prism (old and/or expensive) vs Penta Mirror (modern and/or
cheap) - construction.
Thanks, Boris. Those were the terms I was looking for.
But what is the difference between prism and mirror viewfinders? Don't
prism
While your on the subject, what's in the MZ-3?
John
John Whittingham
Technician
-- Original Message ---
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:05:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
A pentaprism is a 5 sided solid glass prism. A penta
a porro prism is a solid piece of glass.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
A well made (expensive) porro prism (another name for a mirror prism) is
almost
as good
Having just been enabled with an AF080C, I thought I would ask a
question about people's opinions on an old (= cheap) Pentax with a
decent viewfinder and TTL. My background follows.
I have an MZ-50 and an MZ-5n. They are meant to differ a lot in
viewfinder capability, but I honestly cannot see
I only have the ME super and ZX5n to compare the Super A to, and it is
somewhere between the two of them. Well, I actually have a P3n (same
viewfinder as a P30) and it is decidely better than that. Probably closer
in brightness (but not quite) to the ME super with the magnification of the
P30.
finder on the tripod. Light entering the finder on the other
listed cameras will affect exposure readings.
JD
-Original Message-
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Viewfinders and TTL on top
Having
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: digital viewfinders
Must prove something, Steve. But I am not sure what. I remember watching
at GFM
during the Camera Clinic and about 90% of the tourists (not the more
photographically sophisticated clinic attendees) were still using
Maybe. I do wonder if the use of the digital is so distinctive (looking
at the back screen) that I only noticed these. I did try to pay
attention the rest of the day, and all the cameras I saw were those
boxier digitals, as opposed to the more rectangular film PS models.
Steven Desjardins
I think some one already has. At least I remeber that there was some
attachment for the Coolpix 500 that cover the LCD so it made a better
viewfinder. I think is was eye level, however.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me
that it would
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film
: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:14 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: digital viewfinders
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:32 -0500
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here
How about the Canon G1, G2, G3, and G5. As well as some of the Nikon
CoolPix models.
Len
---
* There's room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed
potatoes.
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: digital viewfinders
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera
Mike article over at photo.net got me thinking. The basic *ist's viewfinder
doesn't seem too exciting and the *ist D's viewfinder seem's ok, but I guess
we'll know more when it comes out this summer. Right now I have a ZX-L with
a fairly bad viewfinder, what are the chances of a good
I think you shouldn't expect too much from any of the future models, except
perhaps the flagship model if there will ever be any (MZ-S is an
indication).
regards,
Alan Chan
Mike article over at photo.net got me thinking. The basic *ist's
viewfinder doesn't seem too exciting and the *ist D's
I have Pentax' brochure on the K1000, and it says 0.88x magnification
with standard 50mm lens, focused at infinity. Are you saying that's incorrect?
Or did you mispeak, and you really meant the KX?
Mike Johnston wrote:
The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
No one knows the coverage of the K1000. I suspect not even Pentax knows.
It
was a closely guarded secret during the cold war,
Illogical.
From my experience with K1000's, the reason no one
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
No one knows the coverage of the K1000. I suspect not even Pentax knows.
It was a closely guarded secret during the cold war,
Illogical.
From my experience
I have Pentax' brochure on the K1000, and it says 0.88x magnification
with standard 50mm lens, focused at infinity. Are you saying that's incorrect?
Or did you mispeak, and you really meant the KX?
That's magnification, not coverage. Two different kettles of fish.
The manual I have shows
From my experience with K1000's, the reason no one knows the viewfinder
coverage is because there was so much sample to sample variance that they
couldn't publish an absolute value.
Well, now, that's logical enough ~ but since they DID 'publish' it,
I'm supposing you're simply telling me
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston
Subject: Re: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Sample variation for coverage makes no sense at all to me. I don't think
they could do that if they tried. I can, however, believe that the spec
was
changed from run to run, which would account
Mike Johnston wrote:
I have Pentax' brochure on the K1000, and it says 0.88x magnification
with standard 50mm lens, focused at infinity. Are you saying that's incorrect?
Or did you mispeak, and you really meant the KX?
That's magnification, not coverage. Two different kettles of
I went straight to my Magic Lantern Guide for the K, M and Spotmatic
series, and find the K1000 is in yet another one of their
books...which I've not bought yet. Hmmm.
Keith,
I'll save you the trouble: the coverage figure is not in there, either.
And my buddy at Pentax cannot find a spec
According to Carl Shipman's How to Select Use Pentax SLR Cameras (HP
Books, edition with 1980 as the last copyright date), the Pentax K1000
specifications are:
Magnification: .87 with 50mm lenses, life-size with 55mm lenses
Viewfinder shows 95% of the frame
The same book lists .88 with 50mm
The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
At 10:09 PM 2/15/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
coverage.
I also need the depth of the KX
At 12:54 PM 2/16/2003 -0500, you wrote:
The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
So that should be 88% mag.
At 10:09 PM 2/15/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about
The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
No one knows the coverage of the K1000. I suspect not even Pentax knows. It
was a closely guarded secret during the cold war, and now no one can located
the files where the information was kept. It's fated to remain an
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
coverage.
I also need the depth of the KX body without a lens attached. And let
me be optimistic, the weight of the KX-motor and KM-motor bodies would
be
Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
coverage.
K10000.88x mag (with 50mm lens, focused at infinity)
Doesn't mention coverage.
--
Mark Roberts
]
===
internetowy magazyn o fotografii
- Original Message -
From: Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras
Hi, Boz.
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please
check out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification
ratio and coverage.
From the KX manual - 0.88x magnification with 50mm lenses
(life-size with 55mm lens). Dioptry -0.8. 93% field of view. The
depth is
Boz.
I have the K1000 manual.
I'll be right back:)
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:09:49 +0100
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above
Brooks
Begin Original Message
From: Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:09:49 +0100
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please
check
out what the manual says about
An excerpt from Michael H. Reichmann's Hassleblad H1 review on
photo.net:
When I first brought the camera up to my eye I was immediately taken
with how bright and clear the viewfinder is. Up until now my gold
standard for camera viewfinders has been the current Pentax 645 NII. I
didnt have one
I tried out an F80 today, with a USM(or whatever they call it) lens, and
although it was quiet and silky smooth, it didnt achieve focus lock any
faster than my Pentaxes. The motor moved to the right 'region' of focus
quicker, but it then did a lot of fidgetting before deciding it was
happy - my
FWIW, it's an AF-S lens. If the light level was low, the AF may hunt when using
all but the center AF sensor, since that is the only cross pattern one. I also
don't know how the AF was configured. In single shot mode the default is to
find the closest subject based on the reading from all the
Erik wrote:
One of the things I've noticed with the modern AF cameras is the overall
degeneration of the viewfinders compared to mechanical cameras.
Reply:
I haven't noticed this at all..Quite the oposite in fact.
Erik:
Why is it so difficult to put a decent viewfinder on the newer models
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
