But you can buy a Pentax 2x magnifier to slip over the viewfinder that at least takes a step in that direction. I think one of the newer RefConverters has a magnifier built-in, as well.
I remember that Keppler used a magnifier when comparing manual to autofocus in a Pop Photo article a few years ago. Of course, he found manual focus superior when using the magnifier.
However, think about the percentage of shots you take where your subject would "stand still" for this kind of fiddling. I've got the "M" magnifier, and have used it for only a handful of shots this year.
Alan Chan wrote:
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm. Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens, AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought of it, and it seems total BS (BackSpace <g>) to me.
I can't give you any figure, but it's no BS. Really, I consistently obtain sharper results with my MX than my Z-1p, with tripod or not. Even manual focus with Z-1p doesn't seem to deliver the sharpness that the MX offers. I once need to adjust the focus of my LX myself and I observed the focus on the actual film plate using a Nikon rectangular 8X loupe which just fits the film guides. What I have found stocked me. The absolute focus on the film plate would deliver ultra sharp image while only very very very slightly off would be totally different. Since the AF tolerance is quite loose on the Z-1p (turn the lens both ways and it still confirms in focus), that loose margin is wide enough to take away that "absolute" sharpness. Unfortunately, since no 8X loupe can be used on the viewfinder, the same accuracy of focus cannot be achieved in practice (except those shooting large format).
regards, Alan Chan
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
