I think that's an excellent idea, Gonz. Now where's my boxcutter.. But seriously, I'd welcome a feature like that..
Cheers, Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gonz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 4:34 AM Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification > Since the *istD is using only a portion of the full 35mm frame, I wonder > why they dont do something like engrave a tiny grove showing where > 100% is on the viewfinder, but cover something like 110% of the frame, > so you can see where you are cutting if off in context. I don't know > that the issues around alignment would be, probably the same as you > mentioned. But maybe if they had a simple means of alignment with this > technique when it was built using some type of fixture, it might not be > so bad? I'm just musing here... > > rg > > > John Francis wrote: > >>I don't quite buy that. What determines the size of the viewfinder image is the > >>size of the frame the screen sits in (as long as we are talking +/- a > >>millimeter). Make that frame a little bit larger and you have a 100% > >>viewfinder. Of course, all elements that attach to the mirror box have to be > >>'accurate' but I don't see why that would be so difficult here. > > > > > > Ah, but that's precisely what *is* difficult. It's not just the size of the > > viewfinder - it's position the boundaries accurately. > > > > It's easy(-ish) to make a 95% viewfinder, because you only have to position the > > viewfinder region to +/- one mm. Make the frame a little bit larger, though, > > and you don't have a 100% viewfinder; if you're off by that same 1mm you might > > have a viewfinder that showed 97.5% of the image, cropping off 2.5% on the left, > > and showing an extra 2.5% on the right that wasn't part of the true image area. > > This would be bad. If you can see it through the viewfinder, people expect it to > > show up on the image. The extra 5% allows for a certain amount of inaccu racy. > > To get a true 100% viewfinder (no more, no less) would require at least an order > > of magnitude more accuracy - everything would have to be aligned to a precision > > of 0.1mm or better. That would require a camera considerably more rigid, and > > manufactured to much closer tolerances, than consumer-level prices can support. > > > > > >
