On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 04:30:21PM +0200, 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 camera like the istD to have a > similar viewfinder, in brightness and magnification?
Err - it does. According to Boz's equipment page, both have 0.95x magnification with a 50mm lens mounted. I've just put an F50/1.7 on my *ist-D, and an A50/1.7 on my MX. 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 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. So why does everyone say the MX (or ME Super, or ...) have much brighter viewfinders than the *ist-D? Is it because people are comparing an MX with an f1.4 lens to a *ist-D with an f4 zoom?
