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 viewfinder is greater, that black surround makes
the DS viewfinder appear darker even if the active portion is just as
bright. Switching between a Nikon F3 and a Hasselblad 500C/M used to
have the same effect on my eyes in terms of perceived brightness.
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.
Godfrey
On Oct 2, 2005, at 7:30 AM, 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?
