"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" asks:
>Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ?
>What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ?
>I've been considering a second SLR body to go with the K1000 that may have
this
>feature.
It depends on what you want to use the camera for. I've got a body (Ricoh)
with a diagonal split-image surrounded by a microprism, a body with a
microprism only (K-1000) and one with a matte screen (PZ-1p).
For macro shots, the matte screen can't be beat. DOF is so small, and
subjects go out of focus so fast, that getting accurate (manual) focus with
it is pretty easy. The split image usually goes black under the same
magnifications, and the microprism "pixelates" the images to the point that
they are both worse than ineffective for focus -- they prevent assessing
focus in that part of the image. I find that having such an invisibility
hole in the center of my macro images to be a major handicap.
On the other hand, for scenics, portraits and just general all-around use,
the split focusing body is my choice for manual focus. With both the matte
screen and microprism-only one, I've aleays had to guess at focus. With the
split image I just have to align the edges across the split, and that is
easy. I'd actually expect that the microprism would be easier than the
matte screen, but it doesn't work that way for me (probably because my brain
processes images in a slightly offbeat way that stresses the importance of
edges).
hope that helps,
patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
