Re: AW: *ist D finder magnification
keller.schaefer wrote: ks> I still wonder, why they don't make those finders a bit larger. Would this ks> really require a very large prism - or do the manufacturers just find it ks> unimportant? I suspect larger viewfinders are perfectly possible within the current prism dimensions (the prism does not magnify per se). However the higher the magnification the less bright is the resulting image in the viewfinder. The total amount of light entering an APS sized SLR is less than half the light a full frame SLR gets. The difference must be compensated somehow by smaller viewfinders but comparable in brightness. Even so I think the manufacturers have more stringent demands in optimizing light path to minimize light loss in an APS DSLR - and this could contribute significantly to the price. Servus, Alin
Re: AW: *ist D finder magnification
on 04.01.04 18:03, graywolf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > High magnification finders have a low-viewpoint (your eye has to be very close > to it). Nikon started all this lower magnification stuff with the HP > (high-viewpoint) finder for the F3, and suddenly eyeglass wearers could see > the > whole screen without have to move their eye. Things like this are alway a > tradeoff. And that's another plus for *istD - despite having the greatest magnification of all APS-sized CCD DSLRs, its viewfinder is undoubtly of HP type with 21 mm eye point. -- Best Regards Sylwek
AW: *ist D finder magnification
I don't know about the Canons but neither a Nikon F100 nor F5 would be an alternative - they both have a .7 finder magnification. Does anybody know how cameras with digital viewfinders (like the Minolta A1) compare to this? Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Januar 2004 11:23 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: *ist D finder magnification Hi Sven, on 04 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: >I still wonder, why they don't make those finders a bit larger. Would >this really require a very large prism - or do the manufacturers just >find it unimportant? How wonderfull if the *ist D had a ME-Super-sized >finder image... Yes, but the ME Super has no built in flash ;-) Those small viewfinders are not a DSLR problem but a problem of modern SLRs with loads of electronics and/or flash components in the prism housing. Actually you have to buy a Nikon F100 or a comparable EOS if you want to get a modern SLR with a "real" viewfinder. I'm very satisfied with my *istD's viewfinder but it is also the absolute minimum. I'm wearing glasses and maybe I would have bought a Nikon D100 which is a great camera, too. But I wouldn't pay 1500-1800 Euro for a great camera with a viewfinder that I cannot use. Cheers, Heiko
