RE: Trading resolution for depth of field- IMAGE MAGNIFICATION
For the sake of clarity, I neglected to post the definition of in-camera image magnification (M). in-camera image magnification is the ratio of object size to image size. Longer lenses and shorter object distances increase magnification, shorter lenses and longer distances decrease magnification. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
viewfinder magnification (was Re: K100D SR)
On 2006-06-27 15:43, John Francis wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I now understand better what magnification means. I did not expect that what you see in the viewfinder of a DSLR is that much smaller than the image of a full frame. Note that I'm comparing an MX (an early, minimal-automation camera) with the *ist-D. The later Pentax bodies, with more information to be shown in the viewfinder, dedicate less of the total area to the image - they have to leave room for electronic readouts for aperture, shutter speed, focus point selection, focus confirmation, over/under exposure, etc. The MX had minimal additional information; the shutter speed was superimposed on the image area, and the aperture was visible through a small window that let you see the aperture ring on the lens. The only extra information was the five coloured LEDs for exposure (an electronic form of the old match needle metering). By the time you get to the auto focus bodies, though, the magnification has been cut back to somewhere between 0.7x and 0.8x. For bodies such as the MZ-6 (aka the ZX-L) or MZ-7 (ZX-7) the total image area, at 90% coverage and 0.7x magnification, is only a little larger than the *ist-D (95% coverage and 95% magnification of a rectangle only 67% of full frame). That's an interesting info. Yes, the MX seems to be very special, where MX-6/7 are special on the other edge of the scale. The *istDL / K100D is within a different range than the *istD / *istDS. From http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/viewfinder.html I learn that a magnification of 1.00 would be perfect when you have your standard lense (50 mm full frame) and crosscheck with the open other eye. I guess this technique is hardly used with current cameras? The page named above lists the magnification for different cameras. I found those results after I checked Boris' (always excellent) overview, since it lacked a viewfinder magnification for the LX (side note below). Robert Monaghan's numbers differ slightly from the spec numbers: Both PZ-1 and ZX-5 are speced at 0.8, while Robert names 0.86 and 0.78. Here's the full Pentax list from Boris: model VF vis mount MZ-6 / ZX-L 0.7 92% KAF MZ-7 / ZX-7 0.7 92% KAF MZ-30 / ZX-30 0.7 92% crippled KAF *ist0.7 90% crippled KAF MZ-S0.7592% KAF2 MZ-D0.7592% KAF2 MZ-10 / ZX-10 0.7792% KAF2 MZ-50 / ZX-50 0.7792% crippled KAF MZ-60 / ZX-60 0.7790% crippled KAF MZ-M / ZX-M 0.7792% KA2 Z-10 / PZ-100.7792% KAF2 Z-50p 0.7792% KAF2 Z-70 / PZ-700.7792% KAF2 MZ-30.8 92% KAF2 MZ-5n / ZX-5n 0.8 92% KAF2 MZ-5 / ZX-5 0.8 92% KAF2 Z-1p / PZ-1p0.8 92% KAF2 Z-1 / PZ-1 0.8 92% KAF2 Z-5p0.8 92% KAF2 Z-5 0.8 92% KAF2 Z-20 / PZ-200.8 92% KAF2 SFXn/SF1n 0.8192% KAF SFX/SF1 0.8192% KAF superA 0.8292% KA programA0.8292% KA A3/A30000.8292% KA P5/P50 0.8292% KA P3n/P30n0.8292% KA P3/P30 0.8292% KA SF7/SF100.8292% KAF MV1 0.8592% K MV 0.8592% K *ist DL 0.8595% crippled KAF2 KM(motor) 0.8793% K KM 0.8793% K MG 0.8792% K K2 DMD 0.8895% K K2 0.8895% K KX(motor) 0.8893% K KX 0.8893% K K1000SE 0.88? % K K1000 0.88? % K LX(early) 0.9 98% K LX(late)0.9 98% K ME F0.9592% KF ME Super0.9592% K ME 0.9592% K *ist D 0.9595% crippled KAF2 *ist DS20.9595% crippled KAF2 *ist DS 0.9595% crippled KAF2 MX 0.9795% K Comments on LX: there are eight exchangable viewfinders, but I did not see specs for them. Some sources name 0.9, others 0.86. Visible area is speced at 98%. Other sources confirm 98% vertically, but 95% horizontally. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: viewfinder magnification (was Re: K100D SR)
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:17PM +0200, Martin Trautmann wrote: From http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/viewfinder.html I learn that a magnification of 1.00 would be perfect when you have your standard lense (50 mm full frame) and crosscheck with the open other eye. I guess this technique is hardly used with current cameras? I don't see anything special about a magnification of 1.0 for that. I quite often keep both eyes open so that I can check for things happening out of frame. If anything, I use that technique more with long focal lengths than with a 50mm lens, so I'm looking at a very magnified view through the camera. The human eye brain is amazingly good at reconciling the two different fields of view. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Magnification has everything to do with it (WAS: Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here)
Sorry Steve, I dont believe this is correct. Magnification should have nothing to do with it. REPLY: Magnification has everything to do with it. All IS patents I've read so far include focal lenght data in order to function. Magnification matters for the same reason you need a very sturdy tripod o a super telephoto lens or a macro lens used in close up. If you move the camera even slightly with, say, a 1000mm lens the angular distance on film is huge wereas it is almost negligible with a super wide angle. Thats why you can handhold a 15mm at 1/15s but not a 1000mm lens. In fact you may not even find the subject in the finder anymore with the 1000mm lens. An IS system that works without focal lenght (and distance information) will be far from optimal at best.
Re: Magnification has everything to do with it (WAS: Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here)
Pål Jensen wrote: Sorry Steve, I dont believe this is correct. Magnification should have nothing to do with it. REPLY: Magnification has everything to do with it. All IS patents I've read so far include focal lenght data in order to function. Magnification matters for the same reason you need a very sturdy tripod o a super telephoto lens or a macro lens used in close up. If you move the camera even slightly with, say, a 1000mm lens the angular distance on film is huge wereas it is almost negligible with a super wide angle. Thats why you can handhold a 15mm at 1/15s but not a 1000mm lens. In fact you may not even find the subject in the finder anymore with the 1000mm lens. An IS system that works without focal lenght (and distance information) will be far from optimal at best. Yes, you are correct, as far as most shake corrections are concerned, because they involve rotations, translations, and angular shifts. The quote in question was referring to strictly parallel translations, which do not need focal length to compensate. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Modified Pentax F 35-70 lens does over 1:1 macro magnification without rings (is it good ???)
Sorry to post again but I'm very intrigued with this, I do not have experience with true macro lenses, I want your comments on this: A guy that does lens repairs showed me a Pentax 35-70mm macro lens modified to do 1.6:1 magnification without rings, more than any standard Pentax lens can do. I took it home to make some tests. I took a close-up picture of the MX speed selector: http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo05/ Second picture is a pixel by pixel center crop. An ant would have been more interesting but it's 4:00 in the morning and I couldn't find any. I'll post an ant picture as soon as I can find one. Is this lens good? Will a 50mm F4.0 or F2.8 be sharper?
Re: Modified Pentax F 35-70 lens does over 1:1 macro magnification without rings (is it good ???)
Is this lens good? Will a 50mm F4.0 or F2.8 be sharper? You would need to compare it using a subject with very fine details, unlike the speed dial. A sramp for example. Andre
Re: Modified Pentax F 35-70 lens does over 1:1 macro magnification without rings (is it good ???)
A sramp for example. A live sramp of course... ...I meant a stamp! Andre
Re: Modified Pentax F 35-70 lens does over 1:1 macro magnification without rings (is it good ???)
On Jul 5, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: A guy that does lens repairs showed me a Pentax 35-70mm macro lens modified to do 1.6:1 magnification without rings, more than any standard Pentax lens can do. I took it home to make some tests. I would be very interested to know what the modifications entail. I took a close-up picture of the MX speed selector: http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo05/ Second picture is a pixel by pixel center crop. Looks pretty good. I don't expect it to compete with a true macro lens in ultimate quality, but the only way to say for sure would be to test the modified zoom at the same magnification against a particular macro lens with an appropriate target. Is this lens good? Will a 50mm F4.0 or F2.8 be sharper? I have the A50/2.8 Macro as well as the F35-70/3.5-4.5 Macro, which achieves 1:4 magnification. There is no question that at 1:4 magnification, the A50/2.8 Macro prime lens has better rectilinear correction as well as higher resolution than the zoom. Godfrey
Viewfinder magnification
Hi, I have thought about viewfinders on DSLR - Even the excellent one on Pentaxes is only APS sized, although with good magnification compared to other brands. Would it be possible to make an accessory that would magnify the viewfinder just about to look fullframe? I know there are clip-on magnifiers but these are usually ~2.5x which is too big to show the whole frame at once. I am thinking something similar to Leica's 1.25x magnifier (which magnifies the 0.56x Leicas to the same size as 0.72x Leicas, for example). Is there such a magnifier already? From some other brand, perhaps, that could be adapted? Canon has the EP-EX15, which does exact opposite - it makes the view smaller with higher eyepoint for eyeglass viewers. If there is no such accessory existing, would it be possible to make one? Getting the necessary lens elements wouldn't be such a problem, as one might select from large accessory of movie camera lenses and other sources to get elements of necessary power and diameter, and I know competent machinists that could create a mount tube without problems. One could then mount the tube in an eyepiece like the Canon's, or reuse a clip-on magnifier's mount. What I am not sure about is how should it be constructed optically. What construction are the clip-on 2.5x magnifiers like from Pentax? A kepplerian telescope? IIRC the viewfinder makes the groundglass look like it is at 1m distance, but I am not that versed in optics - is it afocal? I think not - it creates a virtual image at 1m distance that can be focused upon just like a normal object at 1m distance - right? Another option would be to try and adapt the Leica 1.25x magnifier, but that one is very very expensive. If we could find a 1.3-1.5x clip-on magnifier that could be adapted to Pentax (and for myself, Nikon's vbg) viewfinder accessory mount, that could make the IstD's finder look like LX finder again! One obvious problem would be that any magnifying of the finder would lower the eyepoint, and also make it dimmer. But modern AF screens are bright enough already. Any suggestions, ideas, etc? Thanks! Frantisek
Re: Viewfinder magnification
What I am not sure about is how should it be constructed optically. What construction are the clip-on 2.5x magnifiers like from Pentax? A kepplerian telescope? IIRC the viewfinder makes the groundglass look like it is at 1m distance, but I am not that versed in optics - is it afocal? I think not - it creates a virtual image at 1m distance that can be focused upon just like a normal object at 1m distance - right? :-) responding to myself :-) I had a look at Leica's website, and they clearly state that the 1.25x magnifier is Galilean telescope system with 2/2 construction. Any more thoughts on the idea, or pointers to such existing magnifiers apretiated! Thanks! Frantisek
re: Viewfinder Magnification
I can't speak for everyone else's eyesight, but the DS finder is just right to allow me to see the entire finder and the information display at a glance without moving my head around, and has enough eye relief to work with my glasses properly. It feels to my eye just like the Nikon F3/T with hp finder did: nearly perfect. I use magnifiers only for critical focus work, to magnify the central portion of the viewfinder. Godfrey
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 inaccuracy. 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.
Re: viewfinder magnification
The *ist-D viewfinder is designed from the ground up to show the APS sized image. It's not just a masked down finder such as you'll find in Nikon and Canon mid to low end offerings. If you ever compared the two side by side you would see the difference. Based on that alone Pentax should sell a whole lot of them. Gonz wrote: 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 inaccuracy. 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. -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: viewfinder magnification
Except, most consumers don't seem to give a shxt about the viewing quality anymore. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan The *ist-D viewfinder is designed from the ground up to show the APS sized image. It's not just a masked down finder such as you'll find in Nikon and Canon mid to low end offerings. If you ever compared the two side by side you would see the difference. Based on that alone Pentax should sell a whole lot of them. _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: viewfinder magnification
I know that's true, but I'm saying they have all that image circle to play with, and it looks to me that the mirror is the same size, so why not do a little playing around with the margin like I mentioned? Peter J. Alling wrote: The *ist-D viewfinder is designed from the ground up to show the APS sized image. It's not just a masked down finder such as you'll find in Nikon and Canon mid to low end offerings. If you ever compared the two side by side you would see the difference. Based on that alone Pentax should sell a whole lot of them. Gonz wrote: 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 inaccuracy. 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.
Re: viewfinder magnification
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.
Re: viewfinder magnification
I sometimes wonder if that is not part of the reason most camera stores do not have an *istD on display. Customer picks up the Canon, looks through the viewfinder, hey that is cool. Customer picks up the Nikon, looks through the viewfinder, hey that is even cooler. Customer picks up the Pentax, looks through the viewfinder, I'll take this one. -- Peter J. Alling wrote: Try to get a sales creature to let you compare viewfinders... Alan Chan wrote: Except, most consumers don't seem to give a shxt about the viewing quality anymore. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan The *ist-D viewfinder is designed from the ground up to show the APS sized image. It's not just a masked down finder such as you'll find in Nikon and Canon mid to low end offerings. If you ever compared the two side by side you would see the difference. Based on that alone Pentax should sell a whole lot of them. _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: viewfinder magnification
Dunno about you guys but I definitely preffer to compose on a LCD screen on the back of the camera instead of looking through a peephole. If I want to see the small details in the scene I just directly look at them. The only exception I could see are action shots through a long lens. Please don't tell me about DOF preview, I know exactly what happens when you want to check it at f 1:16 on a SLR camera. But since this is a matter of personal preference, I'm starting now to wonder why I wrote this in the first place. graywolf wrote: I sometimes wonder if that is not part of the reason most camera stores do not have an *istD on display. Customer picks up the Canon, looks through the viewfinder, hey that is cool. Customer picks up the Nikon, looks through the viewfinder, hey that is even cooler. Customer picks up the Pentax, looks through the viewfinder, I'll take this one. -- Peter J. Alling wrote: Try to get a sales creature to let you compare viewfinders... Alan Chan wrote: Except, most consumers don't seem to give a shxt about the viewing quality anymore. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan The *ist-D viewfinder is designed from the ground up to show the APS sized image. It's not just a masked down finder such as you'll find in Nikon and Canon mid to low end offerings. If you ever compared the two side by side you would see the difference. Based on that alone Pentax should sell a whole lot of them. _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: viewfinder magnification
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification Dunno about you guys but I definitely preffer to compose on a LCD screen on the back of the camera instead of looking through a peephole. All very well and good if you are using a PS. Some of the new ones don't even have an optical viewfinder. OTOH, if you are using an SLR, you are kinda stuck with a viewfinder. William Robb
Re: viewfinder magnification
One possible problem with LCD is that there is no way to tell where the exact focus is. The camera may AF slightly off and you cannot tell until too late. Or you want manual focus to compensate for this error but a mission impossibe with LCD, no matter how large the LCD is. There are times, DOF won't save the day. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Dunno about you guys but I definitely preffer to compose on a LCD screen on the back of the camera instead of looking through a peephole. If I want to see the small details in the scene I just directly look at them. The only exception I could see are action shots through a long lens. Please don't tell me about DOF preview, I know exactly what happens when you want to check it at f 1:16 on a SLR camera. But since this is a matter of personal preference, I'm starting now to wonder why I wrote this in the first place. _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: viewfinder magnification
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. Even with a 90% viewfinder I would have hoped that what I see is from the center portion of the image, not from an edge... I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe the manufacturing tolerance of a 100% viewfinder is way too difficult and expensive. It is not difficult to understand why once you have seen how the viewfinder is assemlbed. Every piece has to be 100% accurate (mirror, screen, pentaprism, eyepiece). Besides, even if the factory could do it at reasonable cost, the regional service centres can't. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) I think it might be too expensive. It might have other tradeoffs in things like viewfinder image size. It's not impossible--most if not all of Nikon's F-series pro cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage and I believe at least one of their new pro digital cameras has 100% viewfinder coverage. Shouldn't it even be easier given that the image area isn't as big as the image area of film? OTOH, most Nikons have HUGE pentaprisms. That's not very Pentax-like. DJE
Re: viewfinder magnification
Quoting keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. Most people won't be wanting negatives or slides though. And home printing should still get all of the frame: I don't think any inkjets crop the picture. For on screen display too you will not lose anything so to me a non-100% viewfinder on DSLRs does not make sense. This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..)
Re: viewfinder magnification
That's actually what I thought too.. a bigger frame the screen sits in. A bit confused now. And not very impressed I have to refine my framing method or be faced with hours of PS cropping (anyone know if there's a batch crop function?) Regards, Ryan - Original Message - From: keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:39 PM Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification 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. Even with a 90% viewfinder I would have hoped that what I see is from the center portion of the image, not from an edge... I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe the manufacturing tolerance of a 100% viewfinder is way too difficult and expensive. It is not difficult to understand why once you have seen how the viewfinder is assemlbed. Every piece has to be 100% accurate (mirror, screen, pentaprism, eyepiece). Besides, even if the factory could do it at reasonable cost, the regional service centres can't. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) I think it might be too expensive. It might have other tradeoffs in things like viewfinder image size. It's not impossible--most if not all of Nikon's F-series pro cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage and I believe at least one of their new pro digital cameras has 100% viewfinder coverage. Shouldn't it even be easier given that the image area isn't as big as the image area of film? OTOH, most Nikons have HUGE pentaprisms. That's not very Pentax-like. DJE
Re: viewfinder magnification
- Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification That's actually what I thought too.. a bigger frame the screen sits in. A bit confused now. And not very impressed I have to refine my framing method or be faced with hours of PS cropping (anyone know if there's a batch crop function?) Umm, silly question, but why not just frame the picture reasonably accurately, then you won't be in a position of having to batch crop? The istD is still an SLR, and still has a pretty accurate (albeit not 100% accurate viewfinder). It is certainly more accurate than the numbered MZ cameras. William Robb
Re: viewfinder magnification
Zitat von Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. Most people won't be wanting negatives or slides though. And home printing should still get all of the frame: I don't think any inkjets crop the picture. For on screen display too you will not lose anything so to me a non-100% viewfinder on DSLRs does not make sense. Yes, I realise I was thinking of conventional printing on (light sensitive) paper rather than inkjet printing. But then again, once you send your digital files to a lab to 'print', they will crop. Sven
Re: viewfinder magnification
On 1 Sep 2004 at 6:37, William Robb wrote: Umm, silly question, but why not just frame the picture reasonably accurately, then you won't be in a position of having to batch crop? The istD is still an SLR, and still has a pretty accurate (albeit not 100% accurate viewfinder). It is certainly more accurate than the numbered MZ cameras. Yep, it's pretty easy once you've been shooting for a while, just compose so that the subject hits the edges if you need real tight framing. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: viewfinder magnification
Well, I'm just trying to get used of having to tighten my framing. I was used to relating what I saw in the 5n's viewfinder to what I'd expect to see in the resulting print. I've noticed that with the ist D, it adds some extra space all around, so in order to avoid post processing (cropping, at least) I now have to learn to take account of what's slightly obscured by those black borders. Just not used to framing what I can't see.. Batch cropping sounds a bit extreme, but was just curious about it more than looking to it as a solution. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification That's actually what I thought too.. a bigger frame the screen sits in. A bit confused now. And not very impressed I have to refine my framing method or be faced with hours of PS cropping (anyone know if there's a batch crop function?) Umm, silly question, but why not just frame the picture reasonably accurately, then you won't be in a position of having to batch crop? The istD is still an SLR, and still has a pretty accurate (albeit not 100% accurate viewfinder). It is certainly more accurate than the numbered MZ cameras. William Robb
Re: viewfinder magnification
ks Yes, I realise I was thinking of conventional printing on (light sensitive) ks paper rather than inkjet printing. But then again, once you send your digital ks files to a lab to 'print', they will crop. Why? None of the labs I use do crop. Apart from the teeny bit of paper that might rotate during processing. They even offer sizes of prints to match these from a true 2:3 film/DSLR. Good light! fra
Re: viewfinder magnification
Not much, but we are only talking one or two millimeters on each side of the print (just the difference of 95% and 100%...). Sven Zitat von Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ks Yes, I realise I was thinking of conventional printing on (light sensitive) ks paper rather than inkjet printing. But then again, once you send your digital ks files to a lab to 'print', they will crop. Why? None of the labs I use do crop. Apart from the teeny bit of paper that might rotate during processing. They even offer sizes of prints to match these from a true 2:3 film/DSLR. Good light! fra
Re: viewfinder magnification
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 inaccuracy. 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.
Re: viewfinder magnification
Hi, No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. it is not correct - it takes away the choice from the person who knows best, and who may not do any of the things you describe above. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: viewfinder magnification
Thank you Bob ... many peopleI have no trouble using 100% of the negative. Shel From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. it is not correct - it takes away the choice from the person who knows best, and who may not do any of the things you describe above. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: AW: viewfinder magnification
Hmm - I agree with all you are saying, except for the tolerances. The ME Super mirror box that I am looking at right now is a cast aluminium part. It attaches to the body, to the mount and to the prism. If it is only machined to *standard* engineering tolerances of 0.1 mm then it will easily position the screen frame within +/- 0.2 mm of the film window (or relative to the sensor) and that is all that is needed to reasonably center any frame size (+/- 1 mm would be really awfull). Don't forget the mirror also has to be at *exactly* the correct angle. Is there any foam backing behind the mirror? That's another error to be added in (and probably one with rather more than 0.1mm variation). A 100% sized screen set off by 0.2 mm in one direction would still show about 99.4% of the true image. 99.1% if that 0.2mm error happens to be along the short side of the frame (which would be the case for an error in mirror angle). That 95% is probably a conservative figure; I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many of my Pentax bodies actually are accurate to 98% levels. But that's still not 100%. To get to 100% (or even to 99.9) gets expensive.
Re: viewfinder magnification
- Original Message - From: keller.schaefer Subject: AW: viewfinder magnification Hmm - I agree with all you are saying, except for the tolerances. The ME Super mirror box that I am looking at right now is a cast aluminium part. It attaches to the body, to the mount and to the prism. If it is only machined to *standard* engineering tolerances of 0.1 mm then it will easily position the screen frame within +/- 0.2 mm of the film window (or relative to the sensor) and that is all that is needed to reasonably center any frame size (+/- 1 mm would be really awfull). A 100% sized screen set off by 0.2 mm in one direction would still show about 99.4% of the true image. It's not just positioning of the screen that's important. The lens mount also has to be in perfect registration, and the camera has to be solidly enough built to keep it that way. The mirror alignment is critical, and cannot shift it's rest position at all over some tens of thousand of exposures. The prism must be precisely aligned as well as the viewfinder elements. In order to build a camera with a 100% accurate viewfinder, you cannot use modern assembly line techniques. You are back to the old school of bench building each camera individually past a certain point. 100% accurate means just that. There is no allowable slop in the build. That means shimming each composnet of the viewing system in peice by peice and ensuring that perfect alignment is maintainted. This may not be an especially difficult task, but it is a time consuming one, and ensures that the camera in question will not be a mass produced item. It also ensures that the product will be substantially more expensive than the same camera without the 100% viewfinder. William Robb
viewfinder magnification
This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) Thanks, Ryan
Re: viewfinder magnification
- Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: viewfinder magnification This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) We aren't willing to pay for the close manufacturing tolerances required. A 100% viewfinder requires a lot of shimming in by hand. It's very time consuming and expensive. When I bought my Nikon F2s, I was told by the rep that a significant portion of the cost of the camera went into ensuring the 100% viewfinder was 100% accurate. William Robb
Re: viewfinder magnification
It's no harder (and no easier) to put a 100% viewfinder in the *ist-D than to put one in the MZ-S; in both cameras the viewfinder is optical. 100% viewfinders are expensive - far more expensive than 9x% finders. This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) Thanks, Ryan
RE: viewfinder magnification
I believe the manufacturing tolerance of a 100% viewfinder is way too difficult and expensive. It is not difficult to understand why once you have seen how the viewfinder is assemlbed. Every piece has to be 100% accurate (mirror, screen, pentaprism, eyepiece). Besides, even if the factory could do it at reasonable cost, the regional service centres can't. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) Thanks, Ryan _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: viewfinder magnification
Why not a 150% viewfinder and thus make the image the same size as a full frame 35mm. Wouldn't you farsighted folks have fun trying to focus on that? -- Ryan Lee wrote: This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) Thanks, Ryan -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: viewfinder magnification
Hum? Read the subject line, Bill HAR! -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: viewfinder magnification This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) We aren't willing to pay for the close manufacturing tolerances required. A 100% viewfinder requires a lot of shimming in by hand. It's very time consuming and expensive. When I bought my Nikon F2s, I was told by the rep that a significant portion of the cost of the camera went into ensuring the 100% viewfinder was 100% accurate. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: viewfinder magnification
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification Why not a 150% viewfinder and thus make the image the same size as a full frame 35mm. Wouldn't you farsighted folks have fun trying to focus on that? The LX sport finder is pretty close to that, I bet. William Robb
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
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: *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
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
Re: *ist D finder magnification
Hi Sven, on 04 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: 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. I didn't care of the magnfication but of the viewfinder size: the viewfinders of the F100 and F5 are quite big and you get a similar impression as if you would use a good old manual SLR ;-) Cheers, Heiko
Re: *ist D finder magnification
- Original Message - From: keller.schaefer Subject: AW: *ist D finder magnification Nice work - and makes the *ist D look a little better when compared to its competitors rather than to film cameras (and this looks like a major disadvantage of the Olympus E1 system, too). 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? I think that some of finder size is based on screen size, which relates to sensor (or film) size. APS sized digital cameras are starting at a disadvantage because the sensor is quite a bit smaller than the 35mm film cameras that people want to compare them to. What surprised me about the ist D was that it appears that the finder is just a cropped 35mm finder, which is why the magnification is close to 1x with a 50mm lens. William Robb
*ist D finder magnification
I had a discussion with a friend the other day, who is much concerned about finder quality. He basically says that the way an image is displayed in the viewfinder has a lot to do with how good the photographer can assess it and how good eventually the final picture will be. I think this is a bit stretched, but at least we both agree that the LX has a very, very good finder image and that things have deteriorated since then... What is also clear is that AF cameras can somehow 'live' with smaller finder images. As the size of the finder image depends on its magnification we were comparing the magnifications of various cameras. Some values, taken from 'Dimitrov' or from owner literature: MX 0,97 LX 0,95 Z1P 0,8 MZ-S0,75 *ist0,7 (there is a trend, n'est ce pas?) Now comes the *ist D with a stated finder magnification of 0,95 (!) which sounds pretty good and while its finder image is said to be larger than the competition it still is much smaller than that of any of the analogue bodies. This of course comes from the fact that it magnifies the smaller sensor. I still think that Pentax is cheating with the 0,95 figure as they base it on a 50mm lens. If stating finder magnifications is to serve a purpose (other than to fill the data sheet), then this figure should be given for a 'standard' lens focal length that relates to the sensor size. This way, a direct comparison of finder image size could be done. Pentax themselves vary the focal length, as for the 67 they state 0,75 for a 105mm lens - and they should have done so for the *ist D as well. Based on a 35mm lens, the *ist D finder magnification figure would look like 0,62 - and would illustrate how small the finder image really is. Sven
Re: *ist D finder magnification
Hallo here are the viewfinder magnification. The size of the ccd has to be taken in accound. The *ist D has the highest magnification of the APS size cameras. FULL FRAME: Kodak DCS-14n___0,80 Canon 1Ds___0,72 APS-SIZE: Pentax *istD_0,62 Canon 1D___0,57 Canon 10D__0,55 Nikon D2h___0,55 Nikon D1x/D1h___0,52 Nikon D100_0,52 Fuji S2 Pro__0,51 Canon 300D_0,50 Olympus E-1_0,46 Sigma SD9__0,44 And now the surprise: apart from the full-frame DSLR's, the smallest camera, the Pentax *istD has the biggest viewfinder magnification. It is not far away from anolog cameras magnifications. Canons are 10% smaller, Nikons are 15% smaller and the Oly and Sigma are more than 25% smaller. Rüdiger Von: keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I had a discussion with a friend the other day, who is much concerned about finder quality. He basically says that the way an image is displayed in the viewfinder has a lot to do with how good the photographer can assess it and how good eventually the final picture will be. I think this is a bit stretched, but at least we both agree that the LX has a very, very good finder image and that things have deteriorated since then... What is also clear is that AF cameras can somehow 'live' with smaller finder images. As the size of the finder image depends on its magnification we were comparing the magnifications of various cameras. Some values, taken from 'Dimitrov' or from owner literature: MX 0,97 LX 0,95 Z1P 0,8 MZ-S 0,75 *ist 0,7 (there is a trend, n'est ce pas?) Now comes the *ist D with a stated finder magnification of 0,95 (!) which sounds pretty good and while its finder image is said to be larger than the competition it still is much smaller than that of any of the analogue bodies. This of course comes from the fact that it magnifies the smaller sensor. I still think that Pentax is cheating with the 0,95 figure as they base it on a 50mm lens. If stating finder magnifications is to serve a purpose (other than to fill the data sheet), then this figure should be given for a 'standard' lens focal length that relates to the sensor size. This way, a direct comparison of finder image size could be done. Pentax themselves vary the focal length, as for the 67 they state 0,75 for a 105mm lens - and they should have done so for the *ist D as well. Based on a 35mm lens, the *ist D finder magnification figure would look like 0,62 - and would illustrate how small the finder image really is. Sven
Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
On 8 Nov 2003 at 22:22, jmb wrote: Strange. . . I have used my LX for ~20 years and my E10 for 1. I've never noticed that the E10 VF was cr*p! Is it because I wear glasses or that it's usually overcast here in NE Ohio? Put them side by side and you can tell the difference, I do have the 60 series screens loaded in my LX though. When using the LX I can see perfectly through the finder at any point in the finder window FA-1. The E-10 finder is relatively dark, is has a small view and it's not remotely sharp unless the eye is centred precisely (and I don't wear glasses). It's much like the P645 finder, never did like that much either. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
I picked up an E-1 in the store the other day. Yuck all around. The view through the viewfinder was like death (light at the end of a tunnel). Christian Put them side by side and you can tell the difference, I do have the 60 series screens loaded in my LX though. When using the LX I can see perfectly through the finder at any point in the finder window FA-1. The E-10 finder is relatively dark, is has a small view and it's not remotely sharp unless the eye is centred precisely (and I don't wear glasses). It's much like the P645 finder, never did like that much either. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
- Original Message - From: Christian Subject: Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last I picked up an E-1 in the store the other day. Yuck all around. The view through the viewfinder was like death (light at the end of a tunnel). Isn't death a tunnel at the end of the light? Curious William Robb
Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
sorry, how about a near-death experience? Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last - Original Message - From: Christian Subject: Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last I picked up an E-1 in the store the other day. Yuck all around. The view through the viewfinder was like death (light at the end of a tunnel). Isn't death a tunnel at the end of the light? Curious William Robb
Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
Rob Studdert wrote: The finder on the E-1 better be more impressive than the E-10/20 which really is crap, it's like looking at the image though a pipe and dark too. Not very impressive if you are used to good SLR finders. Strange. . . I have used my LX for ~20 years and my E10 for 1. I've never noticed that the E10 VF was cr*p! Is it because I wear glasses or that it's usually overcast here in NE Ohio? John `:^ )
Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
Reading the popphoto review of the Oly E-1, I was suprised, that it was stated, that the E-1 should have the lowest viewfinder magnification they ever testet. Looking at the good overview about the D-SLR's at http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/digitalSLR.htm a very good magnification for the E-1 of 0.96 was stated. The average magnification of analog SLR's is between 0.7 and 0.8. The viewfinder magnifications which are on the photozone side give a wrong impression, they can not be compared among each other. The croping factor has to be taken into account. Now I have calculated the comparable magnification in a way that I multiplied the magnification bei the CCD width divided bei 36. Example: Oly E-1 0.96*17.3/36=0.46 This is far smaller than for analog SLR's. I have done that with all cameras and have listed them below: FULL FRAME: Kodak DCS-14n___0,80 Canon 1Ds___0,72 APS-SIZE: Pentax *istD_0,62 Canon 1D___0,57 Canon 10D__0,55 Nikon D2h___0,55 Nikon D1x/D1h___0,52 Nikon D100_0,52 Fuji S2 Pro__0,51 Canon 300D_0,50 Olympus E-1_0,46 Sigma SD9__0,44 And now the surprise: apart from the full-frame DSLR's, the smallest camera, the Pentax *istD has the biggest viewfinder magnification. It is not far away from anolog cameras magnifications. Canons are 10% smaller, Nikons are 15% smaller and the Oly and Sigma are more than 25% smaller. It seems that the Pentax is realy designed from scratch as a DSLR. The Nikon D100 comes from the F80, the Sigma SD9 from the SA9, that is the reason for the the low viewfinder magnification. Olympus, which stated that the E-1 is specifically developed as a DSLR gives only a dissapointing result.
Re: Viewfinder magnification of DSLRs: *istD best, E-1 und SD9 last
On 24 Oct 2003 at 17:01, Rüdiger Neumann wrote: It seems that the Pentax is realy designed from scratch as a DSLR. The Nikon D100 comes from the F80, the Sigma SD9 from the SA9, that is the reason for the the low viewfinder magnification. Olympus, which stated that the E-1 is specifically developed as a DSLR gives only a dissapointing result. The finder on the E-1 better be more impressive than the E-10/20 which really is crap, it's like looking at the image though a pipe and dark too. Not very impressive if you are used to good SLR finders. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
This is curious, as I have been unable to manual-focus any 28, 24, or 20mm lens manually at long-to-infinity range, and that's using older cameras (KX, MX, SuperProgram. I just stop down and use hyperfocus at an estimated distance. Anyone else have this problem? A magnifier can greatly solve this problem. However, I would not assume all cameras must focus at infinity just like the lenses shown. What I have found is that many used Pentax cameras focus past infinity because of the missing washers between the front cast and the main body (typical Pentax manual focus camera design). This is due to inexperience repair job. So, for instance, with a 24mm lens, the actual film plane might hit infinity when the lens shows 3m (because the film plane to lens distance is shorter than the specification). And what's even more susprising is that my 3+ years old Z-1p which was purchased brand new and has never been serviced, also suffers from this problem. So I cannot rely on the focus scale alone for hyperfocal, I must focus first. However, the focus screen AF were calibrated according to the actual film plane focus so there is no AF or MF error. Perhaps you guys could try to use your widest lens and see if they focus past infinity (ther reason I suggest widest lenses because they are more likely to show the error). Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
You're looking for a single figue of merit to quantify ability to MF lense on a AF body, and magnification isn't it, because there isn't one. There were differences in the quality of viewfinders with MF cameras and there are with AF cameras. Like many other things, the best correlation between a number and the quality of the viewfinder is the cost of the camera. The highend AF cameras have much better viewfinders. BR Bruce, I am aware of the differences between eyepoint, magnification and coverage. I was specifically asking about modern AF camera that boasts magnification higher than 0.8. You see, what I, personally and humbly, want is an AF camera that allows for reasonable ability to do MF without having to rely on AF confimation light or sound. I think that it would be necessary to have at least 0.8 magnification for that. I think that 0.85 or even 0.9 would be ever better.
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Minolta 7 - 0.8x Z-1p - 0.8X MZ-S - 0.75X N1 - 0.73X Minolta 9 - 0.73X EOS 1V - 0.72X EOS 3 - 0.72X EOS 7 - 0.7X F100 - 0.7X F5 - 0.7X Alan Chan Going back a generation: SF1/SF1n with 0.81x SF7/SF10 with 0.82x Unlike Z-1p, SF1 and SF1n appear to have coated glass outer eyepieces. Mark Rofini
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
I think F801 series, F90 series F100 have better viewfinders than the Z-1p in general. The best way to test the quality of the viewfinder, imho, is to manual focus with wide angles at distance subjects. You will see the difficulty as soon as you try to snap in focus. When using slow lenses (usually f2.8 or slower), 1/2 stops is quite noticable when looking through the viewfinder. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Dear all, I think my old trusty Z-1p would stand up well against any camera from Nikon/Canon except the top and second top models, except for AF, and I would expect the finder to be larger, brighter and more clear in particular. Comparing it to a friend's Canon Elan 7E, my friend made the comment that the Elan 7E's finder looks larger. How come ? The Canon is spec'ed at 0.7x and the Pentax, 0.8x. So we could expect the Pentax's finder to be more than 10% larger. To my eyes the sizes look pretty much the same with no differences. Also, comparing the Canon 28-105 and the Pentax 28-105 in the finder, the Canon had a wider field of view. According to a test of popular photography, it should be the other way around since Canon cheated much more on the wide end of the lens (around 30mm) than Pentax, although I haven't test-shot these two particular samples side by side to know for sure. The Canon has 92% coverage horizontally and the Pentax also 92%. I don't get these at all. Why ? Quite depressed that the pinnacle of the Z series not to defeat the Elan which is pretty low on Canon's food chain in these areas. In terms of features they are pretty much equal and the Canon even have eye-controlled focus. Well the Pentax has illuminated LCD though... In terms of brightness, the lenses have a 1/2 stop difference, and the Pentax finder looks darker, but I can't tell it is 1/2 stops darker, more than 1/2 stops, or less than 1/2 stops. Bo-Ming Tong
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Hi, Sunday, August 31, 2003, 3:21:04 PM, you wrote: Lots of folks say they want 100% finders, but I don't know why. Slide mounts block part of the image and developers never print the entire negative anyway. not everybody mounts their slides, and some people print their own, especially nowadays when scanning and digital printing is so easy. It's quite disconcerting annoying to see intrusions on the slide or neg that you couldn't see when you framed the picture. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
- Original Message - From: Bob Walkden Subject: Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ? Hi, Sunday, August 31, 2003, 3:21:04 PM, you wrote: Lots of folks say they want 100% finders, but I don't know why. Slide mounts block part of the image and developers never print the entire negative anyway. not everybody mounts their slides, and some people print their own, especially nowadays when scanning and digital printing is so easy. It's quite disconcerting annoying to see intrusions on the slide or neg that you couldn't see when you framed the picture. A 100% veiwfinders will take a camera that would costs a few hundred dollars and push it up into the thousand and a half range. Most people don't want to spend the kind of money it costs to make their cameras that accurate. William Robb
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
on 31.08.03 9:43, Bo-Ming Tong at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why ? Quite depressed that the pinnacle of the Z series not to defeat the Elan which is pretty low on Canon's food chain in these areas. In terms of features they are pretty much equal and the Canon even have eye-controlled focus. Well the Pentax has illuminated LCD though... In terms of brightness, the lenses have a 1/2 stop difference, and the Pentax finder looks darker, but I can't tell it is 1/2 stops darker, more than 1/2 stops, or less than 1/2 stops. Well, if it makes you feel better, I have compared lately finders of MZ-S and EOS-3. They are similar in size, but Canon's is obviously darker - all with f4.5 lenses. Both cameras have similar eye-points (althought Pentax dooesn't mention what exact value of this parameter in MZ-S is) -- Regards Sylwek
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Hi! On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:21:04 -0400 Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coverage percentage is the ratio of what you see in the finder to what is on the film. Lots of folks say they want 100% finders, but I don't know why. Slide mounts block part of the image and developers never print the entire negative anyway. Bruce, I am aware of the differences between eyepoint, magnification and coverage. I was specifically asking about modern AF camera that boasts magnification higher than 0.8. You see, what I, personally and humbly, want is an AF camera that allows for reasonable ability to do MF without having to rely on AF confimation light or sound. I think that it would be necessary to have at least 0.8 magnification for that. I think that 0.85 or even 0.9 would be ever better. I do agree with you about the unjustified desire for coverage. It seems like 92% in each direction is quite enough. Though of course, people who scan their negatives/slides themselves may have their reasons. They don't depend on photo lab. So for them 100% coverage may be a logical thing to ask. After all, in 35 mm format each mm matters [grin]. Boris
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Hi! Yes it exists. Pentax ME-F has 0.95x. Have I won anything? ;-))) -- Best regards Sylwek No, you haven't [evil grin]. Actually I was asking about modern AF cameras. ME-F is anything but. Boris
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
on 31.08.03 11:08, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, (and other wizards of course grin) do you happen to know whether there exists an AF camera (of any manufacturer) who boasts more than 0.8 viewfinder magnification? I realize that cameras such as F-5 having 100% coverage would give slightly better viewfinder picture. But I was wondering more about magnification, regardless of coverage... Yes it exists. Pentax ME-F has 0.95x. Have I won anything? ;-))) -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Bob quoted and posted: Lots of folks say they want 100% finders, but I don't know why. Slide mounts block part of the image and developers never print the entire negative anyway. not everybody mounts their slides, and some people print their own, especially nowadays when scanning and digital printing is so easy. It's quite disconcerting annoying to see intrusions on the slide or neg that you couldn't see when you framed the picture. Yeah! What he said! When I used to print, I often printed full-frame; and I also scan full-frame.
Re: Viewfinder magnification 0.8x vs. 0.7x, why ?
Minolta 7 - 0.8x Z-1p - 0.8X MZ-S - 0.75X N1 - 0.73X Minolta 9 - 0.73X EOS 1V - 0.72X EOS 3 - 0.72X EOS 7 - 0.7X F100 - 0.7X F5 - 0.7X Mind you that the magnification alone do not determine the viewing quality. The quality of the eyepieces is equally important, or more. The major reason those MZ bodies have poor viewing quality is that they all have uncoated highly distorted plastic eyepieces. MZ-S is the only exception. The eyepieces of the Z-1p are composed of 3 elements, while the inner 2 are coated, the outer one is uncoated plastic which degrades the contrast and colour. Z-1p is still ok for manual focus most of the time, but there are times I have found manual focus with MX (which has the highest magnification of all) is a lot easier. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Alan, (and other wizards of course grin) do you happen to know whether there exists an AF camera (of any manufacturer) who boasts more than 0.8 viewfinder magnification? I realize that cameras such as F-5 having 100% coverage would give slightly better viewfinder picture. But I was wondering more about magnification, regardless of coverage... _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Viewfinder magnification of the LX
And the FE-1 magni-finder has impressive 1,35x ! A joy to use, really! I imagine :-) Does it show the whole frame? Regards, Lukasz
Re: Viewfinder magnification of the LX
Lukasz Kacperczyk schrieb: And the FE-1 magni-finder has impressive 1,35x ! A joy to use, really! I imagine :-) Does it show the whole frame?# Yes Lukasz, it does! The only drawback on this finder: No indication of the aperutre here. Greetinx, Thomas
Re: Viewfinder magnification of the LX
I imagine :-) Does it show the whole frame?# Yes Lukasz, it does! Not good - I may want a LX one time after all... ;-) The only drawback on this finder: No indication of the aperutre here. Tell that to Olympus OM users :-) Regards, Lukasz
Re: Magnification
Thursday, January 17, 2002, 5:16:37 AM, Mike wrote: I was sitting in my spare bedroom the other nite, camera and FA 28-70 1:4 lens (that my coworkers got me for Christmas!) just kind of zooming in and out, when I noticed that my field of view in my free eye matched that of the lens at about 65mm. It's pretty close to normal, but not too close. MJ Chris, MJ That depends entirely on finder magnification. It doesn't really have MJ anything to do with the field of view you find most comfortable. To elaborate: finder magnification of newer bodies is about 0.75x so 0.75x65mm=49mm, pretty close to normal 50mm. With older bodies, which had higher magnification, around 0.85x-0.9x was the norm I think in the good old days, notice that Exakta's normal prime lens (first cine SLR I think) was 58mm, to allow easy viewing with both eyes open. That would mean Exakta had 0.85x magnification. The abundant 55mm (Pentax too) is meant for the K series with 0.9x magnification. Now somebody can elaborate on why 50mm is considered normal ;-) (I think there are two reasons - 1) technical: eyes have 20 diopter vision normally, that means the little lens we have, when at ease, has 20 D=50mm focal length; 2) experimental: we see most easily about the same FOV as 43-50mm lenses do on 24x36 frame /very roughly/. Of course, I could easily be wrong.) Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 .
Re: Magnification
50mm is normal because it is what came on the camera, and specifically because that was what Barnnack (sp?) used on the original Leica. The reason a lens of about the diagonal of the film is usually chosen as the normal lens is simply because that is the most cost effective focal length to use. IMNSHO, all the other quasi-technical reasons are simply BS. Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:27 PM Subject: Re: Magnification Thursday, January 17, 2002, 5:16:37 AM, Mike wrote: I was sitting in my spare bedroom the other nite, camera and FA 28-70 1:4 lens (that my coworkers got me for Christmas!) just kind of zooming in and out, when I noticed that my field of view in my free eye matched that of the lens at about 65mm. It's pretty close to normal, but not too close. MJ Chris, MJ That depends entirely on finder magnification. It doesn't really have MJ anything to do with the field of view you find most comfortable. To elaborate: finder magnification of newer bodies is about 0.75x so 0.75x65mm=49mm, pretty close to normal 50mm. With older bodies, which had higher magnification, around 0.85x-0.9x was the norm I think in the good old days, notice that Exakta's normal prime lens (first cine SLR I think) was 58mm, to allow easy viewing with both eyes open. That would mean Exakta had 0.85x magnification. The abundant 55mm (Pentax too) is meant for the K series with 0.9x magnification. Now somebody can elaborate on why 50mm is considered normal ;-) (I think there are two reasons - 1) technical: eyes have 20 diopter vision normally, that means the little lens we have, when at ease, has 20 D=50mm focal length; 2) experimental: we see most easily about the same FOV as 43-50mm lenses do on 24x36 frame /very roughly/. Of course, I could easily be wrong.) Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 . - 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 .
Magnification
I was sitting in my spare bedroom the other nite, camera and FA 28-70 1:4 lens (that my coworkers got me for Christmas!) just kind of zooming in and out, when I noticed that my field of view in my free eye matched that of the lens at about 65mm. It's pretty close to normal, but not too close. Chris, That depends entirely on finder magnification. It doesn't really have anything to do with the field of view you find most comfortable. --Mike - 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 .
LX Viewfinder magnification?
Hi, The Boz's page doesn't include this info: What's the viewfinder magnification of LX with FA1 or FA1w finder? 0,9x? It's very high for sure, but how much exactly? Please, I want to know this! Albano - 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 .
RE: LX Viewfinder magnification?
according to: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/thepentaxlx.html#AccessoriesFindermo delsanddetails the magnification is 0.9 The original LX brochure states 95% horizontal and 98% vertical. hope this helps. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LX Viewfinder magnification? Hi, The Boz's page doesn't include this info: What's the viewfinder magnification of LX with FA1 or FA1w finder? 0,9x? It's very high for sure, but how much exactly? Please, I want to know this! Albano - 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 . - 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 .
Re: Naive question, viewfinder magnification
I was just wondering, what's the significance of viewfinder magnification? I know that since I am used to my MX and ME Supers, I found it quite hard to manually focus on my friend's MZ-5n. So my initial thought was that the bigger the better. But then I noticed that the LX officially has a smaller magnification than the MX. In fact, all Pentax cameras have smaller magnification than the MX. So what's up? AFAIK, MX has the highest magnificantion of all Pentax K mount bodies. I have had MX, LX, Super A/Program, P50, MZ-M and Z-1p over the years. I was amazed by how difficult to focus with the MZ-M due to the low magnificantion, because afterall, it's a manual focus body where good quality viewfinder is essential IMO. Incidentally, according to the brochures on the Pentax USA website, the MZ-S has a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x, where as that of the MZ-5n is 0.8x. That's bad. :( I've heard people complain that they can't see all of the viewfinder in the MX, and I know I have to press the camera hard into my face so that I can see all of it. But why can't Pentax keep the same viewfinder magnification on the MX and just make the rear window bigger? Am I just being too naive here? I has been wondering the same too. Nikon made something called action finder for their F bodies so my only conclusion is cost cutting. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - 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 .
Re: Naive question, viewfinder magnification
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:31:50AM -0700, Alan Chan wrote: I've heard people complain that they can't see all of the viewfinder in the MX, and I know I have to press the camera hard into my face so that I can see all of it. But why can't Pentax keep the same viewfinder magnification on the MX and just make the rear window bigger? Am I just being too naive here? I has been wondering the same too. Nikon made something called action finder for their F bodies so my only conclusion is cost cutting. H. Action finder reminds me of that door you open on the top cover of a Yashicamat to give you a direct viewfinder. At least it's distortion-free and, with relevance to this topic, has 1.0x magnification. Pity you get parallax error... Incidentally, the Leica 0-Series has such a viewfinder too. Frank. -- Francis Tang, Postgraduate Research Student, LFCS, Edinburgh. Visiting: AG14, FB Mathematik, TU Darmstadt, Deutschland. Tel: +49 174/3545241 (D2 Voda) ZNr: S215/215 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/fhlt/ - 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 .
Re: Naive question, viewfinder magnification
At 12:31 AM 6/26/01 -0700, you wrote: AFAIK, MX has the highest magnificantion of all Pentax K mount bodies. I have had MX, LX, Super A/Program, P50, MZ-M and Z-1p over the years. I was amazed by how difficult to focus with the MZ-M due to the low magnificantion, because afterall, it's a manual focus body where good quality viewfinder is essential IMO. Actually, the ME is the highest, at .98x verses .97x for the MX. However, the ME's focus srceen is optimized for fast lenses, a F4 zoom on the ME can be a challenge. But a nice 50mm F1.4 on the ME is a great combo. I have found that the ZX-M is easiest to focus using the Matte part of the screen anyway, I only use the center aids generally with longer lenses. It's also the easiest when it comes to focusing slow lenses too, for fast lenses I'd rather have a KX or the ME. Incidentally, according to the brochures on the Pentax USA website, the MZ-S has a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x, where as that of the MZ-5n is 0.8x. That's bad. :( Yeap :( Most AF camera users don't give a darn about manual lenses, and just want a bright image to know what the camera is pointed at, unfortunently. (I'm not talking about most AF camera using list members here) I've heard people complain that they can't see all of the viewfinder in the MX, and I know I have to press the camera hard into my face so that I can see all of it. But why can't Pentax keep the same viewfinder magnification on the MX and just make the rear window bigger? Am I just being too naive here? I has been wondering the same too. Nikon made something called action finder for their F bodies so my only conclusion is cost cutting. There is a simular finder for the LX too. Todd - 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 .
Re: Naive question, viewfinder magnification
Unfortunately this is a case of a vicious circle: a viewfinder with bigger magnification gives you - yes, you've guessed it - bigger image in the finder, but that's why it is hard to see the whole image, including exposure data outside the image area, at a glance, especially for those wearing eyeglasses. Smaller viewfinder magnification gives you the so-called high viewpoint finder, which makes it easier to see the whole image and exposure information even with your eye detached form the eyepiece bit the image is smaller and thus manual focusing is more difficult. Numerous AF cameras have a smaller magnification relying on the fact that AF will do the job for you and your task is only to compose and see everything at a glance. Having high image magnification and full picture of the image plus exposure data is a contradiction in itself. Your MX finder makes manual focusing a snap; with MZ-5N the priority is on ability to see everything in the finder at a glance even when you are wearing eyeglasses. Francis Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa³ / wrote: I was just wondering, what's the significance of viewfinder magnification? I know that since I am used to my MX and ME Supers, I found it quite hard to manually focus on my friend's MZ-5n. So my initial thought was that the bigger the better. But then I noticed that the LX officially has a smaller magnification than the MX. In fact, all Pentax cameras have smaller magnification than the MX. So what's up? Incidentally, according to the brochures on the Pentax USA website, the MZ-S has a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x, where as that of the MZ-5n is 0.8x. I've heard people complain that they can't see all of the viewfinder in the MX, and I know I have to press the camera hard into my face so that I can see all of it. But why can't Pentax keep the same viewfinder magnification on the MX and just make the rear window bigger? Am I just being too naive here? -- Francis Tang, Postgraduate Research Student, LFCS, Edinburgh. Visiting: AG14, FB Mathematik, TU Darmstadt, Deutschland. Tel: +49 174/3545241 (D2 Voda) ZNr: S215/215 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/fhlt/ - 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 . --- Jagged Alliance 2,5 Unfinished Business PL ju¿ w sprzeda¿y! Kliknij http://gry.wp.pl/opisy/jagged_alliance_2.html - 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 .
RE: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
Hello Mafud True, I agree. I myself tend to shoot an increasing ammount of 6x6. I never really liked square pictures. So, I use my Pentagon/Rolleiflex as if they were a 645, that I don't need to turn to get portrait/landscape format. I think I'd prefere 100% coverage. For some jobs it's nice to know what's in the picture, and what is not. The eyepoint discussion may be about glasses (Is it?). People who are wearing glasses, want to be able to see the whole frame too. Very understandable. I believe some of the fuzz is about us wanting our "idol" camera to be perfect! Even if we do not buy one, we want to be able to say: Look what Pentax can do, isn't that great! (By the way, I own a Pentax too!). I don't feel this way. If I did, I'd buy a Leica R8 or M6 (and probably leave it on a shelf in an insured cupboard, while shooting whith my Pentax Z1p or, hopefully, my brand new MZ-S). Best Regards Jens - 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 .
MZ-S viewfinder magnification
Hi, Like most I was a bit disappointed by the 0.75x viewfinder magnification. However I rechecked http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/viewfinder.html The short list of the latest (in this article) top model camera's autofocus AND manual focus: Canon EOS1n : 0.75x Contax RTSIII: 0.75x Leica R8: 0.76x Minolta 9xi: 0.76x Nikon F5: 0.75x Olympus OM-4: 0.75x And now also Pentax MZ-S, which I suspect will be the most expensive 35mm Pentax for now: 0.75x What are we overlooking? One cannot say it has something to do with size or price ticket after looking at this list. Also the difference in a 96% vertical coverage, like the R8, and 92%, like it seems to be in the new Pentax, is only 2% on either side, so saying the top camera's do this to see the LCD info better makes no sense either. Now all seven major brands of camera are doing this, regardless of size or price ticket of the camera, regardless of autofocus or manual focus. The question is WHY? They are not all stupid are they :) Erwin - 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 .
Viewfinder, field of view/magnification
Can somebody explain to me why the viewfinders are so bad these days? What is the problem? Best wishes Wieland - 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 .
Re: Viewfinder, field of view/magnification
I have been wondering about that, too. actually one of the reasons for my prefering 'vintage' cameras is their wonderful viewfinders Daphne - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
In a message dated 2/12/01 5:35:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are we overlooking? Shoot slides with an LX and you KNOW you're seeing all there is; shoot slides with a 75% magnification finder and you'll always have that sneaky feeling that somehoe, something unwanted (or unexpected) will show up just beyond the limits of your vision. - 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 .
Viewfinder, field of view/magnification
Wieland wrote: Can somebody explain to me why the viewfinders are so bad these days? What is the problem? I don't necessarily claim that they are "so bad," but my personal theory is that a lot of engineering these days is devoted to taking cost out of products while leaving in an "acceptable" amount of quality. What "acceptable" means has to do NOT with what people LIKE, but WHAT THEY WILL BUY. The fact is, certain features are more obvious from the spec sheet, or from intuition, or are more easily gleaned from shared conventional wisdom, and these are the features by which products are marketed. I think part of the reason for poorer viewfinders is that they add a lot to cost and manufacturing complexity, but they are not features that most people are aware of before buying cameras. The reason for this is that now, many cameras are purchased by mail order. We enthusiasts, who seek out camera stores, may have the opportunity to handle and look through five competing cameras before we buy, which might make it obvious to us which ones have better finders. Most people don't have that opportunity. They buy from reading about the product, comparing feature lists, and then ordering by mail from discount houses far away. Then, when they get the camera, they have nothing to compare it to, anyway, so whatever it is, seems acceptable. Certain features are "up front," and those features are ones that the manufacturers are careful to provide; because if they don't, they will lose sales. But they have learned that most consumers are not very educated about viewfinders, so this is an area where the manufacturers can skimp without too much penalty. An example of an "up front" feature is top motor drive speed in a premium pro camera. Does it really make any difference if top speed is 5 fps. or 5.5 fps? Is any photographer really enabled to take better pictures at 6 fps than at 4.5 fps? Maybe a few. But this is an obvious feature--it is easily understood, it is easily compared. So people will BUY a camera with a faster speed more readily. Certain other features, such as viewfinders and shutter responsiveness (shutter lag, the amount of time between when you press the button and when the exposure is made) are important, but generally they're only noticed by a tiny little segment of the market...namely, pros or serious photographers, who tend to actually use their cameras a lot. So pro cameras are where you find the manufacturers putting good finders and paying attenton to shutter lag. And, in fact, the manufacturers are probably right about their choices, since, as the products are positioned more and more to the mass market, cost becomes proportionately higher in importance as a factor in buying decisions. Let me ask you this. If you had the choice of two MZ-S versions, one that weighed 18.5 ounces and cost $699, and one that weighed 21 oz. and cost $1,029, and the ONLY difference between the two was that the latter version had a 100% finder and better eye relief, which one would you buy? I'd buy the latter without question, but I'm quite certain I'm in the minorty market-wide. Probably a pretty small minority. --Mike - 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 .
MZ-S viewfinder magnification
Erwin wrote: Canon EOS1n : 0.75x Contax RTSIII: 0.75x Leica R8: 0.76x Minolta 9xi: 0.76x Nikon F5: 0.75x Olympus OM-4: 0.75x And now also Pentax MZ-S, which I suspect will be the most expensive 35mm Pentax for now: 0.75x What are we overlooking? Just that four of the six cameras you mentioned above have 100% finders or very close to it. So the MZ-S is only really comparable to the Leica and the Olympus. Like most I was a bit disappointed by the 0.75x viewfinder magnification. I'm not necessarily disappointed by the 0.75x viewfinder magnification; I'm disappointed by the combination of low magnification and poor coverage. I would accept a .75x mag finder if it had 98% coverage as Pal earlier predicted. I also accept a 93% coverage finder if it has .95x magnification, which (if memory serves) are the specs for the ME Super. But it's nice to have one or the other. Bear in mind that some people will not care in the least about a 92% finder--it will match the cropping on their slides or their drugstore 4x6-inch prints. --Mike - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
Can someone please explain to me again why magnification and eyepoint are not the same? It seems to me, that for any given % (HV field of view), the resulting magnification with a true 50mm lens would pretty much tell you the eyepoint would be about the same, right? I know I'm missing something here, but since I'm missing it, I don't know what it is I'm missing.. Thanks, Ed - Original Message - From: "Erwin Vereecken" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 5:22 AM Subject: MZ-S viewfinder magnification Hi, Like most I was a bit disappointed by the 0.75x viewfinder magnification. However I rechecked http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/viewfinder.html The short list of the latest (in this article) top model camera's autofocus AND manual focus: Canon EOS1n : 0.75x Contax RTSIII: 0.75x Leica R8: 0.76x Minolta 9xi: 0.76x Nikon F5: 0.75x Olympus OM-4: 0.75x And now also Pentax MZ-S, which I suspect will be the most expensive 35mm Pentax for now: 0.75x What are we overlooking? One cannot say it has something to do with size or price ticket after looking at this list. Also the difference in a 96% vertical coverage, like the R8, and 92%, like it seems to be in the new Pentax, is only 2% on either side, so saying the top camera's do this to see the LCD info better makes no sense either. Now all seven major brands of camera are doing this, regardless of size or price ticket of the camera, regardless of autofocus or manual focus. The question is WHY? They are not all stupid are they :) Erwin - 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 . - 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 .
Re: Viewfinder, field of view/magnification
Wieland wrote: WW Can somebody explain to me why the viewfinders are so bad these WW days? What is the problem? Reason no. 1: More info in the viewfinder - lower magnification. Nowadays people like to be in control without taking the camera from the eye. The old adagio about seeing the picture with your eyes first seems to be less valued than ever. In this line I'd be surprised to see optical viewfinders 10 years from now. More likely a TV screen with superimposed "new" critical data, like subject velocity, exposure levels map, etc. Reason no. 2: Better autofocus needs more light, on the detriment of the viewfinder. What's then to be done to preserve the viewfinder's brightness? Easy, make it smaller and call it higher eye point to keep the customer happy. It's all about evolution. :o/ Cynicism aside, I can live with my MZ-5N viewfinder. The very fine matte area that allows good manual focus makes up for the low magnification (0.8, still one of the highest). If only that eyepiece wouldn't scratch that easy... Servus, Alin - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
In a message dated 2/12/01 8:14:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bear in mind that some people will not care in the least about a 92% finder--it will match the cropping on their slides or their drugstore 4x6-inch prints. But..but aren't *we* responsible for what the final product is? Don't we need to *know* the limitations of the camera and doesn't a 92% finder give us (except for those of us who print odd sizes or edge to edge) the final product? And even when we shoot 100% viefinders, don't we mentally "crop" to the final image anyway? Lastly, doesn't the viewfinder only represent an extension of the lens itself? Mafud - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
Here's another comparison of modern cameras' viewfinders: MZ-S92% 0.75x 520g18.3oz Pop-up flash PZ-1P 92% 0.8x650g22.7oz Pop-up flash EOS 3 97% 0.72x 780g27.5oz No flash EOS A2 94%/92% 0.73x 665g23.5oz Pop-up flash Elan7 92%/90% 0.70x 575g20.3oz Pop-up flash F10096% 0.76x 27.7oz No flash F90x92% 0.78x 26.6oz No flash F80 92% 0.71-0.75x 18.2oz Pop-up flash There are many things the camera designer has to consider in deciding the specifications. And I am sure for MZ-S, size, packaging and presence of pop-up flash have a big role in determining the viewfinder specs. And looking at the chart above, MZ-S compares well against modern batch of cameras (especially those with comparable weight and built-in flash). Of course, I have not included EOS1v, F5 class cameras which have 100% coverage. And cameras such as F90x is not much better with its viewfinder, and I have not seen many complaints about it. My point is not to diminish the importance of a good viewfinder for those who need it; I just want to illustrate that MZ-S is simply following the trend in its market segment. Another important factor in deciding the viewfinder coverage could be its digital twin. If 92% is all that can be recorded by the CCD, then MZ-S would have to follow the specs. This maybe one of the compromise one have to accept in sharing the chasis for both film and digital versions. --Lawrence Kwan --- SMS Info Service for FidoPro --- PGP: finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4-- - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
The question is WHY? They are not all stupid are they :) Erwin Of course not, but they think we are. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
But..but aren't *we* responsible for what the final product is? Don't we need to *know* the limitations of the camera and doesn't a 92% finder give us (except for those of us who print odd sizes or edge to edge) the final product? That's the beauty of it. The manufacturers have already decided how much our photos should be cropped. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
My main concern isn't the 92%/0.75 viewfinder data, but the posibility that they have used the viewfinder of the MZ-5 wholesale. Pål Now that's really bad!!! Last time I did a side by side comparsion between Z-1p and MZ-5n. Their difference is quite significant. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - 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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
- Original Message - From: "Ed Mathews" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 12, 2001 8:41 PM Subject: Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification I own an F3HP. It has what I consider to be the best viewfinder on any camera I've ever owned. See my other post about where my confusion lies. It's in not understanding why lower magnification doesn't always mean higher eyepoint. Seems to me if you made the magnification 50%, it would automatically mean the eyepoint would be high enough to see the whole frame, regardless of how many mm of relief it would equate to. It's funny how things are sometimes. It was the F3HP that turned me away from Nikon and towards Pentax in the first place. I never liked the viewfinder on that camera. Then the F4 came along, and I just got completely annoyed with camera bloat. William Robb - 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 .
Re: LCD viewfinders Was: Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose, as someone jokingly suggested, PENTAX 35mm SLR bodies came with color LCD viewfinders with 24 x 36mm heads-up exposure displays representing the same size as a 35mm negative? Would that not be 100% magnification and 100% relief? And would not some find serious fault with that arrangement? I would! *L* That "sluuurp" you hear is the sounds of your batteries dying in about five minutes. Those LCD screens are the main reason why digital cameras go through batteries so quickly. :) chris - 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 .
