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 .
Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification
Ah Bill, but that is the beauty of a free marketplace. For a spectacle-wearing, deliberate, dim-witted person like me, the F3HP is a great camera. Add in good AF and film advance and it would be almost perfect for me. That's why the F100 is so appealing to me, even though it's much more complicated than I need it to be. And that's more or less what I want in the MZ-S, but with the added plus of being able to use my Limited Lenses. Thanks, Ed - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 10:14 PM Subject: 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 . > > - 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 .
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: 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. Thanks, Ed - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:22 PM Subject: Re: MZ-S viewfinder magnification > Ed wrote: > > > Can someone please explain to me again why magnification and eyepoint are > > not the same? It seems to me, that for any given % (H&V 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.. > > > Ed, > Magnification is the relative size of the image in the viewfinder, measured > under certain conditions, usually with a 50mm lens set at infinity or at > some specified distance (I'm sure somebody will correct me about this if I'm > wrong--I actually don't know if magnification has an ANSI standard or if > it's just measured by convention or what). With 1x magnification, the image > in the viewfinder would be as large as the same image seen with the naked > eye. > > Eye releif is how far from the eyepiece you can have your eye and still see > the entire viewfinder image. They make "sports finders" which have, in > effect, an eye relief of infinity--you can hold the camera at arms' length > and still see the whole frame, like a leetle tiny TV set. With a finder with > poor eye relief (early screwmount Leicas, as one example) you have to have > your eyeball almost touching the eyepiece before you can see the whole > frame. > > One of the ways that manufacturers improve eye relief is by minifying the > viewfinder image--making it lower magnification. > > If you ever get the chance, take a Nikon F3 and slide on the original stock > (DE2?) finder. The magnification is high but the eye relief is average. Then > slide on the HP (high-eyepoint) finder. You'll immediately see the > difference. The image is much smaller, but you don't have to hold your eye > close up to the eyepiece to see the whole thing. > > One of the great hidden truths about the history of camera design is that > the original Leica M, the M3 of 1953, was designed with a high-magnification > viewfinder for a specific purpose: so you could hold both eyes open while > looking through it. As your eye dominance adjusted, you could actually learn > to see through the thing with normal binocular vision, just as if you > weren't holding a camera up to your eye and looking through glass at all, > but with one crucial difference--you could still see the brightlines. So the > effect was of looking at the world unimpeded except for a white frame > hanging in your field of vision. The closest thing to a camera inside your > head yet invented. > > I say this is a "hidden truth" because the need for wide-angle framelines > soon permanently killed the .9x Leica viewfinder, and even Leica, when it > returned to a high-magnfication viewfinder, felt the need to design it so it > could be used with a 35mm lens--and the idiots made it too small for the > "both eyes open" effect that the M3 had provided!! They made it .85x instead > of .9x and the both-eyes-open trick didn't work. I still get a chuckle over > this. The company completely missed _its own_ point. > > The ME Super has the closest thing to a life-size finder of any camera I > own; the OM-2n was even a tiny bit better because there was less parallax. > Both cameras with a 50mm lens provide an image about the same size as that > of the naked eye. > > Hope this helps. There may be errors in the above, technically, but I think > this will give you the gist of things. > > --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 . > > - 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
Oh come on. They've decided how big your negative should be, haven't they? Why aren't you angry about that? They've also decided what focal length your lenses will be, and how fast they will be, and how much they will weigh, and how much they will cost, and what they will be made of, and where they will be made, and how they will be made, and how they are going to get them to you, and what kind of films you can buy, and what chemicals you can use to process them, and what paper you can print them on, and what kinds of accessories you can buy, and what color they will be, and how interchangeable they will be with other companies' doohickeys and mind-boggling numbers of other things. That is what manufacturers do. If you are relatively happy with the vast majority of all the other decisions they've had to make, shrug this one off and say "oh well, no one and no thing is perfect." If you aren't able to do so, as a consumer your choice is clear, find a product by a manufacturer whose compromises you can live with and buy it instead. Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >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 . - 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
Ed wrote: > Can someone please explain to me again why magnification and eyepoint are > not the same? It seems to me, that for any given % (H&V 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.. Ed, Magnification is the relative size of the image in the viewfinder, measured under certain conditions, usually with a 50mm lens set at infinity or at some specified distance (I'm sure somebody will correct me about this if I'm wrong--I actually don't know if magnification has an ANSI standard or if it's just measured by convention or what). With 1x magnification, the image in the viewfinder would be as large as the same image seen with the naked eye. Eye releif is how far from the eyepiece you can have your eye and still see the entire viewfinder image. They make "sports finders" which have, in effect, an eye relief of infinity--you can hold the camera at arms' length and still see the whole frame, like a leetle tiny TV set. With a finder with poor eye relief (early screwmount Leicas, as one example) you have to have your eyeball almost touching the eyepiece before you can see the whole frame. One of the ways that manufacturers improve eye relief is by minifying the viewfinder image--making it lower magnification. If you ever get the chance, take a Nikon F3 and slide on the original stock (DE2?) finder. The magnification is high but the eye relief is average. Then slide on the HP (high-eyepoint) finder. You'll immediately see the difference. The image is much smaller, but you don't have to hold your eye close up to the eyepiece to see the whole thing. One of the great hidden truths about the history of camera design is that the original Leica M, the M3 of 1953, was designed with a high-magnification viewfinder for a specific purpose: so you could hold both eyes open while looking through it. As your eye dominance adjusted, you could actually learn to see through the thing with normal binocular vision, just as if you weren't holding a camera up to your eye and looking through glass at all, but with one crucial difference--you could still see the brightlines. So the effect was of looking at the world unimpeded except for a white frame hanging in your field of vision. The closest thing to a camera inside your head yet invented. I say this is a "hidden truth" because the need for wide-angle framelines soon permanently killed the .9x Leica viewfinder, and even Leica, when it returned to a high-magnfication viewfinder, felt the need to design it so it could be used with a 35mm lens--and the idiots made it too small for the "both eyes open" effect that the M3 had provided!! They made it .85x instead of .9x and the both-eyes-open trick didn't work. I still get a chuckle over this. The company completely missed _its own_ point. The ME Super has the closest thing to a life-size finder of any camera I own; the OM-2n was even a tiny bit better because there was less parallax. Both cameras with a 50mm lens provide an image about the same size as that of the naked eye. Hope this helps. There may be errors in the above, technically, but I think this will give you the gist of things. --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
>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 But you forgot one thing. F90X has coated glass eyepieces which make the viewfinder brighter and sharper. At least this is the case when compared to Z-1p. F801s also has very good viewfinder. The real reason for smaller magnification and coverage, I believe, is to cut down the manufacturing cost because the manufacturers have assumed most users will rely heavily on AF (or they wanted you to anyway). Nothing more. 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
>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
Lawrence wrote: >>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. 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 - 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
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
Can someone please explain to me again why magnification and eyepoint are not the same? It seems to me, that for any given % (H&V 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: 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 .
