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
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
