] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders
(except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher
magnifications on most DSLR's
I've got a -DS (pentaprism) that I used for about 9 months with a
variety of manual-focus lenses as-is. It was OK, but definately could be
challenging to get the focus right. Since I've installed a split-prism
focus screen, I haven't had anymore troubles.
Cory,
Which split-prism
I have a Canon 10D, and a M42 adapter, if you want to shoot with it
for a day. Get in touch, and we can set something up.
The 10D was the last Canon DSLR with a full size mirror. Starting
with the 20D the Digital Rebel cameras, they introduced the Canon
EF-S lens mount. They made the mirror
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I have a Canon 10D, and a M42 adapter, if you want to shoot with it
for a day. Get in touch, and we can set something up.
The 10D was the last Canon DSLR with a full size mirror. Starting
with the 20D the Digital Rebel cameras, they introduced the Canon
EF-S lens
On Jan 26, 2007, at 7:38, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I cannot believe that nobody else has been providing these
screens. ESPECIALLY with the cheapie CaNikons with the extra-crappy
viewfinders. With AF lenses, they don't affect operation at all
(as long
as they're 5.6 or faster). It's
IMO, a perfect example of Canon just plain being evil. I never
realized how much I subconsciously used the focus confirmation on my MF
lenses with my -DS until I tried using some on my friend's RebelXT.
Between the bad viewfinder and lack of focus confirmation, it's extremely
difficult
On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
Having had the MX and F3HP at the same time(up until a few months
ago),
I always picked up the F3. Better viewfinder, didn't have to drive my
face into the camera to see the full frame. And I don't wear glasses.
High magnification is useless
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
IMO, a perfect example of Canon just plain being evil. I never
realized how much I subconsciously used the focus confirmation on my MF
lenses with my -DS until I tried using some on my friend's RebelXT.
Between the bad viewfinder and lack of focus confirmation, it's
On 1/25/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The pentaprism vs pentamirror issue caused Pentax to reduce
magnification and re-tune the focusing screen in the DL/DL2/K100D/
K110D models for brightness rather than focusing contrast, so the D/
DS/DS2/K10D present better viewfinders for
On 1/25/07, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Mark. That's precisely why I was asking about a comparison.
Manually focusing a lens on the K100D in any but the best light is a
study in frustration. Otherwise, it's a nice little rig. As I ponder
the possibility of adding a
On 1/25/07, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/1/07, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
What do you think are the odds that
someone will have a Canon with M42 adapter at GFM? g
Not me!
I wouldn't think so. vbg
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
Shoot more film!
--
On Jan 26, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
May be old hat to many people here ...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?
forum=1036message=21618773
Thanks for the link, Godfrey. That's pretty much how I focus, anyway,
though I've never been as methodical about it as you.
Godfrey,
Having used Leica M and Nikon SLR side by side for 30 years, I have
to agree with you here too. I almost always prefer the SLR
viewfinder. I used the Leicas because of the lenses ... Leica's M
lenses are terrific.
Funny: the closest I've found to them in overall rendering
Adam,
Having had the MX and F3HP at the same time(up until a few months ago),
I always picked up the F3. Better viewfinder, didn't have to drive my
face into the camera to see the full frame. And I don't wear glasses.
High magnification is useless without enough eye relief to see the
On 27/01/07, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually it should be the other way around. ;-)
Leica RF did come first, they do make a good match though.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Howdy gang!
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
kinda curious as to how the others compare.
--
Scott Loveless
Scott Loveless wrote:
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
kinda curious as to how the others compare.
The ist-D and K10D have
They are more or less the same. Do not go for anything wide, it will
be mighty difficult to tell apart sharp and unsharp. Otherwise, *istD
and K10D have pretty decent viewfinder, after all it is pentaprism and
very bright screen.
On 1/25/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howdy gang!
Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy gang!
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
kinda curious as to how the others compare.
I've
On 1/25/07, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are more or less the same. Do not go for anything wide, it will
be mighty difficult to tell apart sharp and unsharp. Otherwise, *istD
and K10D have pretty decent viewfinder, after all it is pentaprism and
very bright screen.
Thanks,
On 1/25/07, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
kinda curious
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/01/25 Thu PM 02:59:41 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Scott Loveless wrote:
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been
On 1/25/07, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy gang!
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
On 1/25/07, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/01/25 Thu PM 02:59:41 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Scott Loveless wrote:
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual
Penta mirror design has one significant flaw - it is not a solid piece
of glass, thus it introduces more assembly tolerances and place for
error.
Viewfinder of *ist is good because it is big. I have MZ-6 which is
reasonable, though seemingly K10D is better if I squint a bit. But
then again I have
The K10D has the same viewfinder as the *ist D/Ds/Ds2, with improved
focusing screens. (I use both a D and a Ds). While very large, (for an
APS-C camera) and bright, after handling them, I didn't think that the
Dl[2] or K100/110 would work nearly as well manually focusing. The D/Ds
screens
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 1/25/07, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy gang!
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder
On 1/25/07, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the 10D/20D/30D finder is smaller than the *istD or K10D (it's the
same coverage, but only .9x magnification instead of the .95x of the
Pentax's)
Thanks Adam. That helps a bit. I guess I really need to get a few
bodies together and try them
On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:39 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy gang!
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
kinda curious as to
mike wilson wrote:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The ist-DL and K100D have pentamirror viewfinders and are not as good.
They are worse than not as good if you are a four-eyed git like me.
I am a four-eyed git but I'm *not* like you!
;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
And these cameras really need 1.5x viewfinder magnification to match a
similar 35mm. I suppose the eyepiece is too far from the ground glass to
do that economically.
Adam Maas wrote:
Note the 10D/20D/30D finder is smaller than the *istD or K10D (it's the
same coverage, but only .9x
Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders
(except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher
magnifications on most DSLR's than 35mm film(Digital Rebels and
pentamirror Nikons excepted).
To match my F3 (0.75x magnification) a DSLR would need 1.125x
Well, I do not have a DSLR, so you may be correct, but every one I
looked through had this small image with lots of black space around it,
so I naturally thought that they simply cropped the viewfinder to the
reduced image size. But if as you imply they actually have a full sized
image in the
PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders
(except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher
magnifications on most DSLR's than 35mm film(Digital Rebels and
pentamirror Nikons excepted
- Original Message -
From: graywolf Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
And these cameras really need 1.5x viewfinder magnification to match a
similar 35mm. I suppose the eyepiece is too far from the ground glass to
do that economically.
Viewfinder size appears tied to screen
Without getting into all the discussion of specific magnification
values, etc, I find the viewfinder image size and overall brightness
with comparable field of view and maximum aperture lenses in both
*ist DS and K10D to be just about the same to my eye as that which I
had in the Nikon
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:23 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Without getting into all the discussion of specific magnification
values, etc, I find
List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
- Original Message -
From: graywolf Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
And these cameras really need 1.5x viewfinder magnification to match a
similar 35mm. I suppose the eyepiece is too far from the ground glass
to do that economically
, January 25, 2007 2:23 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Without getting into all the discussion of specific magnification
values, etc, I find the viewfinder image size and overall brightness
with comparable field of view and maximum aperture lenses in both
Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders
(except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher
magnifications on most DSLR's than 35mm
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:53 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
I'm comparing them to two models which are considered to have among the
best finders ever put in a 35mm SLR. The F3HP finder is generally
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Interchangable finders were nice, but nobody has been buying them in
years. Nikon only kept them as long as they did for traditions sake.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
yes but for those of us who dont need
to wear glasses the high eyepoint
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/01/25 Thu PM 05:06:34 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
mike wilson wrote:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The ist-DL and K100D have pentamirror viewfinders
On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
Interchangable finders were nice, but nobody has been buying them in
years. Nikon only kept them as long as they did for traditions sake.
For those that need/want more viewfinder magnification, Pentax is
offering a useful accessory for the DSLR
On 25/1/07, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
What do you think are the odds that
someone will have a Canon with M42 adapter at GFM? g
Not me!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
Interchangable finders were nice, but nobody has been buying them in
years. Nikon only kept them as long as they did for traditions sake.
For those that need/want more viewfinder magnification, Pentax is
offering a
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:53 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
I'm comparing them to two models which are considered to have among the
best finders ever put in a 35mm SLR. The F3HP finder is generally
Thanks, Mark. That's precisely why I was asking about a comparison.
Manually focusing a lens on the K100D in any but the best light is a
study in frustration. Otherwise, it's a nice little rig. As I ponder
the possibility of adding a DSLR to my own kit I'm trying to take into
account my
On Jan 25, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
For those that need/want more viewfinder magnification, Pentax is
offering a useful accessory for the DSLR line:
---
Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eyecup for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras
The Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eyecup works with all Pentax DSLR
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jan 25, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
For those that need/want more viewfinder magnification, Pentax is
offering a useful accessory for the DSLR line:
---
Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eyecup for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras
The Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eyecup
that looks like a good little accessory to
have. Anybody tried one?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
On Jan
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:57:17PM -0500, graywolf wrote:
Well, I do not have a DSLR, so you may be correct, but every one I
looked through had this small image with lots of black space around it,
so I naturally thought that they simply cropped the viewfinder to the
reduced image size. But
, January 25, 2007 3:44 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
High magnification finders haeve their own issues. I've yet to see a
finder on 35mm over .85x magnification that is easy to see all of the
viewfinder area (The MX was particularly bad for that) even if you
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:57:17PM -0500, graywolf wrote:
Well, I do not have a DSLR, so you may be correct, but every one I
looked through had this small image with lots of black space around it,
so I naturally thought that they simply cropped the viewfinder to the
With considerably less need, since it seems to be designed to not use
many older, including manual focus, Nikon lenses.
Adam Maas wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:57:17PM -0500, graywolf wrote:
Well, I do not have a DSLR, so you may be correct, but every one I
More need actually, since it won't AF with most Nikon AF lenses that are
otherwise completely usable on it (The only restriction on AF lenses is
the AF).
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
With considerably less need, since it seems to be designed to not use
many older, including manual focus,
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:34:09 -0500, Adam Maas wrote:
And if you can't find it, the Nikon DK-21M will fit the Pentax
viewfinders(As well as Canon viewfinders, despite their different shape.
I've tested it). The Pentax unit offers slightly more magnification
though(1.2x vs 1.17x) and may have
Pardon, my mistake.
Adam Maas wrote:
More need actually, since it won't AF with most Nikon AF lenses that are
otherwise completely usable on it (The only restriction on AF lenses is
the AF).
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
With considerably less need, since it seems to be designed to not
Scott,
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D and find that it's viewfinder is atrocious. I'm
kinda curious as to how the others compare.
the viewfinder quality was the
From: Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've got a -DS (pentaprism) that I used for about 9 months with a
variety of manual-focus lenses as-is. It was OK, but definately could be
challenging to get the focus right. Since I've installed a split-prism
focus screen, I haven't had anymore
On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
On 1/25/07, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy gang!
Has anyone had an opportunity to compare manual focusing on an *istD
or K10D vs. a DL or K100D? I've been playing around with M42 and M
lenses on the K100D
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR
Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders
(except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher
magnifications
62 matches
Mail list logo
