No, I'm saying that the focusing screen was unusable for manual focusing
when the camera was not powered up. No matter how you turned the
focusing ring the viewfinder seemed dark and unfocused.
Once power was turned on the viewfinder brightened and manual focus was
possible... Well mostly, the
I must have come into the middle of a discussion.
Are you saying that you focus with the camera turned off, then turn it
on and hit the shutter button? That sounds like an unusual method of
work.
I'm a little confused here.
gs
George Sinos
gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphoto
es of optical viewfinders
What difference does the optical viewfinder make in this case?
As long as it is not a RF, you would notice, whether its an optical or
electronic.
(And it looks like the guys figured it out before he "took" a shot.)
Once in a while, I pull my camera out quic
Idiot using live view when he has one of the best OVFs in the business...
On 8/2/2012 2:40 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in
the bank account).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
he's just a real pro and got down to work.
Cheers,
frank
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." --
Christopher Hitchens
--- Original Message ---
From: Igor Roshchin
Sent: August 3, 2012 8/3/12
To: PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: One of the advan
originale-
From: Igor Roshchin
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:20 PM
To: PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: One of the advantages of optical viewfinders
What difference does the optical viewfinder make in this case?
As long as it is not a RF, you would notice, whether its an optical or
electronic.
(And it
What difference does the optical viewfinder make in this case?
As long as it is not a RF, you would notice, whether its an optical or
electronic.
(And it looks like the guys figured it out before he "took" a shot.)
Once in a while, I pull my camera out quickly, start with changing the
mode and s
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> James King
>
>
> Bob W wrote on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:45:50 -0700:
>
> > I've got one of those on my trousers.
>
> What? You mean you have one one that divides into three pieces and
> extends less than one inch??? You p
TMI...
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM, James King wrote:
>
> Bob W wrote on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:45:50 -0700:
>
>> I've got one of those on my trousers.
>
> What? You mean you have one one that divides into three pieces and extends
> less than one inch??? You probably shouldn't make a public an
Bob W wrote on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:45:50 -0700:
> I've got one of those on my trousers.
What? You mean you have one one that divides into three pieces and extends
less than one inch??? You probably shouldn't make a public announcement...
Regards, Jim
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
You can tell he is a pro, he never showed a look of surprise when he took off
the cap.
-Original Message-
>From: Mark Roberts
>Subject: One of the advantages of optical viewfinders
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
>
>
>--
>Mark Roberts -
I've got one of those on my trousers.
B
>
> Hate it when that happens. I worried about it using the X2, but fixed
> the problem with a little accessory:
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25268645/leica-X2-auto-cap.jpg
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
> > http://www.youtub
Hate it when that happens. I worried about it using the X2, but fixed
the problem with a little accessory:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25268645/leica-X2-auto-cap.jpg
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.poste
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Mark Roberts
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
>
"let him who is without sin cast the first stone"...
O:(
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
I just got a Zeiss Ikon ZM. I haven't done it yet, but I'm just
waiting for the day that I leave the lens cap on.
--
Kent Brede
http://kentonbrede.com/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-l14RCW4UA
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
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 direct
There's been some discussion about view finders and their virtues. My
1st Pentax slr was actually a Ricoh which used the pentax screw-mount .
I can't remember the model but it's still around the basement somewhere
and I still have the lenses (mostly Sears & JC Penny). I picked this
model becaus
I found te discussion on the comparisons among various camera viewfinders
interesting. It brougt back memories of past cameras :-)
As a recent buyer of the K10 and still having the istDL, I honestly have not
paid a lot of attention between the two viewfinders. This PM I took both out
with zoom
in particular you noticed as different.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:29 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: viewfinders
On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, John Whittingham
uite
> as nice as the D200, about the same as the *ist DS which is almost
> identical to my eye with the D200, so it could well have been a
> mistaken impression, might have been a different lens.
>
> I didn't think it necessary to say that D200/D80/*ist DS/K10D all
>
al to my eye with the D200, so it could well have been a
mistaken impression, might have been a different lens.
I didn't think it necessary to say that D200/D80/*ist DS/K10D all
have pretty darn good viewfinders. The tiny differences between them
are insignificant.
Godfrey
--
PDML P
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, John Whittingham wrote:
>
>> I thought Pentax DSLR's had probably the best viewfinders of any
>> sub $1000
>> DSLR, not that I'd lose any sleep over it -:)
>
> I have compared the Nikon D200 aga
On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, John Whittingham wrote:
> I thought Pentax DSLR's had probably the best viewfinders of any
> sub $1000
> DSLR, not that I'd lose any sleep over it -:)
I have compared the Nikon D200 against the Pentax *ist DS. I find
them about equal in viewf
I don't think they directly fit anything but the old VX series Exactas,
as I remember there was a place in NYC that adapted them to Nikon F's
that was about 1961-62.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
luben karavelov wr
graywolf wrote:
> Just a bit of historical interest. Back in the 1960's the thing to do
> was have an Exacta rotating eyecup adapted to your camera. Not only did
> it have a place for a diopter, but the diopter rotated with the eyecup
> so you could have your optician make one with astigmatism corr
e:
Had a special set of lenses made up for that without the variable
diopter.
Same here.
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a distance of
about 3 to 4 inches. Sole
eras,
> over the last months.
>
> All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a distance of
> about 3 to 4 inches. Sole exception: an old Kiev 60 prism that used to
> be blurry before now is tack-sharp. The former one that worked well for
> years now doesn't.
> I'm wondering though, now, Ralf, how you would find using the "special"
> finders on your new LX (specifically, the FB1 base fitted with the FC-1
> "action finder")...
The FC-1 has an eyepoint of 60mm, as compared to the other LX finders,
whose eyepoints are generally 15mm or so. To me, the eff
> Now, is there someone around here who can make any sense of all this?
Well, not I - . I'm wondering though, now, Ralf, how you would find
using the "special" finders on your new LX (specifically, the FB1 base
fitted with the FC-1 "action finder")...
> Further info: I am far-sighted and my eye
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a distance of
about 3 to 4 inches. Sole exception: an old Kiev 60 prism that used to
be blurry before now is tack-sharp. The former one that worked
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're experiencing a quick change in your vision like that, it's
> time to go see your eye doctor.
Well, not that quick. My optician says everything is normal for someone
of my age (early 50s). Other than the viewfinder problem, my vision
hasn't d
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf R. Radermacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: Viewfinders and no-line glasses - was: Life is beautiful :-)
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I take it normal camera
On 17/11/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>If you're experiencing a quick change in your vision like that, it's
>time to go see your eye doctor.
MARK!!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into them from a
distance of
about 3 to 4 inches. Sole exception: an old Kiev 60 prism that used to
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Had a special set of lenses made up for that without the variable
> diopter.
Same here.
Things have gotten a little odd with my no-line glasses and cameras,
over the last months.
All my viewfinders are blurry unless I look into
On Oct 3, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Also, the MX viewfinder has a shorter eye relief, which makes it
harder to see the edges of the frame without moving my eye around.
The DS sits just right for my vision with glasses.
Having to move my eye around (and the split finder
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Also, the MX viewfinder has a shorter eye relief, which makes it harder to
see the edges of the frame without moving my eye around. The DS sits just
right for my vision with glasses.
Having to move my eye around (and the split finder which did not
Hmm. When I put a 50mm f/1.4 lens on both MX and DS, and bring them
both to my eyes like a pair of binoculars, the image brightness and
magnification is the same. The biggest difference is that the MX
viewfinder is larger and shows a larger field of view, so the total
brightness of the view
Hi Bruce ...
A good point, although one I cannot really comment upon other than to say
I've never used a lens as slow as a 5.6 so I cannot make any comparisons.
However, I have used a number of 3,5 lenses on cameras from the original
Spottie through the LX, and have ~just~ started to use them on
he wrong word to use.
CR> My impression, based on the non-scientific method of "having just
CR> looked through one for a half minute" is that the ME Super viewfinder
CR> looked brighter probably just because the image was so LARGE through
CR> there. Even if both viewfinders
ing just
looked through one for a half minute" is that the ME Super viewfinder
looked brighter probably just because the image was so LARGE through
there. Even if both viewfinders have the same intensity of light
coming off of the focusing screen to the user's eye, the older
(l
Actually, you'd need a whole one stop faster a lens if you wanted to
enlarge the (cropped) viewfinder image of a *ist-D to match the size
of the viewfinder image in the MX.
But that's not relevant. The complaint was that the *ist-D didn't
have the same brightness, or the same magnification, as t
Except to match the MX the *istD viewfinder would have to have a 1.425x
magnification, and you would need to use a 1/2 stop faster lens to get
the same brightness, everything else being equal.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
--
Which makes critical composing somewhat difficult ... at least it does for
me.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: John Francis
> And in any case you won't find any
> AF Camera with as large a viewfinder image as you get in the MX;
> there has to be somewhere to display the additional informati
/1.7 on my *ist-D, and an A50/1.7 on my MX.
Looking through the viewfinders, magnification and brightness
looks as close to identical as I can measure with the naked eye.
Sure, the image area in the MX viewfinder covers a larger angle
than what I see through the *ist-D; that's because of the cr
Juan Buhler wrote:
I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
istD, makes me want to cry.
I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
what would it take for a not full frame cam
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: RE: Viewfinders
You've made an interesting "discovery" in that we often get used to
something - in this case the DSLR viewfinder - and forget what we've lost
or given up. It's easy to sa
Or maybe a full frame viewfinder with the system which Pentax used
with their "Panoramic" mode... So you can cycle between full
frame/actual framing.
Of course actual framing will be less enlarged but... well, dream!
2005/10/2, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 10/2/05, Charles Robinson <[EMAI
On 10/2/05, Charles Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you think about it, there's no way that a smaller screen could
> possibly look as big and bright in a viewfinder. Less total light
> hitting the surface area of the screen = less light to your eyes. No
> way around that without some so
xel camera...
j
On 10/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Juan ...
>
> I essentially made the same comment a few days ago. As nice as the Pentax
> DSLR viewfinders are supposed to be, they do not compare favorably with the
> view through the Leica, MX, LX, and
Hi Juan ...
I essentially made the same comment a few days ago. As nice as the Pentax
DSLR viewfinders are supposed to be, they do not compare favorably with the
view through the Leica, MX, LX, and even the earlier K-body cameras. Thus
far, I enjoy using the Leicas and the MX far more than the
On Oct 2, 2005, at 9:30, Juan Buhler wrote:
I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
istD, makes me want to cry.
I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
what would it take
I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
istD, makes me want to cry.
I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
what would it take for a not full frame camera like the istD to h
As I said, it was a quick comparison...and I didn't
perceived differences in magnification when changing
between one and the other. I am sure that, with more
time, I could have find it...
My point is that I expected the difference to be more
obvious.
Anyway, there are other differences that make th
I'd check the focusing ability which is easier. I'd bet the Ds...
Carlos Royo wrote:
About the viewfinder, both had a Sigma 18-125 mounted.
Although my brain was all the time: 'remember, the DS
has a pentaprism and the DL a pentamirror...', my eyes
could't see the difference. Actually, if so
About the viewfinder, both had a Sigma 18-125 mounted.
Although my brain was all the time: 'remember, the DS
has a pentaprism and the DL a pentamirror...', my eyes
could't see the difference. Actually, if someone tells
me 'you MUST choose the brighter', I would choose the
DL.
Jaume, did you no
I had the chance to compare DL and Ds side by side in
a shop. I didn't go too deep since I was not going to
buy any of them so I didn't want to take too much time
from the seller.
They had no batteries so the most obvious thing to
compare were construction feeling and wiewfinder.
The DL was silver
Don't forget early Ricoh XR bodies, like the XR-1 XR-1s (manual exposure only),
XR-2 and XR-2s (manual or aperture priority), and their Sears twins, like my
two KS Auto bodies. Some later XR bodies, too (XR-6? XR-7? XR-10?), and their
Sears twins.
Doe any Chinon bodies have an aperture window?
That's very reassuring to know.
John
John Whittingham
Technician
-- Original Message ---
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:39:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
> Pentaprism.
>
> John Whitt
t: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:30:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
> I think MZ-3 has pentaprism which is the selling point.
> Unfortunately, it was married with low quality eyepiece, just like
> all other MZ models except the MZ-S.
>
> Alan Chan
> ICQ: 42516180
> http://www.pbase.
a porro prism is a solid piece of glass.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
> A well made (expensive) porro prism (another name for a mirror p
While your on the subject, what's in the MZ-3?
John
John Whittingham
Technician
-- Original Message ---
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:05:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Viewfinders
> A pentaprism is a 5 sided solid
poorly made porro prism is a piece of junk.
--
Joseph Tainter wrote:
"1. Penta Prism (old and/or expensive) vs Penta Mirror (modern and/or
cheap) - construction."
Thanks, Boris. Those were the terms I was looking for.
But what is the difference between prism and mirror viewfinders? Do
Hi!
JT> I've never understood the material/construction differences between the
JT> different qualities of viewfinder. Could someone explain it?
Joe I know of two parameters:
1. Penta Prism (old and/or expensive) vs Penta Mirror (modern and/or
cheap) - construction.
2. Coated glass vs Plastic o
I've never understood the material/construction differences between the
different qualities of viewfinder. Could someone explain it?
Thanks,
Joe
finder on the tripod. Light entering the finder on the other
listed cameras will affect exposure readings.
JD
-Original Message-
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Viewfinders and TTL on top
Having
I only have the ME super and ZX5n to compare the Super A to, and it is
somewhere between the two of them. Well, I actually have a P3n (same
viewfinder as a P30) and it is decidely better than that. Probably closer
in brightness (but not quite) to the ME super with the magnification of the
P30.
H
Having just been enabled with an AF080C, I thought I would ask a
question about people's opinions on an old (= cheap) Pentax with a
decent viewfinder and TTL. My background follows.
I have an MZ-50 and an MZ-5n. They are meant to differ a lot in
viewfinder capability, but I honestly cannot see th
I think some one already has. At least I remeber that there was some
attachment for the Coolpix 500 that cover the LCD so it made a better
viewfinder. I think is was eye level, however.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FA
Maybe. I do wonder if the use of the digital is so distinctive (looking
at the back screen) that I only noticed these. I did try to pay
attention the rest of the day, and all the cameras I saw were those
boxier digitals, as opposed to the more rectangular film P&S models.
Steven Desjardins
Depa
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: digital viewfinders
> Must prove something, Steve. But I am not sure what. I remember watching
at GFM
> during the Camera Clinic and about 90% of the tourists (not the more
> photographically sophisticat
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
>level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
>also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
>viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film came
PROTECTED]>
Subject: digital viewfinders
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:14 -0500
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not th
]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:14 -0500
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: digital viewfinders
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:32 -0500
>
> A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
> level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
> also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
> viewfinder (I'm yet to see a fil
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me
that it would be
I think you shouldn't expect too much from any of the future models, except
perhaps the flagship model if there will ever be any (MZ-S is an
indication).
regards,
Alan Chan
Mike article over at photo.net got me thinking. The basic *ist's
viewfinder doesn't seem too exciting and the *ist D's vi
Mike article over at photo.net got me thinking. The basic *ist's viewfinder
doesn't seem too exciting and the *ist D's viewfinder seem's ok, but I guess
we'll know more when it comes out this summer. Right now I have a ZX-L with
a fairly bad viewfinder, what are the chances of a good viewfinde
According to Carl Shipman's "How to Select & Use Pentax SLR Cameras" (HP
Books, edition with 1980 as the last copyright date), the Pentax K1000
specifications are:
Magnification: .87 with 50mm lenses, life-size with 55mm lenses
Viewfinder shows 95% of the frame
The same book lists .88 with 50mm
> I went straight to my Magic Lantern Guide for the K, M and Spotmatic
> series, and find the K1000 is in yet another one of their
> books...which I've not bought yet. Hmmm.
Keith,
I'll save you the trouble: the coverage figure is not in there, either.
And my buddy at Pentax cannot find a spec
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > I have Pentax' brochure on the K1000, and it says 0.88x magnification
> > with standard 50mm lens, focused at infinity. Are you saying that's incorrect?
> >
> > Or did you mispeak, and you really meant the KX?
>
> That's magnification, not coverage. Two different kett
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston"
Subject: Re: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
> Sample variation for coverage makes no sense at all to me. I don't think
> they could do that if they tried. I can, however, believe that the spec
was
> changed from
>>> From my experience with K1000's, the reason no one knows the viewfinder
>> coverage is because there was so much sample to sample variance that they
>> couldn't publish an absolute value.
>
> Well, now, that's logical enough ~ but since they DID 'publish' it,
> I'm supposing you're simply tell
> I have Pentax' brochure on the K1000, and it says 0.88x magnification
> with standard 50mm lens, focused at infinity. Are you saying that's incorrect?
>
> Or did you mispeak, and you really meant the KX?
That's magnification, not coverage. Two different kettles of fish.
>>> The manual I have
William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Keith Whaley"
> Subject: Re: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
>
> > >
> > > No one knows the coverage of the K1000. I suspect not even Pentax knows.
> > > It was a closel
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley"
Subject: Re: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
> >
> > No one knows the coverage of the K1000. I suspect not even Pentax knows.
It
> > was a closely guarded secret during the cold war,
>
> Illogical.
>From m
I have Pentax' brochure on the K1000, and it says 0.88x magnification
with standard 50mm lens, focused at infinity. Are you saying that's incorrect?
Or did you mispeak, and you really meant the KX?
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
> The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
No one knows the coverage of the K1000. I suspect not even Pentax knows. It
was a closely guarded secret during the cold war, and now no one can located
the files where the information was kept. It's fated to remain an eter
At 12:54 PM 2/16/2003 -0500, you wrote:
The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
So that should be 88% mag.
At 10:09 PM 2/15/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfin
The manual I have shows 93% coverage and .88% magnification for the KX.
At 10:09 PM 2/15/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
coverage.
I also need the depth of the KX b
Brooks
Begin Original Message
From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:09:49 +0100
To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please
check
out what the manua
Boz.
I have the K1000 manual.
I'll be right back:)
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:09:49 +0100
To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
Hi,
Those that have a manual for ei
Hi, Boz.
> Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please
> check out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification
> ratio and coverage.
>From the KX manual - "0.88x magnification with 50mm lenses
(life-size with 55mm lens). Dioptry -0.8. 93% field of view." The
depth
PROTECTED]
===
internetowy magazyn o fotografii
- Original Message -
From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Viewfinders on KX, KM, and K1000
> Hi,
&g
Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
>out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
>coverage.
K10000.88x mag (with 50mm lens, focused at infinity)
Doesn't mention coverage.
--
Mark Ro
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
coverage.
I also need the depth of the KX body without a lens attached. And let
me be optimistic, the weight of the KX-motor and KM-motor bodies would
be g
An excerpt from Michael H. Reichmann's Hassleblad H1 review on
photo.net:
"When I first brought the camera up to my eye I was immediately taken
with how bright and clear the viewfinder is. Up until now my gold
standard for camera viewfinders has been the current Pentax 645 NII. I
didn
FWIW, it's an AF-S lens. If the light level was low, the AF may hunt when using
all but the center AF sensor, since that is the only cross pattern one. I also
don't know how the AF was configured. In single shot mode the default is to
find the closest subject based on the reading from all the sens
I tried out an F80 today, with a USM(or whatever they call it) lens, and
although it was quiet and silky smooth, it didnt achieve focus lock any
faster than my Pentaxes. The motor moved to the right 'region' of focus
quicker, but it then did a lot of fidgetting before deciding it was
happy - my pe
TED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 31. lokakuuta 2001 14:21
Aihe: Pentax AF viewfinders
>Erik wrote:
>
>"Why is it so difficult to put a decent viewfinder on the newer models?
>I've compared of course the LX, but also MX, with the MZ-3 and MZ-S a
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
