Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Douglas Herr wrote: >Feli di Giorgio <feli@creocollective.com> wrote: > > > >>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse300/ >> >>Here is a very clever mirror arrangement. I wonder how big the light loss >>is >>from bouncing around so may times. But still- very clever. >> >> > >Is this at all like the viewfinder path in the Olympus Pen half-frame >cameras? If this is done with mirrors I'd expect light losses to be >similar to a pentamirror like some of the consumer-grade N and C DSLR >cameras. > > >Doug Herr >Birdman of Sacramento >http://www.wildlightphoto.com >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > I understood the Digital Rebel used a mirror arrangement instead of a prism, as well as a polycarbonate chassis instead of metal to save weight, and money in manufacturing. I considered the Rebel after asking about a good starting digital on the LUG- the answers were favorable, but I opted for a good used 10D when the 20D came out- I trust the pentaprism and a metal chassis more- call me a throwback, but so far the 10D has not been a disappointment! Howsomever, I don't care what folks might say about the simplicity of a digital camera... my old IIIf has a damned sight fewer buttons, doodads, and assorted frippery than the digital, and is easier to use. I am still carrying around a 200 page manual whenever I take the 10D out for an airing!! :o) With the IIIf, All I needed was an extra roll of film, the Sunny 16 rule, and polycontrast poaper in the darkroom! Cheers! Dan