Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]OK, so I give up. Why is it so hard to make a nice SLR VF? I have read that a 100% coverage finder requires stricter tolerances, hence more cost. Dunno if that's true or not, but it sounds plausible. So what about a a nice ~93% coverage , but otherwise spiffy VF like in the Nikon FM series? Why aren't all SLR viewfinders at least that good? What are the engineering challenges? or the costs? Scott Douglas Herr wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Scott McLoughlin wrote: > >> OTOH, whence the need for the "green light" vs. ground glass >> focus confirmation? >> >> Are we back to the discussion of 2 days ago on compromises >> we'll now accept with SLR viewfinders? > > > >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qzpgm >>>> > > Yup, same discussion. The EOS focus confirmation seems to have > problems with the same situations where the human eye has problems: > slow lenses (f/8 or smaller), ultra-wide lenses (i.e., large DOF). > The advantages of the electronic system are that it works when an > arctic gale is making your eyes water too much to see clearly, and > that when your focus is off you can blame the camera instead of yourself. > > BTW, with the 1.4x APO-Extender on the 560mm f/6.8, an effective > aperture of f/9.5, beyond the EOS system's reliable range, focus with > the SL is quick and certain. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)