Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] math challenged
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 07:57:32 +0100
References: <543014.87311.qm@web55905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7ac27f4f0909051244j13803dcse693b169bfe9eb2d@mail.gmail.com> <242058.15300.qm@web55905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4AA2CB55.4050607@sfr.fr> <445492.37756.qm@web55905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7B67874C-A9A5-4A15-AFA5-3D21BD3C5CEE@embarqmail.com>

Yes, unlike a reflex finder the M finder magnification is fixed. I  
like the 1.0 mag finder too but imagine how big the front window of  
the finder would have to be to get the same field of view as a 28mm  
lens when the magnification is 1.0!  It would have to be about twice  
the width and height of a current M finder. Imagine how huge the  
camera would then have to be (and the extra weight). The M3 (nearly 1)  
and Nikon SP finders can only go up to the 50mm field of view for this  
reason.
Frank

On 5 Sep, 2009, at 22:53, Ric Carter wrote:

> the VF magnification only compares what you see with the eye in the  
> finder to the eye not in the finder--right eye to left eye.
>
> Ideal (for me) is 1.0 because you may then shoot with both eyes open  
> most easily.
>
> How much of the world you see is determined by the size of the  
> window in the box you are looking into.
>
> ric



In reply to: Message from h_arche at yahoo.com (H. Ball Arche) ([Leica] math challenged)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] math challenged)
Message from h_arche at yahoo.com (H. Ball Arche) ([Leica] math challenged)
Message from philippe.amard at sfr.fr (Philippe Amard) ([Leica] math challenged)
Message from h_arche at yahoo.com (H. Ball Arche) ([Leica] math challenged)
Message from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] math challenged)