Why can't the digital-camera makers get the ergonomics right?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Andrew Koenig, Jun 21, 2005.

  1. Andrew Koenig

    Darrell Guest

    It also explains why the Pentax *ist D and *ist DS have better finders as
    their pentaprisms were optimized for the APC-C format.
     
    Darrell, Jun 22, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. And explains why I don't mind the D70 finder: my glasses prevent me from
    seeing the whole frame with many SLRs, so being able to compose without
    moving my head to see what's happening in the corners is a pleasure.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 22, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Even without glasses I have to same problem with an FE2 (compared to a F3HP):
    the field of view of the FE2 is simply to big to see the entrie image.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 22, 2005
    #23
  4. It seems to me that field of view is the relevant parameter. But
    I don't know how you should compute that from frame size and view finder
    magnification.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 22, 2005
    #24
  5. Andrew Koenig

    Andrew Haley Guest

    The gap is enormous. To my eye, the finder of the D2x is no worse
    than the F100. It might depend on whether you wear glasses or not: I
    do, and if the image size of the D2x were much larger I wouldn't be
    able to see it all without removing my glasses.

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Jun 22, 2005
    #25
  6. Andrew Koenig

    Paul Rubin Guest

    You also need the apparent distance of the focusing screen from the
    eyepiece. It is the same between the D70 and F80.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jun 22, 2005
    #26
  7. Is that an important parameter? For constant field of view does the apparent
    brightness depend on the apparent distance?
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 22, 2005
    #27
  8. Naah -- all you need is the (taking lens) focal length at which the image
    seen through the finder is the same size as the actual subject--or,
    equivalently, the apparent magnification at a given focal length. Nikon
    publishes the latter for some of their cameras.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jun 22, 2005
    #28
  9. My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
    I wouldn't bet on it. Canon 1Ds's (!) prices haven't budget a cent
    since 1Ds release in 2002.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SvNuUg==?=, Jun 28, 2005
    #29
  10. Well, I wouldn't bet on anything in this area either; DSLR pricing
    depends on far too many things I don't know enough about.

    However, I would point out that the 1Ds has been sitting pretty as the
    only game in town for certain uses for some time, which could explain
    the price stability in a field where prices usually fall. The Nikon
    D2x may change that a little bit; further interesting releases from
    Nikon could change that considerably. Canon probably has considerable
    room for price motion on their high end by now, they just have no
    incentive to give up profit. Competition would be to the benefit of
    the consumers!
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 28, 2005
    #30
  11. Andrew Koenig

    GD Guest

    Whats the point where more megapixels dont give any more real
    resolution because lenses cant be manufactured to that high
    quality in commercial quantities, or that they become diffraction
    limited?
     
    GD, Jun 28, 2005
    #31
  12. And just how close to that point do you figure we are??

    --

    John McWilliams

    I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
    not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 28, 2005
    #32
  13. Andrew Koenig

    dj_nme Guest

     
    dj_nme, Jun 29, 2005
    #33
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.