>> |
Anonymous
>>114952 That's because of their sensor design. With a few modifications on the Nikon side, the A700 and D300 have the same sensor. Would you grant that, given the same sensor, more bits=more dynamic range?
>Wait, wut? The viewfinder magnification is in the .9-.97 range for all APS-C cameras.
Yes, but I said "effective magnification.">>114966
Magnificiation used to always be measured with a 50mm lens, just as a standard. Made sense.
The smaller sensors of APS-C DSLRs mean smaller mirrors which means less magnification for a given field of view. But to make their viewfinders sound less crappy, camera companies still specify crop-sensor camera magnifications with a 50mm lens attached, never-mind that it works like a 75mm or 80mm now. You have to divide the magnification by the crop factor to get what it really works like. That's how Olympuses have "great magnifications" but horrible viewfinders: what the magnification really looks like is half of what it is.
>>114966 I just checked a few different places and all of them said the A700 didn't have 100% coverage.
Seeing the whole image does make a difference. I can't explain it tangibly, but my compositions just seem to come together better... maybe "more organically" is a more exact phrase than "better..." when I'm shooting with a full coverage viewfinder, and other people's I've looked at do, too, even before I knew what camera they were using. Besides, it just makes sense that actually seeing the whole image would contribute to better composition.
A good photographer will get good photographs with a Zenit with 65% (if I remember correctly) viewfinder coverage, of course. But that doesn't mean that viewfinder coverage isn't useful.
|