I believe the magnification quoted is the relative visual size of the
subject seen through the viewfinder, using a "normal" lens, relative to
the size seen with the naked eye.
The Can*n 20D spec is "Magnification: 0.9x (-1 diopter with 50 mm lens
at infinity)"
Oly says of the OM-4, "finder viewfield: 97% of actual picture field;
magnification: 0.84x at infinity with -0.5 diop. (50mm lens)." For the
OM-1, "Viewfinder magnification: 0.92x at infinity with 50mm lens."
If the spec. were the magnification of the image on the screen, there
would be no sense is specifying the lens focal length.
The tricky part is using a 50mm lens for the measurement on a camera
with the sensor size of the 20D. Assuming 50mm to be 'normal' for 35mm
film, 'normal' for the 20D would be about 31mm. So, as a practical
matter, the 20D, like the 10D and 300D, has a much smaller viewfinder
image than any OM. Visually, the vertical coverage of a 50mm lens on an
OM-4 and a zoom at about 30+ mm on a 300D is about the same. However,
the visual size of the objects is much smaller in the 300D. The 300D
viewfinder is just plain tiny looking compared to an OM-1 or 2.
Moose
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>But what are you magnifying? 24x36 v. 15x22.5
>
>Winsor
>
>On Aug 24, 2004, at 5:37 AM, Luca A. wrote:
>
>
>>I can't comment about darker, but sure it is not smaller, sonce its'
>>coveerage is 95% and magnification is 0,9x. By comparison, the EOS 3
>>has 97%
>>coverage and 0,72 magnification.
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|