> > He asked about which lens would match his other eye when he looked > through the viewfinder. That is different than a normal 50mm (normal on > 135 cameras because that is what the Leica came with), and normal > rule-of-thumb ( = diagonal of the negative ) 43mm on 135. So, yes it is > confusing. > > Compared to a 50mm on 135 film it would be about 33mm. > > Compaired to rule-of-thumb it would be about 29mm. > > But to give a life size image in the viewfinder he would need about 82mm. > > Does that make it any clearer? No. In fact I think you're just confusing things. I don't see why you think you need an 82mm lens to give a normal 'life sized' image. Or rather I do see where you get that figure from, but I don't agree with your assumptions.
I'd bet that the limited 31mm comes pretty close to the normal image on the *ist-D (i.e. objects subtend about the same angle at the eye through the viewfinder as they do to the naked eye). Sure, the viewfinder image screen is smaller than the screen on your 35mm film camera. But I'd bet that it's also closer to the viewfinder eyepiece, so that it covers the same angle. That means that full-screen images appear to be about the same size. And to get a full-screen image in the *ist-D that matches a 50mm lens on an MX a good approximation would be the 31mm. That's gong to be perhaps a little smaller than life sized; maybe a 35mm would be closer. But an 82mm is *way* too long. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > graywolf wrote: > > > > > >>Now the istD has a 95% viewfinder magnification that is the same as an > > > > MX. BUT, the screen size is only 2/3rds of that of a 135 film camera. So > > I would estimate that you would need about an 82mm lense to give a life > > size viewfinder image, so a 77/1.8 limited or 85 ought to be close. > > > > Okay, now I am completely confused. Seems that should be too high a number, > > that it should be in the reverse, less than a 50mm, not more. Not that it > > matters and I am not good at math. And it really doesn't matter. :-) > > > > But it raises another question in my mind. If it depends on the viewfinder > > magnification as well, would that mean on cameras with less magnification than > > 95 or 97 % that a 50mm would NOT look normal (through the viewfinder)? > > > > I guess the camera industry arrived at standards, re 50mm, that don't have a > > lot to do with anything. > > > > Marnie aka Doe Well, some. ;-) > > > > >
