Marnie wrote: But I am not so sure that I like the idea that you cannot see the increase through the viewfinder. I rely heavy on what I can see through the viewfinder. Using mainly zooms, that is what I use to determine if I want to shoot at 70mm or 135mm or something.
So maybe there are drawbacks in not having a full sensor, after all. Am I following all this correctly? Or basically so? ;-) Marnie aka Doe I think you may be mixing up viewfinder magnification and field of view. Think of viewfinder magnification like TV sets. You see the exact same picture on a 19" and a 27" screen, but everything on the 27" screen is bigger. Field of view is dependent on the sensor (or film) size and the focal length of the lens. The confusion is that the discussion started on an obscure point that few people use often, keeping both eyes open when taking a picture and wanting what was viewed on the viewfinder to be the same size as what was being viewed with the naked eye, In this sense it makes sense that a DSLR based on a 35mm SLR the view in the viewfinder would be closest with a (for 35mm) normal 50mm lens, even though the 50mm lens is a short telephoto on an APS sized sensor DSLR. You will still see the effect of the lens correctly in the viewfinder (i.e. the 50mm lens on the DSLR will look like a 75mm lens on a 35mm SLR at the same distance from the subject). Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
