[LRflex] Re: An odd photo...

Way, way back on Sept 21, Philippe Amard asked:

>From your experience, and from others', is the 350D viewfinder clear 
>and large enough for focussing?  Looks so  "squeezy" to me.

The differences between the 350D (Digital Rebel XT to our American friends)=
 and the 20D is that the 350D finder is both smaller (.8x magification and=
 95% coverage) as compared to the 20D (.9x magnification and the same=
 coverage)and darker.  Darker because the 20D uses a 'standard' roof=
 pentaprism, whereas the 300 & 350D use a "poroprism" - a series of front=
 silvered mirrors.

The "poroprism" setup is lighter and cheaper to make.  There is more light=
 loss with each reflective surface and the mirrors will eventually start to=
 tarnish.... further  dimming the finder.  True, a pentaprism can=
 "de-silver" and become dimmer, but this take much longer, as there are=
 fewer surfaces exposed to the air.  Time for this to happen is measured in=
 multiple decades, while the front surface mirrors can dirty in less than a=
 decade.

As for the 350D's finder looking "squeezy" ... well, I cannot say.  I've=
 never used one. :-(  I do know that the 20D's finder is decent for manual=
 focusing, but not nearly as good as I'm used to with the SL or R8.  It's=
 more reminiscent of the R3's finder for brightness &O clarity.

I do know that when the 300/Digi Rebel first came out, I ran into a young=
 lad who was very happy with his.  Until we swapped cameras, and he looked=
 through the finder of the R8.  "It's like looking through a picture=
 window!", he exclaimed.

I am given to understand that the MTBF (mean time between failure) or=
 design life, if you prefer is 50,000 cycles  for the 300/350 series and=
 100,000 cycles for the 20D.  Essentially, on average, a 20D will last=
 twice as long before it breaks.

Before you say I'm making the 350D sound bad... I'm not trying to.  The=
 differences are simply a matter of money.  Canon's when they build it, and=
 yours when you buy it.  In the end, we all get what we pay for. 

If you shot 5000 photos a year (as I seem to do) the extra build quality=
 and brighter finder is worth the money.  If you shoot quite casually...=
 say, the equivalent of 20 to 40 rolls of film (500 to 1000 exposures a=
 year) the 350 is perfect.  (Neither of them will last like a Leica!)

And sometimes our budget dictates what we do, no matter what we'd like to=
 buy!

I am told that the actual picture quality is very difficult to tell between=
 the two!

I hope this helps! Sorry it's a few days late. 

Cheers!

David Young,
Logan Lake, BC    
CANADA. 

Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: