[LRflex] Re: An odd photo...
- From: "David Young" <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:57:40 -0700
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:
