You can't generalize very much about digital cameras, I think. The
viewfinder on the new D200 is quite nice, but I did not mind the D100
which was just a bit smaller. Canon, no offense intended, seems to
have an odd philosophy of protecting their other modelsl. The 300D
came out crippled in its firmware so as not to compete with the 10D.
The 5D is interesting in that it is more expensive because of the
large sensor, but has some features missing from the cheaper 20D body
it is using. I think the viewfinder is used as well by Canon to
separate models.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jan 8, 2006, at 7:10 PM, savvo wrote:
> A few times in my sordid past I've handled C*n 300D & 350Ds and I've
> always been appalled at the tiny, tiny viewfinder.
>
> Comparing the specs I had written off the N*n D70s for the same
> reason.
>
> A couple of days ago I was photographing my niece in the studio at
> college using an RB67. After two rolls of Portra I thought why not
> shoot
> some digital? So i took a D70s from the stores. Some hours later it
> struck me that I hadn't noticed anything lacking in the viewfinder.
> Yet
> the figures suggest it should be slightly worse than the C-machine in
> the minusculity stakes.
>
> So why does 95% x 0.75 cause me less grief (fewer griefs?) than 95%
> x 0.8 ?
>
> And is it right to be asking these kind of questions at 3am?
>
> --
> Chris
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|