ricardovaste wrote: douglasf13 wrote:
My 35mm Voigtlander viewfinder is about right at .5m, in terms of the horizontal view, and the \"air\" around the frame increases from there. I wish it was correct in the 1-2m range, instead of .5m, but it\'s ok. I guess I could always just slide the OVF back in the shoe a bit, but I haven\'t bothered. Non-TTL OVFs are just rough guidelines most of the time, anyways.
Anyone care to comment on exactly how bad my VF is? Just curious, as I\'d like a better one, but would like to know what to expect. Eitherway, the view isn\'t terribly comfortable and the frame lines aren\'t that bright, so \'real\' VF should be an upgrade... hopefully...
Difficult to describe this correctly through a photo, but this is pretty much what I\'m seeing. Actual image and then the 35mm frameline. And no, I\'ve not actually been able to use the camera yet, hence this is a photo of the sky / hedge !
If the central framed area represents exactly the output from the RX1, then that is indeed waay off and looks more like what a finder designed for at least a 50mm fov would look like if we use the entire frame as a reference for 35mm. I suspect you were not sent a finder designed for the 35mm frame of view. You can expect much, much better accuracy than that from a finder designed for a 35mm fov.
edit. If that is just the view looking through the finder without the RX1 actual image to compare against, it would tell us nothing.
ricardovaste wrote: douglasf13 wrote:
My 35mm Voigtlander viewfinder is about right at .5m, in terms of the horizontal view, and the \"air\" around the frame increases from there. I wish it was correct in the 1-2m range, instead of .5m, but it\'s ok. I guess I could always just slide the OVF back in the shoe a bit, but I haven\'t bothered. Non-TTL OVFs are just rough guidelines most of the time, anyways.
Anyone care to comment on exactly how bad my VF is? Just curious, as I\'d like a better one, but would like to know what to expect. Eitherway, the view isn\'t terribly comfortable and the frame lines aren\'t that bright, so \'real\' VF should be an upgrade... hopefully...
Difficult to describe this correctly through a photo, but this is pretty much what I\'m seeing. Actual image and then the 35mm frameline. And no, I\'ve not actually been able to use the camera yet, hence this is a photo of the sky / hedge !
That is indeed waay off and looks more like what a finder designed for at least a 50mm fov would look like if we use the entire frame as a reference for 35mm. I suspect you were not sent a finder designed for the 35mm frame of view. You can expect much, much better accuracy than that from a finder designed for a 35mm fov.
Aug 18, 2013 at 09:33 AM
Previous versions of Tariq Gibran's message #11749992 « Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread) »
