Juan Buhler mused: > > I don't have an LX, but love the viewfinder in my MXs. > > I wonder how much would a DSLR with a viewfinder that is as bright and > big as that cost? > > j
MX: 0.97 magnification, 95% coverage. ME Super: 0.95 magnification, 92% coverage. *ist-D: 0.95 magnification, 95% coverage. (all magnification figures are with a 50mm lens) So the *ist-D is pretty close to an M-body as the viewfinder goes. It's not as large, of course: you're only going to see the cropped image corresponding to the smaller APS-C sensor. I think the laws of physics would prevent an enlarged view of that central portion being as bright as the MX viewfinder, so you're not going to see a full frame view from an APS-C DSLR that's as bright as the MX, and subtends the same angle of view at your eye; you'd need a "full-frame" DSLR for that. That aside, I doubt if you'd see it, anyway; I can't find the magnification of the Nikon F6, but the Canon EOS-1V is only 72% (just a little better than the 70% of the 1Ds Mark II). There's a lot more in-viewfinder information than there was in the MX.
