Don't I wish, but the only other digital camera I have won't focus close
enough. I'll see what I can do but it may take a few days.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Could you take a picture of them, similar to what I presented, and
post it so we can
all see the differences? I find these technical differences interesting.
I'm quite surprised to hear that the DS and D models have such
different mirror assemblies. Can anyone with both a D and a DS
compare them?
thanks
Godfrey
On Sep 21, 2005, at 2:14 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
I didn't intend to imply that you were stupid. In fact maybe you
are correct as far as the DS is concerned, I however have the *ist-
D not the DS and I have the MZ3, both of which are in my hands right
now. The mirror is considerably larger than the focusing screen on
the *ist-D, it is infact approximatly 3/16 of an inch narrower than
the mirror box. This measurement is replicated in the MZ3 and the
mirror box in each seem to be exactly the same size.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
It would help if you didn't pose your response as intimating I was
stupid, PJ. That's uncalled for.
No need for apology; I'm not offended.
As I said, I don't have a ZX-5n. However, "oversized mirrors" in
SLRs are typically longer to preclude image cutoff with long
lenses, not wider. If you look at the picture, you'll see that the
width of the mirror in both cases is virtually identical to the
width of the focusing screen reflected in it, and the focusing
screens are certainly different in size. The mirrors are obviously
quite different in their side to side dimension relative to the
lens mount circle, the DS mirror seems slight shorter than the MX
mirror (but longer than the focusing screen's dimension, so it is
"oversized" relative to the format).
I could easily be wrong, but as far as I'm aware the *ist D and
*ist DS use the same mirror/mirror box/viewfinder assembly ...
they share focusing screens as well as prisms and other bits in
this subsystem.
Would someone please post a photograph of an *ist D minus its lens
for comparison purposes? and of a ZX-5n as well? That will help
inform all of us as to what looks like what.
Godfrey
On Sep 21, 2005, at 12:29 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You don't know what you are talking about. The MX has an over
sized mirror, the ZX/MZ mirrors were just big enough, in the *ist-
D they become over sized mirrors. (I have the advantage of
owning an MX LX, (which has an even bigger mirror than the MX),
MZ3, and *ist- D, while I haven't actually measured them, I can
tell by eye that the mirror in the *ist-D and MZ3 are within
micrometers of the same size. The shutter is much smaller on the
*ist-D.
Sorry, PJ. I don't have a ZX-5n but I have an MX as well as the
DS. There is no way that the mirror or shutter in a 35mm film
SLR will be the same size as the mirror in a DSLR with a
16x24mm format.
Here's a picture:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/MX-DS-mirror-comparison.jpg
The mirror box could not be the same size either, since the
necessary points of attachment for the mirror mechanism as well
as clearance for its would be necessarily different too.
On Sep 21, 2005, at 11:20 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Which means that the lever should just drop in. I hadn't
though about it before but even the mirror looks the same.
Only things that really look different are the size of the
shutter, the focusing screen and the lack of power zoom
connections.
It may be the same part, just trimmed in the ZX-5n, but I'd
suspect the similarities simply come from the design side
"take this design, make it flush to the mount". No reason to
waste cycles redesigning the part which doesn't need it.
The mirror box is molded plastic. Compare it to the mirror
box in a the zx5n it even has the same channels.
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
