Contrast will be the similar, Magnification will be essentially identical. Brightness will change with focusing screen. This is what has been claimed previously.
I own an MX, and owned the *istD. I compared the two and that's what I found. Brightness is not the same, although I'd suspect that if you put one of the brighter LX screens in the MX, the results will be closer than a stock MX screen versus the D screen (MX and LX screens are interchangable, however Pentax improved the screens between 1976 and 1980). I am running a stock screen in my MX (more's the pity, i dislike split-prism screens). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > How can you explaint why several posters here who > have directly compared the 1970's era MX with the recent *istD > and it derivatives found no signifigant differences in brightness > or contrast? I think if they are right it's because > pentax figured out finders a long long time ago. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS > > > The primary changes are in focus screens, especially in how bright the > focusing screen can be without losing the ability to discern focus. > These have continued to improve, and in fact have gotten distinctly > better over the last 5-10 years. Pentax's Natural Bright Matte II > screens are excellent, although they could use a little more tooth > (which you can get by replacing them with a KatzEye). > > Compare a stock Nikon FM3a with a FE or FM2n for a good example (These > use compatible screens, there is a noticable improvement from the 1978 > FE to the FM2n and another to the 2001-era FM3a). > > Also finder's improved very noticably from the 1950's up until the early > > 80's, focusing screens nonwithstanding. There were a few rather good > early ones like the Nikon F, but even these do not perform as well as > later ones. The F3's DE-3 HP finder is arguably the best finder ever put > > on a 35mm SLR, and that came out in 1983 or so (I'd argue that the LX's > FA-1 is a bit better, even if you don't get 100% coverage). The AF era > led to a distinct drop in finder quality outside of the 'pro' bodies as > manfacturers looked for cost-cutting measures, until semi-pro bodies > like the F100 and EOS 3 reintroduced top-quality finders to the not-pro > market in the very late 90's. > > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> What "new" technology are you reffering to? >> Finders havent changed much since the first coated >> prisms of the 1950's because there isnt much there >> in the first place to improve. >> >> Hasnt someone or two just posted that the MX finder is virtually >> identical to the Pentax DSLR finders in terms of image quality, only >> larger in area? jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of William Robb >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 6:49 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" >> Subject: RE: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS >> >> >>> Newer cameras dont have magic finders that >>> change the laws of physics... >> They often have more efficient finders that take better advantage of >> the laws of physics. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
