The primary reason for less than 100% viewfinder coverage with SLR reflex optical systems is cost of manufacture and the resulting price to the users. Optical systems built to this standard require larger, heavier components with more rejects and more accuracy in assembly by a multiplicative factor to ensure accurate registration, high quality viewing, etc. Quality control alone is probably twice as expensive.
Top of the line, pro SLRs have often had 100% viewfinder coverage (Nikon F series, Canon EOS 1 and F1 series, Contax RTS series, etc) but at a hefty premium price that the vast majority of users would not accept. I see from Boz' site that the Pentax LX had ~98% coverage. It's very easy and inexpensive to produce a 100% viewfinder coverage with a digital sensor and an LCD screen, presuming that the digital sensor is capable of real time capture. It doesn't cost any more than producing a viewfinder with less framing coverage. G On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Tom C wrote: > IMO, not having 100% coverage in a viewfinder is a far more serious > issue > than it being a little dim for one's tastes. Of course we've all > gotten > used to it, but I fail to see why, all things considered, that > viewfinders > don't approach a view that is within 1% of what is imaged on the > recording > medium. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
