Can someone explain this for me ?

bomberman

bomberman

Messages
1,149
Edit My Images
No
I have a minolta x-300 film camera and a Canon 400d. I'm considering a 50mm for the canon. I remember that the minolta has a 50mm lens, so i have a look through the viewfinder (not done so in a year or so) and i notice that everything is indeed the same magnification as the eye.

when i look through my 400d with a 17-70 lens on, its about 68/70mm where i achieve the same magnification as my eye (the point where i can look through the viewfinder and everything is the same size as when i take the camera away).

What confuses me is that the viewfinder coverage on the X-300 is much larger than on the 400d, even though i have both cameras set at eye-magnification. I know the canon is a crop sensor. is it because the minolta is full frame? I don't really get it.
 
but im not talking about a small difference here, i'd say the minolta about has another 50% over the canon
 
The A O V from the viewfinder has to show the size of the sensor be it cropped or full frame. Put a full frame viewfinder into a cropped sensor body and you will see greater than the sensor.
 
35mm film cameras, and FF digital cameras, have much larger viewfinders than crop cameras like the 400D, but I'm puzzled by your experience with the zoom. The 50mm equivalent field of view on a crop camera is around 35mm. Perhaps someone else can help here?
 
1. View finders don't always cover the full size of the sensor/film. Theres often a margin around the edges that gets included in the image that wasn't seen through the view finder.

2. Your comparing a full frame size with a crop

To have the same field of view captured on the sensor/film, you would need the 400d with a focal length around 33-34mm to be equivalent to the film camera sporting a 50mm lens.
 
FF. 50mm lens X crop factor of 1 =50mm

Crop. 34mm lens X crop factor of 1.5= 51mm
Crop. 50mm lens X crop factor of 1.5= 75mm

(Though I'm think the Cannon crop factor is 1.6)
 
Ok, i've had a look through the Canon @ approx. 32mm and as singlespeed says, the coverage is the same as 50mm on the minolta. but compared to the minolta it makes everything look smaller. still don't fully understand it
 
Because the view through a viewfinder on a camera with a cropped sensor is smaller, (look on an old Olympus DSLR, it's like looking down a tunnel) same field of view, just looks further away. Most viewfinders are magnified a little to try and make the scene fit the field of view through the eyepiece. Sounds like they haven't magnified it enough. ;)
 
When taking a picture with the Minolta and 50mm lens... If an object fills 3/4 of the viewfinder, it should also end up filling 3/4 of the rendered image. (depending on the viewfinder coverage)

Likewise when taking a pic with the Canon set to 32mm of zoom, the same should be true as this should have an identical FOV due to the X1.6 crop factor.

The apparent size of the object in the viewfinder shouldn't be important... It is the relative ratio of the object in the frame that is, as that is what will be recorded to the film or sensor. Your not taking prints from the view finder.
 
bomberman said:
I have a minolta x-300 film camera and a Canon 400d. I'm considering a 50mm for the canon. I remember that the minolta has a 50mm lens, so i have a look through the viewfinder (not done so in a year or so) and i notice that everything is indeed the same magnification as the eye.

when i look through my 400d with a 17-70 lens on, its about 68/70mm where i achieve the same magnification as my eye (the point where i can look through the viewfinder and everything is the same size as when i take the camera away).

What confuses me is that the viewfinder coverage on the X-300 is much larger than on the 400d, even though i have both cameras set at eye-magnification. I know the canon is a crop sensor. is it because the minolta is full frame? I don't really get it.
Click to expand...

It's the crop factor making the difference.

The change in magnification is primarily due to the focal length (and dictated by the crop factor) plus some contribution from slightly different viewfinder magnification.

If the viewfinder magnifications were identical, then when the lenses were set at the same focal length (not necessarily the same as marked, especially the zoom at closer distances) the images would look the same size. We're talking maginfication here of course, not field of view. But the 400D's viewfinder magnification is only 0.8x, compared to the Minolta's 0.9x I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top