[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd made a real world comparrison between the D2x's & 1Ds2's viewfinders
here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is that really viable is a real world comparison? I was tempted to write this last night.
Lloyd writes:
[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel frustrated at all using the D2X viewfinder, and it actually feels easier to see the whole scene--with a full-frame viewfinder I feel like I have to consciously scan the edges of the frame to be sure of what I'm getting. Maybe someone with tons of experience just learns to see more with peripheral vision.
[/ QUOTE ]
That kind of statement gives me pause, it's a bit of a reach. I'm not saying Lloyd is entitled to feel that way, he certainly is. But what's reported here is that the 1DsM2 viewfinder is more than one can take in, that it requires both tons of experience and very good peripheral vision to use.
Not too long ago, it was the time of film. In the time of film 35mm cameras all had "full-frame" viewfinders. No one then seemed complain about the viewfinders being too much to take in or requiring tons of experience to utilize. In fact, most reviewers faulted cameras whose viewfinders did not show 100% of the 35mm frame. Leica even used seeing beyond the frame as a selling point for their rangefinder cameras.
Maybe I'm being too nitpicky but to see it as a negative aspect seems odd to me. I can see how the D2x viewfinder would feel fine, I shot with the D1x for three years and was perfectly satisfied with it's viewfinder. I didn't realize though what I had missed until I once again regained the full 35mm viewfinder with the 1Ds and now the 1DsM2.
Linear Mode
