Bit of a con, really ... ?
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
.. .
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because
he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely
on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented
to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all
done with mirrors.
And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR has
no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.
And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)
My cheap e500 has a penta-mirror.
Prisms are too expensive?
Does the same job but has a higher light loss.
|