20D & others, lense magnification?

[Jess]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. I understand that the ... forgive my terms, I'm brand new to even the concept of digital SLR... the reception plate on the 20D is smaller than 35mm. What I don't understand is the lense magnification and how it compensates for this.

Is the viewfinder compensated to the same size, cutting down the 35mm view the appropriate view? Is it a better coverage, say full coverage, of the actual image than you would find on an analogue?

How do you calculate the difference in the lense from what it is labeled?

Am I even in the right ballpark w/ my questions to understand this? lol Thanx

 

[Daniel]

I'm not good in explaining that, so I'd rather post a link.

 

[Jess]

Thank you, that was a great link.

It didn't cover one question tho. On the DSLR, through the viewfinder is the image still limited like analog or do you get 100% of the image. I guess I get the impression from that article that you would have the same limitations as an analog?

Also, I noticed he mentions that the smallest possible lense is 17mm, but canon made a 14mm for it's FD line... thought that was interesting. Edit: Hmm, they might all have been fish-eye though. But I don't think they are...

 

[Daniel]

The limitations of viewfinders apply to digital SLRs in same way they do to analog cameras.

 

[spike000]

Canon have just created a 10-22 USM lens for the EFS fit cameras - e.g. 20D or DRebel (300D). They also do an excellent 16-35 F:2.8 and a 17-40 F:4.

Enjoy multiplying those numbers to work out what they will be on your camera!

Out of interest the ID mkII has only a 1.3x factor and the 1DsMKII is a true 1.0 - but come with a slightly higher price tag.