Meter Bulge on the Right Side of ZX-M Viewfinder

zx-m · 07-15-2008, 07:11 AM

Hi, all,

Has anyone ever found the +/- meter scale on the right side of the ZX-M's viewfinder inhibiting? That is, has it interfered with your composition?--as a small part of the frame is blocked by the bulge. I am not sure if the view in the finder is the same for all ZX bodies, but, if it is, I welcome comments from any ZX user. I have been using the ZX-M since 2003, and, while I like the camera, I am not completely sure if the bulge has ever really hampered any of my shots. I sense that, on occasion, it may have, but I would like to know what you have experienced.

Thanks,
Glen

filmamigo · 07-15-2008, 07:35 AM

I've never noticed it as an issue. None of the viewfinders are 100% anyway, so you are always missing things on the edges. I find it easier to watch my metering with the "bulge." That's actually a compositional advantage to me. I often shoot with my glasses on, and if the meter display is too far to the edge of the viewfinder, I have to move my head to see it completely, and that usually wobbles my composition.

I would love to see an enlarged viewfinder, with more than 100% coverage. Like on a motion picture camera. The actual image area is indicated by an etched frame. That way you can see what's at the edge of the frame and about to sneak in. I'd also like to see the return of interchangeable waistlevel finders, at least on the top Pentax model.

zx-m · 07-15-2008, 07:51 AM

I thank you for your interesting response, filmamigo. I agree: the bulge makes it easier to watch the meter. Yes, I am aware that it is a 92% viewfinder on the ZX-M--which is actually pretty good compared to other similarly priced bodies.

Some have commented that the ZX-M's viewinder is a bit small; however, I have found that I like to be able to clearly see all four corners of the viewfinder image. With some cameras, I have to press my eye against the eyepiece to see the whole picture. This is not so with the ZX-M. Again, I do not have evidence that the bulge has caused any harm in my shots...I just wanted to know what others think. I am glad you offered your opinion.

Regards,
Glen

lithos · 07-15-2008, 07:56 AM

One (or all) of the Sigma DSLRs has/have greater than 100% viewfinder coverage - I think the term is "sports finder".

I think the Nikon F had a 100% finder. Rangefinders, of course, can have 100%-plus - depending on the lens. But they also have parallax problems, and macro or telephoto is even harder to do.

Given that greater VF coverage means bigger mirrors and pentaprism, reducing the VF coverage can save a little space, weight and money on a camera. Optical glass for prisms is expensive, increasing the mirror size would increase the mirror box volume and that may even change the flange-to-film distance.

And, at the end of the day, the ME-Super is still smaller than the Leica M7...

zx-m · 07-15-2008, 08:09 AM

Indeed, the ME Super is the most petite 35mm SLR I have handled.

filmamigo · 07-15-2008, 11:44 AM

I do like the MZ-M viewfinder, for exactly the reason you state, zx-m. The only thing I would change on it is the ground glass. I wish it had more "grit" like the viewfinder in my Program Plus. The rougher ground glass really "snaps" into focus on the Plus.

Regarding small size, I've been tempted by the MG. It's just so small and cute! One of my favourite body designs. Too bad it's aperture priority only, but that also makes it simple to use.