[thibs]

Those cameras you're comparing to, by and large, don't have pentaprisms. All of Canon's and Nikon's upper-mid to high end cameras use pentaprisms for their OVF. That's what I'm curious about... not the stuff they stick in a D3300 or whatever.

But lower ends still use pentamirror I think. Pentax use only prisms, even in K500...

[Scintilla]

But lower ends still use pentamirror I think. Pentax use only prisms, even in K500...

Yes but that's not relevant, since Monochrome was talking about if Pentax messes with the OVF in the upcoming FF camera, and IchabodCrane wanted to know if Pentax's OVF advantage was still real in the FF context -- at that price point, everyone is using pentaprisms, so how is Pentax's prism better?

[boriscleto]

Yes but that's not relevant, since Monochrome was talking about if Pentax messes with the OVF in the upcoming FF camera, and IchabodCrane wanted to know if Pentax's OVF advantage was still real in the FF context -- at that price point, everyone is using pentaprisms, so how is Pentax's prism better?

Pentax is using a .95x viewfinder in the K-3. Basically the same as Nikon uses in the D7200. But the FF viewfinders (both Canon & Nikon) are all .7x. It remains to be seen if Pentax uses a bigger viewfinder magnification in the FF.

[IchabodCrane]

Pentax is using a .95x viewfinder in the K-3. Basically the same as Nikon uses in the D7200. But the FF viewfinders (both Canon & Nikon) are all .7x. It remains to be seen if Pentax uses a bigger viewfinder magnification in the FF.

Digging a little, it looks like Canon uses a .76x viewfinder in the 1D series but that's an exception and truly big money cameras.

[normhead]

.76x.. wtf.. all this time people have been craping their drawers over a .76x viewfinder as being bigger brighter, blah blah blah for .76x? I'm speechless. It never occurred to me we were talking about less than .95x. I've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, Shanghaied, the wool has been pulled over my eyes, I've been living in a fantasy land. If this ever comes up again in the "why I have to have a full frame" thread I am going to be dishing out some serious "what for". I can hardly wait.

[D1N0]

the K1000 0.88x blows any modern FF out of the water

[normhead]

the K1000 0.88x blows any modern FF out of the water

I bet the new pentax FF uses leftover pentaprisms from when the K-1000 was cancelled as a cost saving feature.
You heard it here first.

Who said we don't have any good rumours here?

[RobA_Oz]

the K1000 0.88x blows any modern FF out of the water

The LX with FA-1 had slightly more magnification at 0.9x, but less than the MX's 0.97x, although it would have been brighter. Let's not forget that we're talking about magnification with a 50mm lens fitted, and that it just means magnification against the naked eye image. Nonetheless, it's a benchmark of sorts, but it doesn't tell you about coverage, relative brightness or eye relief. I'd rather have slightly less magnification, say 0.9x, with good eye relief and 100% coverage, as an optimum. If I wanted more magnification, I'd add a magnifying eyepiece.

[rawr]

Unfortunately, higher magnification in a DSLR VF doesn't always mean brighter. The PDAF sensor, viewfinder information overlays etc in DSLR's steal a noticeable amount of light. It's hard to avoid.

[drougge]

Unfortunately, higher magnification in a DSLR VF doesn't always mean brighter.

I would have thought it rarely did. All else being equal higher magnification always means lower brightness. It's the same amount of light, over a bigger area.

[Simen1]

Call me the clueless one but what makes a Pentax pentaprism OVF better than a Nikon or Canon pentaprism OVF (sorry, I don't play with those other brands)?

In the low APS-C price range Pentax pentaprisms compete against pentamirrorrs. Pentaprisms are more heavy but very slightly brighter and very slightly sharper and less exposed to surface dust. Another difference is that Pentax have larger field of view, 100% image field coverage vs CaNikon 95% and larger magnification 0,92-0,95 vs CaNikon 0,82-0,85. Its not only more impressive to look through a Pentax viewfinder, but also easier to focus, gives better overview and more detailed view.

In the upper APS-C price range its more even with pentaprism vs pentaprism and more or less the same coverage and magnification: 100% coverage and 0,94 - 1,00x magnification for all dslr brands.

In the FF range we don't know what kind of OVF Pentax will offer yet, but Canon and Nikon offers OVF that is bigger then their high end APS-C cameras. 95-100% coverage pentaprism and 0,7 - 0,76 x magnification (Note, for APS-C the magnification should be divided by the crop factor to get comparable magnification numbers to FF. I.E. 1x magnification on APS-C equals 0,66..x magnification on FF)

In the MF range we don't have any CaNikon products to compare with, but Pentax offers 98% coverage and 0,62x magnification on both 645 D and Z. The magnification is sometimes referred to as 0,85x, but thats a 35mm FF equivalence.

[redcat]

wow, through this thread, i'll understand Canikon camera more than any Canikon guy =))

[Pepe Guitarra]

I just wish the AF is better than cano (tall order!), so I can dump my BIF capture Canon stuff completely.

[Shanti]

I just wish the AF is better than cano (tall order!), so I can dump my BIF capture Canon stuff completely.

the 150-450 so far for me gives more keepers of BIF than the DA*300,used with K3II,so I imagine the FF will be even better AFC

[monochrome]

Are your VF questions answered?

If they figure out a way to put in all the VF Information (focus points, supposed hybrid overlays) and a split-image focusing screen for below f/2.8 QuickShift focusing . . . . . .