Originally posted by repaap I would think that actually just and because they wanted to bring that OVF out from the body couple of mm more (...)
Originally posted by repaap Well, not for smudge, but for more comfort. (...)
Originally posted by ThorSanchez Sure. But how many people here have picked up their camera and thought "nah, not today, my nose is sore"? Until the video I wouldn't have thought anyone would list Viewfinder Distance From Body on their top 50 new things they want in a camera. Until I saw the video it wouldn't have occurred to me that was even a thing.
Originally posted by phoebus As I suggested in an earlier post, maybe the optimized design of the viewfinder gave a specific depth dimension(...)
I think both
ThorSanchez and
phoebus are right. The increased rear protrusion of the viewfinder is not a technical choice guided by marketing c yetonsiderations but a technical necessity.
They wanted to build the best APS-C viewfinder possible. They wanted to reach a 1.05x magnification so that the size of the image in the viewfinder would match that of the K-1, without compromising on its brightness or contrast. In order to meet this competing goals they had to use more glass, including special glass, and ended with a longer viewfinder that protrudes more.
In turn the marketing guys undertook to make an asset out of this necessity: protruding more, the viewfinder moves the photographer's nose away from the rear screen and avoids smudges (and unintentional actioning of the touchscreen -this one hasn't been brought out because the rear LCD being a touchscreen hasn't been disclosed yet).