[Erictator]

Don't sell the viewfinder magnification short, it helps stay on target more easily when tracking a target. I use the O-ME53 viewfinder magnifier on my K-3 and there is a significant improvement using tracking AFC SEL8 and my ability to stay on target with my long lenses.

I went with the KPS 1.3x back in the day on my K-5... and it was a huge improvement for my needs. I still have the KPS around here somewhere, but never felt the need to even try it on the K-1... and if the K-new gives a similar viewfinder experience as the K-1, I'll not need to bother with it there either.

Eric

[acoufap]

If you were trained on Canon ELPHs and the K-30 the K-3 series' viewfinder is... great? fine? Like you said, you look through the viewfinder and take a photo. I use manual focus lenses maybe 10% of the time, and I focus through the viewfinder and it works. Well enough, I guess. And when it doesn't I'll occasionally use LiveView. Or I'm using the Lomo Daguerreotype Achromat lens and you don't really focus so much as minimize the blurriness.

In any case, a 1.05 vs 0.95 viewfinder is a nice thing but not a feature I'd go looking for, and certainly not a deal maker/breaker for a buying decision.

When I bought the K-5 in 2011 the competitors I chose in the camera store were the Canon 60D and Canon 7D. The 7D had an amazing viewfinder nearly like one of a FF camera. For the Pentax I had manual lenses and for Canon USM autofocus FF lenses from analog SLR times.

I decided to buy the K-5 because I liked the haptics and image and built quality a lot more.

The 7Ds viewfinder and autofocus didn’t change anything. The K-5 / DA18-135 combo was good enough for me in these fields and better in others. The 60D was out of the race instantly when I held it in my hands.

[luftfluss]

Are you sure that more people are interested in the AF than the viewfinder? My impression is that a handful of people go on and on about autofocus speed and tracking because it's important for the sort of the long lens wildlife and sports photography that they happen to enjoy, but they are just a vocal minority. I suspect that far more people will be interested in the bigger viewfinder, which is a much more useful thing for the sort of photography that most people do for most of the time.

I think the big viewfinder makes this is the most interesting new camera Pentax has developed for a long time, and I'm looking forward to seeing some sample photos to get an idea of how the sensor renders.

Prior to the news of the larger OVF, there has been far more talk on this forum of Pentax "needing" to improve AF than "needing" a better OVF. For years, Pentax has been noted for using good OVF's even in lower-end models, and has also been noted for relatively poor continuous AF performance.

I know that I once stated I would like a larger OVF, but I don't recall anybody else ever explicitly stating that. Of course, that's just what I remember, not what actually is.

For my usage, improved AF doesn't do anything for me because all of my wildlife photography is done with MF lenses. The longest AF lens I own is 90mm, and that just arrived this morning So a larger OVF is most welcome.

Anyway, it doesn't look like we have to choose between AF and OVF, because Pentax is giving us both!

[bertwert]

For years, Pentax has been noted for using good OVF's even in lower-end models,

That's in part why I came to Pentax when I was starting out in photography, I looked through viewfinders of entry-level Canikons, and the Pentax just seemed to blow them out of the water...

The longest AF lens I own is 90mm, and that just arrived this morning

So that was you... looked like a good deal... though you saved me money by removing it from my temptation...

[ThorSanchez]

Yep, when I went from the K-7 to the K-1 the sheer amount of extra control (not that the K-7 was bad, far from it) was a big part of the wow factor. I think that the control layout of flagship bodies has me so spoiled that I shudder at the thought of using an entry-level body now . I handled the D5300 of a friend for a bit and it was... an experience.

I have a well-used *ist that I bought for one of my kids, and it's kind of jarring to have to go into a menu to change ISO. Or at least I couldn't figure out how to do it otherwise...

[ffking]

What loss of functions?

If you're talking about the Smart Function controls, it seems they've made it more flexible.
I guess you're seeing the dial with only 3 settings (OVF stills/LV/video) in the place of a dial with 9 settings on the K-1. But, the "only 3 settings" dial on the K-new actually replaced the lever beneath the "9 settings" K-1's dial. In other words, a lever with 2 settings (stills/video) was transformed into a dial with 3 (OVF stills/LV/video).
In place of the "9 settings" dial they've put the S.Fn button.

Yes - just remembering the comment as originally in relation to physical buttons vs touch screen or menu burried controls

[ThorSanchez]

Anyway, it doesn't look like we have to choose between AF and OVF, because Pentax is giving us both!

Right, this whole debate was because someone speculated that when the video specifically mentioned better tracking capabilities they really meant something else and that it wasn't all that important.

Ricoh has specifically stated on the record that better action-oriented (actually "dynamic") features are a focus of the K-new. And it has a 1.05x viewfinder.

[luftfluss]

That's in part why I came to Pentax when I was starting out in photography, I looked through viewfinders of entry-level Canikons, and the Pentax just seemed to blow them out of the water...

The greatest disparity I ever encountered with same-level cameras was back in 2007, when I compared a Pentax K100D with a Canon Rebel. I don't think I even noticed a difference in OVF, but the difference in build quality... Oh My.

So that was you... looked like a good deal... though you saved me money by removing it from my temptation...

It looks lovely, a few test pics are promising. Focus ring is meh. I like using manual focus for macro... wish my K-3 II had larger OVF

[Wheatfield]

Of course it is. That makes no sense in trying to find a "fault" - one would always be able to find one - instead of seeing what the camera can do for you.
And, the screen is fixed. There's that thing about beating a dead horse...

I wonder if the APS-C users need to get used to articulated screens being reserved for the full frame cameras, and if they want the feature, they need to upgrade to that format?

---------- Post added May 20th, 2020 at 09:36 AM ----------

That's the problem. Normal expression of hopes and preferences is interpreted as a single-minded attempt to "find fault", and then blamed for "negativity." There is more nuance than that. We don't all have to form little clubs of "complainers" who supposedly can't see the good in a camera and "true believers" who blow up over "it would be nice if-."

I mean, that's conversation on the internet, of course. I don't recall that folks were this jacked up about things here a decade ago but maybe that's why I take such long breaks from the "news and rumors" forums.

The problem lies in the very human nature to complain about everything. A new product is introduced and just about the first comments seen will inevitably be that it is missing this or that "very important feature". It seems people are more interested in finding fault than anything else.

[bertwert]

I wonder if the APS-C users need to get used to articulated screens being reserved for the full frame cameras, and if they want the feature, they need to upgrade to that format?

Since when was the KP and K-70 full frame...?

[Wheatfield]

May I remind all members that we have an unofficial "no drugs" policy in these forums... Thank you.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm day drinking.

---------- Post added May 20th, 2020 at 09:51 AM ----------

I would probably appreciate having the no-effort-AF of the mirrorless things for some situations, but it's difficult to get past the electronic "I want to pull my eyes out with a spoon" viewfinder and the body's "I'd rather chop off my hands to avoid holding this monstrosity any longer" so-called ergonomics

Not every mirrorless is made by Sony. The Fuji cameras have good ergonomics, especially if you grew up using film cameras like the Pentax LX. The viewfinders are getting better. At some point I might buy another Fuji body to get an EVF that I can live with. The X-T1 isn't there, though it is a lot better than the X-Pro1 EVF. The X-T3 that I played with was pretty decent, more like young dog breath rather than regular dog breath.

[reh321]

Thinking back to the Pentax presentation, the thing I remember most about it was the talk about the viewfinder - Pentax is clearly very proud of it, and for good reason. I have used the flippy LCD on my KP, but very seldom - even for this camera, in most cases the OVF is much better. Normally I have done all the thinking beforehand, and have previsualized the photo in my mind before I use the viewfinder - I use any viewfinder only for framing and taking a final picture. I use the LCD as a viewfinder only if I have an awkward angle to deal with - or if the scene is too dark for DSLR focusing, I check if the camera can focus in LV mode. With the improved OVF, I would think that is a major emphasis of the "K-3ii replacement". With that in mind, I would think Pentax would expect people to use it. Frankly, the view I get in LV mode is not great - using "Image Sync" is just as good. For this reason, perhaps the Pentax designers thought that people could use "Image Sync" if they need a flippy LCD - they may have even improved the camera-end implementation of it.

About fifteen years ago, our daughters - who were then in approximately 8th and 12th grades - purchased a tripod for me. Their intent was to allow me to take more family photos which included me. It was not a great tripod - it was not overly stable with the legs extended all the way - but it was acceptable for the purpose. I actually seldom use a tripod, but I still have this one for sentimental reasons, so I used it to for this quicky demonstration. Used without any of the legs extended, a light tripod like this may be sufficiently stable for those of you who take pictures close to the ground.

[Serkevan]

I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm day drinking.

---------- Post added May 20th, 2020 at 09:51 AM ----------



Not every mirrorless is made by Sony. The Fuji cameras have good ergonomics, especially if you grew up using film cameras like the Pentax LX. The viewfinders are getting better. At some point I might buy another Fuji body to get an EVF that I can live with. The X-T1 isn't there, though it is a lot better than the X-Pro1 EVF. The X-T3 that I played with was pretty decent, more like young dog breath rather than regular dog breath.

Yeah, the jab was mostly aimed at Sony ergonomics; the fact that it took them 6 or 7 years to even begin to get right the shape of the grip is mind-boggling.
Fujis and Olys (at least the high-end ones) are actually pretty comfortable bodies to hold, but as you said the EVF isn't there yet - and, until then, there's no point in mulling over it for me.

[ffking]

I check if the camera can focus in LV mode. With the improved OVF, I would think that is a major emphasis of the "K-3ii replacement". With that in mind, I would think Pentax would expect people to use it. Frankly, the view I get in LV mode is not great - using "Image Sync" is just as good. For this reason, perhaps the Pentax designers thought that people could use "Image Sync" if they need a flippy LCD - they may have even improved the camera-end implementation of it.

I generally agree, with the one caveat that you run out of hands if you don't have a tripod - but that is only relevant for close to the ground macro work, and maybe one or to applications that don't occur to me - havingsaid which, I've so far managed macro withthe K-3, so I'd probably use it wery little

[Not a Number]

Ricoh has stated that they are firmly committed to the SLR concept. They even feel that the SLR market will rebound. It looks like Ricoh is going to push the SLR viewfinder technology to the limits.