[Andrea K]

I agree with all you have said.
If they can get even an ME Super prism in the K-1iii, they can stop right there as far as I'm concerned and just pony up a pre-order date for me to sign upto.

Better to match the MX

[Kevin B123]

Better to match the MX

Agreed, but I'm not greedy. Let's say ME Super minimum with a goal for the MX if at all possible.

You will need to pre-order, these won't hang around.

[mirocal]

Totally unfair: I just put the DA 40/2.8 on the MX body and raised it to my eye. Oh! I don't even need to take a picture, looking to the world through it suffices...

[thibs]

Totally unfair: I just put the DA 40/2.8 on the MX body and raised it to my eye. Oh! I don't even need to take a picture, looking to the world through it suffices...

The MX has a magical VF

[Smolk]

When I held a KP and K-1 II in my hands in spring 2018, at B&H, I was disappointed with the latter's viewfinder (and actually thought that of the KP was not half bad given its smaller sensor). The development of a better FF OVF will surely appeal to those that care for an OVF. It makes perfect sense to differentiate the brand this way over against the mirrorless ones. And in a reducing market, high quality/top market is what helps survival.

[thibs]

When I held a KP and K-1 II in my hands in spring 2018, at B&H, I was disappointed with the latter's viewfinder (and actually thought that of the KP was not half bad given its smaller sensor). The development of a better FF OVF will surely appeal to those that care for an OVF. It makes perfect sense to differentiate the brand this way over against the mirrorless ones. And in a reducing market, high quality/top market is what helps survival.

Agreed. The K1 VF is nice but pretty average.
We want MX VF !

[RobA_Oz]

From what I gather, the MX light meter used a semi-transparent part of the pentaprism, and was a small and fairly simple affair. Not requiring light to be directed away from the viewfinder for more complex metering or for auto-focussing means the viewfinder will necessarily be brighter than for a DSLR that has those functions. If a next-generation AE and AF array can use less light for the same functions, then there’ll be more light for the viewfinder.

Bear in mind also that the K-3iii places an LCD panel in the light path, similar to the K-1, which must reduce the available light transmission by some percentage, but I assume that the loss is less than occurs as a result of injecting the viewfinder information through the pentaprism. The Challenger video on the pentaprism indicates that’s the case.

I’ve not owned an MX, but I can’t imagine that the viewfinder is that much better than my K2DMD or LX (the latter particularly with the Sports Finder).

---

Last edited by RobA_Oz; 05-03-2021 at 03:32 PM.

[Smolk]

I’ve not owned an MX, but I can’t imagine that the viewfinder is that much better than my K2DMD or LX (the latter particularly with the Sports Finder).

K2DMD 0.88x, 95%; MX 0.97x, 95%; LX 0.95, 98%. So the MX is marginally brighter, whereas the LX OVF shows marginally more of the frame.

[RobA_Oz]

K2DMD 0.88x, 95%; MX 0.97x, 95%; LX 0.95, 98%. So the MX is marginally brighter, whereas the LX OVF shows marginally more of the frame.

Magnification doesn’t equal luminosity. Everything else being equal, higher magnification means the light is dispersed over a greater area, so they’re inversely proportional.

[thibs]

From what I gather, the MX light meter used a semi-transparent part of the pentaprism, and was a small and fairly simple affair. Not requiring light to be directed away from the viewfinder for more complex metering or for auto-focussing means the viewfinder will necessarily be brighter than for a DSLR that has those functions. If a next-generation AE and AF array can use less light for the same functions, then there’ll be more light for the viewfinder.

Bear in mind also that the K-3iii places an LCD panel in the light path, similar to the K-1, which must reduce the available light transmission by some percentage, but I assume that the loss is less than occurs as a result of injecting the viewfinder information through the pentaprism. The Challenger video on the pentaprism indicates that’s the case.

I’ve not owned an MX, but I can’t imagine that the viewfinder is that much better than my K2DMD or LX (the latter particularly with the Sports Finder).

Still quite better than the K2 IMO.
I'd never expect to get a VF like an MX. But it doesn't stop me wanting one

[Smolk]

Magnification doesn’t equal luminosity. Everything else being equal, higher magnification means the light is dispersed over a greater area, so they’re inversely proportional.

Perhaps. Regardless of theories about luminosity, the MX was better and universally recognised as such. In comparison to previous models. I briefly had a faulty LX, can't comment on that one as compared to the MX.
I'm totally satisfied with my two all black KXs.

[RobA_Oz]

Perhaps. Regardless of theories about luminosity, the MX was better and universally recognised as such. In comparison to previous models. I briefly had a faulty LX, can't comment on that one as compared to the MX.
I'm totally satisfied with my two all black KXs.

Like I said, I haven’t had the opportunity to compare an MX with any of the Pentaxes I’ve owned, so you could well be right on that score. On the matter of magnification versus brightness, it’s just physics, not theory.

[Yoda boy]

By all accounts, I huge amount of work and R & D went into creating this new system. Kudos for Pentax for this evolutionary/revolutionary development.

[taktoon]

Better OVF is step in good direction. I hope next FF models also get that feature.

[mlt]

Hopefully Ricoh can expand the prism process to a full frame body. If it was a simple thing to do, I find it hard to believe Canon and Nikon ignored this area in their upper tier dslrs before shifting to mirrorless.