Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-23-2009, 09:39 AM   #451
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Seing your (useful) comparison on viewfinder sizes, I'd tend to think Nikon/Pentax did good job and Canon did lame job. Not that difficult with an FF sensor, really
That's DPR's example, not mine. Can't take credit for it. Thankfully they are now including that comparison on all their DSLR reviews. IMHO reviewers have not harped enough about viewfinders in the past while going on endlessly about noise and AF speed. I'm glad to see DPR finally spotlighting the fact that some cameras (Sony A550 for example) simply have what I would call unusable view finders. Of course I say pretty much any pentamirror is unusable.

It's not just Canon, pretty much every manufacturer took a nose dive as far as view finder size goes towards the late 80's. The Pentax MZ-S was their final flagship 35mm SLR, and it only had a .75x and only 92% coverage (the older LX had .9x/97%). I guess once the autofocus era started manufactures figured they could cut cost and size by making smaller prisms. My Nikon FE2 has a .86x/93%. 93% is pretty bad by modern standards, but it's easy to get used to after a few test shots. Where as no amount of practice will ever make me get used to the light tunnel on top of an Olympus E420.

11-23-2009, 09:44 AM   #452
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
That's DPR's example, not mine. Can't take credit for it.
Still you linked to it


QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
Thankfully they are now including that comparison on all their DSLR reviews. IMHO reviewers have not harped enough about viewfinders in the past while going on endlessly about noise and AF speed. I'm glad to see DPR finally spotlighting the fact that some cameras (Sony A550 for example) simply have what I would call unusable view finders. Of course I say pretty much any pentamirror is unusable.
Probably because "gimmicks" sell more than viewfinder (stupid but well...)

QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
It's not just Canon, pretty much every manufacturer took a nose dive as far as view finder size goes towards the late 80's. The Pentax MZ-S was their final flagship 35mm SLR, and it only had a .75x and only 92% coverage (the older LX had .9x/97%). I guess once the autofocus era started manufactures figured they could cut cost and size by making smaller prisms. My Nikon FE2 has a .86x/93%. 93% is pretty bad by modern standards, but it's easy to get used to after a few test shots. Where as no amount of practice will ever make me get used to the light tunnel on top of an Olympus E420.
Ah but K-7 has a 100% which is better than LX (yes I just took that point just because ). Completely agree about the rest but Canon, knowing the resource they have access to does a lame job IMO. Nikon may shake them a bit. I hope so.
11-23-2009, 08:20 PM   #453
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Ah but K-7 has a 100% which is better than LX (yes I just took that point just because ).
100% of ~40% isn't exactly what I'd call "better."

The whole viewfinder "downsizing" issue (autofocus camera phenomenon) just reinforces an attitude of mine - autofocus ruined photography to a significant extent. Significantly fewer lens choices and crappy viewfinders were both a direct result, all so the camera makers could cater to the "I just want to push a button" crowd.
11-23-2009, 08:43 PM   #454
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
100% of ~40% isn't exactly what I'd call "better."

The whole viewfinder "downsizing" issue (autofocus camera phenomenon) just reinforces an attitude of mine - autofocus ruined photography to a significant extent. Significantly fewer lens choices and crappy viewfinders were both a direct result, all so the camera makers could cater to the "I just want to push a button" crowd.
That was Pentax's thought back in the early day of autofocus. They figured the pros would stick with the LX, and amatures would buy into autofocus with the PZ series.

But instead the pros bought into the convience of automation. The pros forgave Canon for the mount change, and the EOS cameras took off. Nikon realised that the F4's autofocus did not cut it, introduced the F5, and then the F100.

This gave Canikon a good place to start when the world went digital. Pentax on the other hand had to start with the *ist.

I think Pentax is the underdog now because they lost the race back when it was PZ-1 vs Eos-1, PZ-1p vs EOS-1n, and MZ-S vs F100. And then there was EOS-1V vs F5. But pentax was out of the game at that point.

11-23-2009, 08:47 PM   #455
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
I felt the urge to carry some of this viewfinder size discussion over to the DPR forum for a more general audience:
Thank you DPR for your viewfinder size comparisons: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I also wanted to think DPR for those diagrams, after all, Pentax users do love to bash that site (I have myself over their K10D/Nikon D200 reviews). I have no hope, but perhaps consumers will take notice of the ever shrinking view finder and finally demand a return to the early 80's glory days of giant magnification.
11-24-2009, 12:17 AM   #456
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
I felt the urge to carry some of this viewfinder size discussion over to the DPR forum for a more general audience:
Thank you DPR for your viewfinder size comparisons: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I also wanted to think DPR for those diagrams, after all, Pentax users do love to bash that site (I have myself over their K10D/Nikon D200 reviews). I have no hope, but perhaps consumers will take notice of the ever shrinking view finder and finally demand a return to the early 80's glory days of giant magnification.
Agreed entirely. Thank you Art.
11-24-2009, 12:21 AM   #457
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
100% of ~40% isn't exactly what I'd call "better."

The whole viewfinder "downsizing" issue (autofocus camera phenomenon) just reinforces an attitude of mine - autofocus ruined photography to a significant extent.
As for focussing, yes. As for framing, well not at all.

Besides, any automation ruin photography from a purist view. But we wouldn't be even using 35mm film if we had to reject any innovation because it eases use/getting results.

I see your point however. From time to time, I use either SuperA+motorA, KX, MX and those cameras all have those little things which make them enjoyable. The only thing I can't keep doing is bitching about no SR and no screen on the back I'm so used to those now
11-24-2009, 04:06 AM   #458
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,531
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
100% of ~40% isn't exactly what I'd call "better."

The whole viewfinder "downsizing" issue (autofocus camera phenomenon) just reinforces an attitude of mine - autofocus ruined photography to a significant extent. Significantly fewer lens choices and crappy viewfinders were both a direct result, all so the camera makers could cater to the "I just want to push a button" crowd.
I really miss the large viewfinders of my LX and ME Super - but I haven't used them for a while (in fact, I think that roll of negative color film in the fridge is past its process-before date now...). But I still think it's a "lose some, win some" situation. I did pretty well without SR, I have steady hands, but now that I've scanned a lot of 25 year old slides I realize that for shots which required fast focusing, I missed quite a few shots before I got AF.

11-24-2009, 06:15 PM   #459
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
I still do well without shake reduction, because I use a tripod.

My hands are definitely NOT steady, and without a tripod none of my images would be critically sharp. Shake "Reduction" is not shake "elimination," which is what a tripod offers. I use mostly zooms so Shake Reduction is essentially useless anyway (non-CPU lenses would require a change in SR focal length setting for every change as you zoom, not very practical - talk about missed shots!).

As for missed shots, I think I'd actually miss a lot more with AF, since AF doesn't actually "know" what to focus on and to me it's a lot more complicated and time consuming trying to "force" the gizmos to do what you want (i.e., playing with "focus points," "focus and recompose" etc.) than it is to just er, turn the focusing ring. Quite frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with a manual focus FF dSLR. I like it simple, so I can (drum roll please) focus on taking pictures.
11-25-2009, 05:13 AM   #460
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
It's not an absolute...

QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
* Interchangeable viewfinders IMO are a no go in Digital area for technical reasons. Even more since Pentax would logicaly want them to be WR'ed.
Kodak already proved that with the cameras they built based on the Nikon F5. And those cameras in the 600/700 series are still fetching good prices.

And Knox, I am making a temporary concession. I'm looking to buy a Kodak with a sensor larger than then the APS-C sensor. No, for the time being, it won't be FF.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Now I have to finish reading the rest of what I've missed. Oh, yeah. And the Hasselblad ELD/ELX/ELM is a very light camera. It's basically hollow. Like one big empty box. And I'll tell you later where I'm headed with that. But for now, you'll just have to remain curious. Have any of you noticed that you can buy MF digital backs on eBay for less than any professional DSLR? I guess for perspective you should think of MF as a portable and possibly handheld Large Format. For me, the Hasselblad would be a nice change from my Sinar and +50 LBS of gear.
11-25-2009, 02:28 PM   #461
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
Kodak already proved that with the cameras they built based on the Nikon F5. And those cameras in the 600/700 series are still fetching good prices.

And Knox, I am making a temporary concession. I'm looking to buy a Kodak with a sensor larger than then the APS-C sensor. No, for the time being, it won't be FF.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Now I have to finish reading the rest of what I've missed. Oh, yeah. And the Hasselblad ELD/ELX/ELM is a very light camera. It's basically hollow. Like one big empty box. And I'll tell you later where I'm headed with that. But for now, you'll just have to remain curious. Have any of you noticed that you can buy MF digital backs on eBay for less than any professional DSLR? I guess for perspective you should think of MF as a portable and possibly handheld Large Format. For me, the Hasselblad would be a nice change from my Sinar and +50 LBS of gear.
Where do you even buy a used Kodak dsc 760? What do they cost? And finally, as hard as I try to not ask... Why would you want one?
11-25-2009, 03:09 PM   #462
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
It's in the eye of the beholder!!

QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
Where do you even buy a used Kodak dsc 760? What do they cost? And finally, as hard as I try to not ask... Why would you want one?
As a modification of a well known political remark, "It's the viewfinder, dummy! I'm going to put a Nikon DA-30 Action Finder and a Type M focusing screen on that machine. And all of the attachments that work with the Nikon F5, apply here. Not to mention that I can use the OLD AND CHEAP manual focus AIS lenses. And I think as the final trump card, there's a possibility the sensor can be changed to FF.

But I'm also still very conflicted about getting a Hasselblad ELX instead. Since I will be doing all of my shooting on a tripod, the weight of the camera is irrelevant to me. I would likely only have one lens anyway. And that lens would be the Sonnar 250mm/f5.6. Both items regularly sell for less than $300. I would shoot film with that combination until I could get a cheap digital back. And I do mean cheap. eBay has had a number of them for less than $1500. The newer models are of course more expensive. But they are there to be had. I have a lot of pent-up desire for the Hasselblad! And I especially love chrome lenses!!

What more do you need to know than that!

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-25-2009 at 05:23 PM.
11-25-2009, 03:19 PM   #463
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
Shingoshi,

You are a special breed. Don't ever change.
11-25-2009, 04:15 PM   #464
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
I think that was actually a compliment...

QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
Shingoshi,

You are a special breed. Don't ever change.
And I accept it as such! But really, I'm 52 years old and have examined photography since childhood. And I do mean examine. Yes, I practice the art of photography. But I can never get away from my technical and inventive nature. That's why I come up with things that so often confuse people. Dealt with that all my life. I'm looking to change the sensor in the 760/720X to FF. The shutter of the F5 is exactly as it should be, FF. I simply need to check on the size of the mirror that's in the camera I want. If anything, I may have to buy another F5 to have the proper mirror size if the 700 series is different. Then it's just a matter of switching the Kodak DCS imaging module back over to the F5. And did I mention that those cameras have not one but two Type-II slots, while also giving you the option of Type-III as well. There are a lot of things that will fit in those slots. I'm actually looking for a PCCARD computer that conforms to the Type-III format. Because of the sheer size of the camera, there's plenty that can be done with it internally now that was never possible before.

So yes, different age, different economy. I think different!

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

EDIT: This is very important to read and understand. I was just reading something here last night about how the designers of cameras have forgotten the importance of beauty. The comment is very true. Go back and read what I said earlier about passion. Not just for the art, but for the tools that produce it also. Beauty inspires greater beauty. I don't think I've owned one camera that I've purchased for which beauty of the camera itself wasn't absolutely essential. It may sound odd. But when you hold a camera in your hands that you not only love to use, but love to look at and hold as well, that love is immediately directed into your perception of your art. To have and to hold! It's like a marriage. The image becomes the extension of your love for the camera. And I dare say that the more passionate you are about your camera, the more likely you are to be passionate about your image. There's a true intimacy that's developed between the two of you. And nothing should come between the two of you.

For the person who wrote what I read, the LX was their most beautiful camera. For me, it's the Leica R9. The gentle sloping lines reminds me of a woman's body. Something I would simply want to hold and caress, even when not in use. The camera becomes the focal point for the intensity of attention and affection you give to your image. The camera should constantly be whispering to you. It has to be about love, or you're simply doing a job. And that's not the kind of working relationship I want. That's why I said my camera MUST be my MISTRESS. I brought my Canon T90 for that very reason. I simply loved to hold it in my hands, for the softness of her curves. And my 85mm/f1.2 was like a woman with large breasts. Yes, it has to be about love. Because the other less obvious thing to see, is that with your camera being an extension of yourself, it also becomes a reflection of the love you give yourself through your image. When I saw the Kodak 760, I fell in love with it immediately. All I could do was gasp in awe of it. And that's the awe I give my art.

So, find what you love and keep it. Very close to your heart.

EDIT: This would have to be the Hasselblad equivalent of the Nikon Action Finder!

EDIT: Oh, this almost hurts! For years I had let my photography go to the back of my attention. I let things drain the passion I had for it. I just put everything in the bag and forgot about it. But recently with my use of the Sony H50, I've found that love again. And I'm shooting more than I did before. Because it doesn't cost me anything to do so. But I've been a bit forlorn about having to navigate through so many menus to do something as simple as manual focus. And then you have to switch back to deal with your exposure settings. Very time consuming. So I decided I needed to get a close-up lens for the H50.

Problem with Sony is, everything they do is proprietary. Including the selection of something as arcane as a filter adapter thread. The H50 uses a 74mm thread on the lens hood holder. Only Sony would be so stupid. Not for putting the filter thread on the hood holder, but for their choice of thread. 74mm, you have to be kidding! So off I am on the web trying to confirm the size which I had already guessed from using a tape measure. But because I've never seen a 74mm filter thread, I just had to make sure. So I searched the web, and sure enough I verified it. So then I thought I would use the 82mm filters from my big Canon lens. So I got out my 85-300mm f/4.5 to check the fit. That's when I got my surprise. I posted this on another forum about the filter issue:
QuoteQuote:
I guess I'll have to do as suggested. Because after pulling my Canon 85-300mm/f:4.5, I found out the filter on it won't fit inside the lens hood of the H50. And since most of my filters are 72mm, it doesn't make sense either to buy 77mm as I was also thinking of doing. The REAL upside to all of this, is that after years of having my long zoom sitting inside my case thinking I had damaged it from a drop, it seems to be working just fine now without the shift in focus I thought I was seeing before. Using that lens will really make sense now that I have such a good tripod.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
When I made the decision to start shooting back in 1989, one of the three lenses I considered most important to me was the Canon FD 85-300mm f4.5. I was really in love with that lens. But then one day while shooting a conference, I wasn't paying attention to close my camera bag. I walked from the first floor to a lower level, only to attempt to put my bag down when the worst thing of all could have happened. Yes, I dropped my precious lens which I had laid on top of my other equipment in the open bag. I could have screamed. It was a hard floor, likely concrete. But something miraculous may have just happened.

I was checking the size of the 82mm filter I have on that lens to see if it would fit inside the lens hood of my Sony H50. Well it doesn't, but that's not the big point here. What I did find out when I put the lens on my tripod, I found out that it is functioning just fine. Before, I thought the focusing had been thrown off. And I don't remember having it fixed either. Before, I would focus, only to find that zooming would throw it off. And mind you, I never used a tripod with that lens before. I used it handheld with my Metz 60CT4 flash. So I never had to be concerned about movement. Otherwise, I was always outside in bright sunlight.

I wish now that I had a tripod small enough to use with it before. Because the Majestic Twin-Leg tripod with all it's mass simply made no sense to carry around. It was meant for my Sinar, and not to be portable. Why am I writing all of this here? Well because I felt like I had to share this with people who might understand how bad I felt before, and how much better I feel now. I'm rediscovering my soul again. Realizing my 35mm equipment is still viable, and that I can use all of it as I wanted to before, lessens my sense of need to move on to other things. So I'm going to take my time and save money to get the stuff I really want. And not be so inclined to settle for less.

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-25-2009 at 10:44 PM.
11-25-2009, 05:55 PM   #465
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,168
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
Take a look through an LX viewfinder (the FA-1 option) then take a look through the K-7 and say that. The K-7 is my favorite APS-C camera on the market, but my favorite part of the LX is the viewfinder(s)...the one area the K-7 comes up short.



The K-7 doesn't look like it fairs that badly against the $7,000 EOS 1Ds, but now take into consideration the Pentax LX has .9x magnification compared to the 1Ds's .76x. If you shoot both film and digital switching back to an APS-C viewfinder after composing through that monster view finder is painful.
Keep in mind that some things to come into play. The viewfinder on the manual focus cameras could be made big and bright since the mirror could reflect as much of the light into it as possible. With modern AF cameras a fair bit of light is NOT reflected (and goes to the AF sensor), so less light is available for the viewfinder. You can make it bigger but it'll be dimmer.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Its 2010 now. Reportage General Talk 4 11-02-2010 10:18 AM
Picture of the Week 103: February 21, 2010 to March 7, 2010 Tamia Weekly Photo Challenges 55 03-07-2010 05:50 AM
Picture of the Week 102: February 14, 2010 to February 28, 2010 photolady95 Weekly Photo Challenges 57 02-27-2010 08:28 PM
Picture of the Week 101: February 7, 2010 to February 21, 2010 netuser Weekly Photo Challenges 63 02-24-2010 08:15 AM
Picture of the Week 100: January 31, 2010 to February 14, 2010 Peter Zack Weekly Photo Challenges 93 02-14-2010 12:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top