[Wired]

Thats why i love my old film bodies. I got a line on a sportmatic too that i may grab....

I kind of wish i was around in the 70/80's to have the simplicty of photography at the time.

To be able to have a DSLR FF K mount with only the features of my old film bodies (+ ability to use DA lenses and AF) i would be estatic.

But sadly people want AF points...movie modes...metering modes...coffee machines....and android appa built intp their cameras.

[eddie1960]

Yes I tried a Canon 1ds iii and found the vf only slightly bigger than my k7. There's another area a Pentax FF can distinguish itself.

The Canon owner refused to believe that my MX had a much bigger vf, which is why I'm taking it with me next time I see him. Aren't I sad LOL!

well pentax has said there is no reason ALL vf can't be 100%' so for FF think MX or better

[ElJamoquio]

A 100% FF viewfinder would be pretty damn sweet, and it would separate pentax from the crowd, too.

[Transit]

......
The Canon owner refused to believe that my MX had a much bigger vf, which is why I'm taking it with me next time I see him. Aren't I sad LOL!

Have you got a 50/1.2 to go with it ?
...suck his eyeball right out

Pete

[KungPOW]

Viewfinders became smaller with the advent of autofocus.

Part of the light is diverted to the autofocus sensor, and to keep the viewfinder bright, they make the viewfinder smaller.

Don't expect to see an MX style viewfinder in a modern autofocus body.

[KungPOW]

A 100% FF viewfinder would be pretty damn sweet, and it would separate pentax from the crowd, too.

As far as I know, the K-7 and the K-5 both have 100% viewfinders.

Pentax is talking about all of their cameras having 100% viewfinders.

[TomTextura]

well pentax has said there is no reason ALL vf can't be 100%' so for FF think MX or better

A 100% FF viewfinder would be pretty damn sweet, and it would separate pentax from the crowd, too.

100% in terms of magnification and coverage would be a dream to use! Such a feature really would catch the attention of many a photographer.

Viewfinders became smaller with the advent of autofocus. Part of the light is diverted to the autofocus sensor, and to keep the viewfinder bright, they make the viewfinder smaller. Don't expect to see an MX style viewfinder in a modern autofocus body.

I hope that's not a certainty.

[ElJamoquio]

As far as I know, the K-7 and the K-5 both have 100% viewfinders.

Pentax is talking about all of their cameras having 100% viewfinders.

You know what? I was thinking about magnification, not coverage (and I was thinking about FF). Never mind.

[Kryscendo]

What exactly is magnification when it comes to viewfinders? I never did understand that.

[KungPOW]

What exactly is magnification when it comes to viewfinders? I never did understand that.

Magnification is how big the image appears in the viewfinder with a 50mm lens set to infinity.

The old MX had a magnification close to 1 (I'll let someone else look up the actual number 'cause I'm lazy).

So with a 50mm on the camera, and both eyes open, the viewfinder image looks to match the size of the non-viewfinder image from the other eye.

The K1000 has less magnification, and the same effect can be achieved with the 55mm lens.

My F100 has a magnification of 70% of so, and it gets a one to one magnification with a 70mm lens.

My D300 gets a 1:1 image with a 50mm lens. But, when used with a 35mm lens (the actual "normal" lens for this body) it is only about 70% magnification. So, the reality is that even though it looks like it gets 100% magnification with the 50mm standard, because on the crop sensor, this lens is really a short telephoto. As I understand it this is why all the crop bodies can have magnifications close to 100%, and still have autofocus and bright viewfinders. Essentially they cheat with the 50mm lens standard when used to define magnification.

[Kryscendo]

So why is it so hard to make a camera close to 1x Magnification? Sounds like 100% viewing angle is important but if the magnification is way off, that could be something too.

[falconeye]

So why is it so hard to make a camera close to 1x Magnification? Sounds like 100% viewing angle is important but if the magnification is way off, that could be something too.

-> LumoLabs -- True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper # 1.6. Viewfinder

btw, there is nothing special about 1x magnification. A viewfinder can be 1.5x as it can be 0.7x. But cost increases with perceived angle of view through the viewfinder (and the height of the eye point). This is well illustrated by wide angle scope oculars (eye pieces). Ironically, Pentax was considered one of the very best when it came to wide angle oculars (ask @jogiba). But I think Ricoh now closed that operation.

Perceived angle of view is proportional to:

Magnification x Coverage/100% / crop-factor

My MX has a stellar 0.92x for the perceived angle of view. But I always found it difficult to oversee the entire viewfinder image (I wear glasses). Back at that time, I considered that to be a weak point of the camera. (Now I know, the weak point is its eye point isn't high enough). The eye point is the maximum distance between eye piece rear element and pupil which allows the entire field of view to be projected into the eye.

This is the smc Pentax XW 10 eyepiece with 359,- USD MSRP:

-> PentaxWebstore.com:Eyepiece smc Pentax XW 10 (1.25" tube) Eyepiece smc Pentax XW 10 (1.25" tube)

"this eyepiece features a 70 degree field of view and 20mm eye relief" (eye point).

70° FoV corresponds to a perceived angle of view of 1.50x! This shows what is feasible from a purely technical point of view.

Current VF are a cheapo compromise and I really hope to see exchangeable viewfinders again.

Wrt eye points:

Nikon F4: 22 mm
Nikon F100: 21 mm
Nikon D3, D700, D4: 18 mm
Nikon D800: 17 mm
Canon 5DmkII: 21 mm


One more thing: large viewfinders (with good eye relief) are large (one reason why cameras with no flash have better eye relief). It isn't reasonable to ask, at the same time, for the most compact FF and for the best VF, in one camera. You must make a decision!

[eddie1960]

Magnification is an issue. a number of the current FF cameras are 100% coverage (which is nice to have) but in the .74x magnification range which makes them only marginally better than the apsc ones at 100% but .94-.97x or so (like a k7/k5/k30)
Np reason a FF finder can't be 100% and .97 x though - the mx was in that range, the higher end Ff are (but they need to cripple things to make people want to move up)
Pentax if a Ff comes will have no need to cripple the VF to support multiple models

[Asahiflex]

The mythical Pentax FF should and must have the best optical viewfinder, period.

(People who don't care about FF: please never look into a ME or ME-Super viewfinder. Otherwise your day will be completely spoiled.)

[falconeye]

please never look into a ME or ME-Super viewfinder

MX VF is significantly larger