[LesDMess]

The major issue in attaining a bigger viewfinder image is not the eyepiece magnification (that can be solved with the addition of an external magnifier) it's the autofocus system that channels a significant portion of the light away from the focussing screen, thus making the resultant screen image dimmer. The laws of physics govern the amount of light left for the eyepiece, so the only way you'll achieve what some people are asking for is for the manufacturer to supply a camera that is strictly manual focus.

I sympathise with the notion of an eyepiece image that is akin to film SLRs. My first SLR was in the early 1970s and was a Pentax S3. I still have a SP-F, a K2DMD and an LX, so I know what a good viewfinder image looks like, too.

You say a significant portion of light is needed for the AF but according to this site - How Phase Detection Autofocus Works, it states a small portion.

Since you have an LX, you may know that it's OTF system also diverts 15% of the light (which is not insignificant!) and yet the LX is the biggest and brightest. Actually, the LX viewfinders provides the widest range of viewfinder magnification depending on the viewfinder combination installed.

---------- Post added 03-13-16 at 03:14 AM ----------

I like the big deal the ad makes about the "rapid-wind design" technology. All that consisted of was a lever with about 160 degree throw instead of a dial that had to be wound 110 degrees a few times!

Worst, the design of choice at the time was to use a knob!

You can read more about just how advance the original Asahi Pentax design at - Cameraquest on the original Asahi Pentax.

Pentax and Ricoh has a history of innovations and there is no reason to think they lost it especially in light of the innovations already incorporated in the K-1.

[Zygonyx]

I had a comparative look yesterday into K-1 and 645Z's viewfinders : i found the medium format OVF to be brighter (probably enhanced by the 645Z having a 55mm f/2.8 lens mounted, versus K-1 having DFA28-105 @ +-55mm f/4), but about the same width of field and percieved images sizes (save 4:3 format) at +-55mm.
In one world, K-1's OVF is of no disappointment to me.
Plus the customisable markings and AF spots, really a good help for shooting.

[Kunzite]

You say a significant portion of light is needed for the AF but according to this site - How Phase Detection Autofocus Works, it states a small portion.

I remember reading that a 60:40 ratio is typical.

[eyeswideshut]

I'm amazed how people were expecting Pentax to match the magnification of some old manual cameras, in a $1800/2000 euro FF DSLR no less, despite no other manufacturer doing that at any price. What a disappointment!

How quickly we forget. Wasn't it you who wanted to crucify anyone suggesting Pentax sell ff at $1800?

[Kunzite]

No, you just made it up just to pay back some silly grudge. But I did say it won't be announced for under $1500. I also said it won't be too expensive (and I think people started speculating about over $3000).

[eyeswideshut]

No, you just made it up just to pay back some silly grudge. But I did say it won't be announced for under $1500. I also said it won't be too expensive (and I think people started speculating about over $3000).

I made that up for a silly grudge? Really. What grudge are you talking about?

Meanwhile I'll just remind you of this thread from a year ago:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/289513-around-1900-...-think-16.html

Some quotes? Here you are:
"A little" enticing? D810 specs for under 2000$?
There is no such thing; a cheap product is cheap. It's not a high end product sold for fewer $$$.

...
Let's play a game - spot the thing which doesn't match:
A. HD PENTAX-D FA * 70-200mm F2.8ED DC AW, 2000 euro
B. HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6ED DC AW, 2200 euro
C. Pentax "full frame" DSLR, D810 features but D610 price.
...
Originally posted by VoiceOfReason They can release a D810 spec camera at 2k
No, they can't; they would have to cut corners one way or another.
I'm not saying they would launch a D810 spec/priced camera, though; we don't know that. IMO they should rather target around $2500.

...
A low margin camera is for people also expecting low margin lenses. And in the end, they'll find something cheaper elsewhere... discontinued models, perhaps even second hand - if price is what's driving them.
---

If you want more, let me know, Google is your friend.

[eyeswideshut]

...
These disappointing viewfinder facts are both baffling and frustrating me. I don't want autofocus lenses either, I just want to be able to use my Pentax-M lenses on a full frame digital SLR body that has a viewfinder of film-body level quality and characteristics. The viewfinder is, for me, one of the most important elements of any camera. Staring at a camera back display is not my idea of progress, nor is viewing a relatively small, dim pentaprism finder, containing numerous visual distractions. Blinking"autofocus points", electronic levels, GPS and tilting camera-back displays are totally inessential for me, and all add weight, complexity and cost to the camera.

Surely there must be a market for such a simple camera for the likes of you and me.

There must be a "bring back the neo-Spotmatic" secret society somewhere!

I agree. These threads surface regularly. Digital SLR's have advanced in every way imaginable. The only area where we lag is the one some of us consider the most important: the viewfinder. Amazing really, particularly as the whole DSLR/OVF paradigm is under some strain from the mirrorless cameras. So maybe some day a manufacturer will respond to this dilemma with a specialized model optimized for manual focus with a viewfinder approaching 100% coverage and 1:1 magnification.

[Kunzite]

I made that up for a silly grudge? Really. What grudge are you talking about?

What's the point of this, then? Attacking me all of the sudden?
And those examples, it's not like I said it's impossible (like for the $1500 and lower MSRPs I mentioned the other post), but that they're possible only by making compromises. I might have been underestimating Ricoh/Pentax by a few $100s; or rather, I was expecting the price in USD to be numerically slightly higher that in Europe. I was mistaken. So what?

By the way, we didn't actually get D810 specs... no 51-points AF (but something based on the same AF sensor as the K-3 series), lower sensor read-out speed, no 1080p@60fps video. The K-1 is amazingly close though, and it also has its share of unique features.

Think about it, but please don't bother to respond.

[eyeswideshut]

What's the point of this, then? Attacking me all of the sudden?
And those examples, it's not like I said it's impossible (like for the $1500 and lower MSRPs I mentioned the other post), but that they're possible only by making compromises. I might have been underestimating Ricoh/Pentax by a few $100s; or rather, I was expecting the price in USD to be numerically slightly higher that in Europe. I was mistaken. So what?

By the way, we didn't actually get D810 specs... no 51-points AF (but something based on the same AF sensor as the K-3 series), lower sensor read-out speed, no 1080p@60fps video. The K-1 is amazingly close though, and it also has its share of unique features.

Think about it, but please don't bother to respond.

I'm not 'attacking' you, merely reminding that it was you who time and again told everyone that a $1800 K-1 wasn't going to happen. No big deal, just own up to it.

So what grudge was that again?

[ffking]

being English, my .02p might actually be worth more than .02c, but I happily admit it's still not much: however -

It does seem to me that Pentax, as any 'small' business, has always looked for ways in which it can compete - USPs if you like, and a big bright viewfinder behind a proper pentaprism was always one of them. Pentax loyalists, by a sort of Darwinian selection,are people who appreciate the unique features Pentax offers, and a big bright viewfinder is one of these. And I think Ricoh have shown every sign of understanding the Pentax heritage and legacy. It therefore seems to me that they would have wanted to incorporate a big bright viewfinder as one of their initial design goals, but had to sacrifice the exceptional if favour of the more than adequate due to other considerations. I don't think they'd have done it lightly and we probably have to accept that something else we value would have suffered if they had made a big bright viewfinder non-negotiable.

[Kunzite]

I'm not 'attacking' you, merely reminding that it was you who time and again told everyone that a $1800 K-1 wasn't going to happen. No big deal, just own up to it.

So what grudge was that again?

Reminding me by saying I was "crucifying" people?
Sigh... it's pointless. Boriscleto'd.

[LesDMess]

These threads surface regularly. Digital SLR's have advanced in every way imaginable. The only area where we lag is the one some of us consider the most important: the viewfinder. Amazing really, particularly as the whole DSLR/OVF paradigm is under some strain from the mirrorless cameras. So maybe some day a manufacturer will respond to this dilemma with a specialized model optimized for manual focus with a viewfinder approaching 100% coverage and 1:1 magnification.

Perhaps one day a proper EVF/LCD may finally be the equal of a big bright viewfinder.

I seem to recall from some years back that a camera company had a patent that projected the viewfinder image to the back of the eyeball presenting the equivalent view of a giant LCD screen while maintaining a small footprint. I am not aware of a prototype being developed but maybe using a laser beam to project the image to the eyeball was not appealing.

[stevebrot]

Seriously, I get it - I want an MX viewfinder as much as anyone - but I don't think it's going to happen soon, and certainly not for $1,700. .

Unfortunately, a 0.95x "full frame" viewfinder on a DSLR is unrealistic for several reasons - e.g. viewfinders getting only part of the light, autofocus being the primary mode

---

I see no reason they can't solve such a simple thing as a big bright viewfinder if they wanted to.

See the two comments quoted above. The only way it is going to happen in our universe within the bounds of known physics is if the camera is made without AF or if the viewfinder is not optical or if Ricoh were to pioneer a radical new AF tech that is able to attain PDAF speed and flexibility without using a shared optical path with the viewfinder image.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Since you have an LX, you may know that it's OTF system also diverts 15% of the light (which is not insignificant!) and yet the LX is the biggest and brightest.

I know you are a big fan of the LX, but I beg to differ. Its finder image may be big, but others are brighter.


Steve

[stevebrot]

What's the point of this, then? Attacking me all of the sudden?

I'm not 'attacking' you, merely reminding that it was you who time and again told everyone that a $1800 K-1 wasn't going to happen. No big deal, just own up to it.

I would suggest that if you are going to take a thread seriously off-topic, that you not do so with a random personal attack. It both looks and smells bad.


Steve