[Little Ray]

Hello All,

Can anyone help translate the 92% (K5iis) v 95% (K3) view finder magnification into an experience. Is there an appreciable difference or not really?

Best,

Little Ray

[AquaDome]

I have a K-3 and a K-50 (same viewfinder specs as the K-5 models). They are so similar that it never even occurred to me to compare them. They just look the same. Both have dioptric correction if your eyes are feeling as old as mine.

[fgaudet]

You're more than likely never gonna notice the difference. I don't really notice it between my Kr and my K5 (kr 0.85, k5 0.92) which is a fair bit different. So no worries about the K3 vs K5

[Parry]

When I look through the K-5IIs viewfinder and then through the K-3 viewfinder I can't see any difference. But only when I've got my glass eye in.

[kiwi_jono]

You're more than likely never gonna notice the difference. I don't really notice it between my Kr and my K5 (kr 0.85, k5 0.92) which is a fair bit different. So no worries about the K3 vs K5

It did for me. I have a k-x and a k-5 and I think the k-5 is significantly better. With the k-5 I find manual focussing easier and I achieve a higher focus hit rate than with my k-x. When I go back to my k-x I struggle a lot more with manual focus. But thats just my experience and I can't comment on the k-3 because I don't have one.

[AquaDome]

If you're really worried, add an O-ME53 viewfinder magnifier to it. They won't look the same after that.

[Franky2step]

I have both models and yes, I can tell the difference, but to me as a man, size doesn't matter……lol

[monochrome]

There is something different enough about the K3 viewfinder that I can, for the first time with a digital camera, use my right eye again. I think the difference lies in the new diopter mechanism but maybe it is the reported 100% coverage at 95'% magnification. Whatever it is, the VF is really, really good.

I can do everything but critical focus, which I do on a tripod in Live View anyway. Formerly I'd been on an obsessive quest for a film camera to use with my old lenses or the K-01 and a tripod.

[fgaudet]

The K3 has a bigger viewfinder. 0.95% magnification but also has a slightly smaller sensor than the K5 (15.6 x 23.5 for the K3 and 15.7 x 23.7 for the K5). And since magnification is relative to sensor size, you get a 0.06% x 0.11% increase in size. I think the difference most people see is due to the mirror reflectiveness and by the improved pentaprism. The K3 VF is brighter than the K5, there is no doubt about that

[monochrome]

The K3 has a bigger viewfinder. 0.95% magnification but also has a slightly smaller sensor than the K5 (15.6 x 23.5 for the K3 and 15.7 x 23.7 for the K5). And since magnification is relative to sensor size, you get a 0.06% x 0.11% increase in size. I think the difference most people see is due to the mirror reflectiveness and by the improved pentaprism. The K3 VF is brighter than the K5, there is no doubt about that

Uhh, what does the sensor size have to do with what I see through a passive viewfinder?

[fgaudet]

Uhh, what does the sensor size have to do with what I see through a passive viewfinder?

Magnification is measured in relation to the size of the sensor. On a FF body you'll see ~0.7 magnification usually. I know the VF has no relation to the sensor but the way of measuring the VF dimension dates back to film days.

[Adam]

Hello All,

Can anyone help translate the 92% (K5iis) v 95% (K3) view finder magnification into an experience. Is there an appreciable difference or not really?

Best,

Little Ray

Not really, they feel about the same. It's even hard to tell the difference when putting one camera to one eye and one to the other

[geomez]

For me, going from .92x magnification (K-5 IIs) to .95x (K-3) was subtle and almost unnoticeable. By contrast, going from .85x (K100D) to .92x (K-5 IIs) was blatant and vastly improved for me.

[Ayoh]

There are noticeable differences in the k3 viewfinder.

- It is noticeably brighter
- It has a colder colour balance. The k5 series viewfinder has a noticeable warm/yellow tinge to it. The k3 is preferably more neutral.
- Viewfinder Image is slightly larger
- eye-point is slightly worse i.e. you need to have your eye closer to the viewfinder. However the difference is not problematic and using the Pentax viewfinder magnifier (which works better with higher eye-point) does not present any real problems for people who do not wear glasses.

All in all it is an improvement over the k5.

Some limitations are:

- low AF point brightness. The points are hard to see in bright light outdoors, and have some slight inconsistency in their individual brightness.
- Viewfinder LCD display could be brighter like the OLED display used in the d7100.

Hello All,

Can anyone help translate the 92% (K5iis) v 95% (K3) view finder magnification into an experience. Is there an appreciable difference or not really?

Best,

Little Ray

[MadMathMind]

The K3 has a bigger viewfinder. 0.95% magnification but also has a slightly smaller sensor than the K5 (15.6 x 23.5 for the K3 and 15.7 x 23.7 for the K5). And since magnification is relative to sensor size, you get a 0.06% x 0.11% increase in size. I think the difference most people see is due to the mirror reflectiveness and by the improved pentaprism. The K3 VF is brighter than the K5, there is no doubt about that

Uhh, what does the sensor size have to do with what I see through a passive viewfinder?

Let's do the math (this is my name, after all):

K-3 viewfinder size = 0.95*[15.6, 23.5] = 14.82 x 22.325 mm
K-5 viewfinder size = 0.92*[15.7, 23.7] = 14.444 x 21.804 mm

If you can tell a difference of 0.4 mm, then your eyes and sense of measurement are a lot better than mine!

---------- Post added 03-13-14 at 11:38 PM ----------

For me, going from .92x magnification (K-5 IIs) to .95x (K-3) was subtle and almost unnoticeable. By contrast, going from .85x (K100D) to .92x (K-5 IIs) was blatant and vastly improved for me.

The K100D has the same sensor size as the K-5, so it has physical dimensions 13.345 x 20.145mm. That's 1mm and 1.5mm in the vertical and horizontal directions smaller than the K-5. I'd still say that's a bit too small a difference to make a difference. I suspect what you saw were due to actual improvements in the quality of the viewfinder rather than physical dimensions.