[Smolk]

I recently visited B&H and held the K-1 and the KP. It surprised me that the viewfinder of the K-1 appeared not to be much bigger than that of the KP, one of the things I thought came with a larger sensor. Of course, using a film KX or medium format cameras spoiled me, but the difference still struck.
Back home I looked up the viewfinder details in this forum, and indeed, the KP has 0.95x magnification vs the K-1 II 0.7x, both at 100%. The KP is in the league of the LX in this respect.
I have not used the cameras, so I do not know whether the viewfinder of the KP has its downsides, but it looks impressive to me. Are there any reasons for the K-1's lesser magnification? Could the next FF camera have better specs in this regard or are there any limitations?

I did not find any discussion like this on the forum, but if I missed it, please delete this post!

[Docrwm]

They are different in what you see:
K-1 = 0.70x 100% KP = 0.95x, 100%

You're cramming more into the same space so the image is downsized. It's a bit of an adjustment going from .95x to .7x honestly (as I have done in the past month).

[UncleVanya]

They are different in what you see:
K-1 = 0.70x 100% KP = 0.95x, 100%

You're cramming more into the same space so the image is downsized. It's a bit of an adjustment going from .95x to .7x honestly (as I have done in the past month).

True, but cameras like the MX gave us magnification in the 95%+ range with nearly 100% coverage. But looking back it seems all of the autofocus cameras have been more like 70% - 80% magnification.

[Smolk]

They are different in what you see:
K-1 = 0.70x 100% KP = 0.95x, 100%

You're cramming more into the same space so the image is downsized. It's a bit of an adjustment going from .95x to .7x honestly (as I have done in the past month).

Do you prefer the KPs viewfinder, then, ignoring all other differences between the camera?

[Adam]

I recently visited B&H and held the K-1 and the KP. It surprised me that the viewfinder of the K-1 appeared not to be much bigger than that of the KP, one of the things I thought came with a larger sensor. Of course, using a film KX or medium format cameras spoiled me, but the difference still struck.
Back home I looked up the viewfinder details in this forum, and indeed, the KP has 0.95x magnification vs the K-1 II 0.7x, both at 100%. The KP is in the league of the LX in this respect.
I have not used the cameras, so I do not know whether the viewfinder of the KP has its downsides, but it looks impressive to me. Are there any reasons for the K-1's lesser magnification? Could the next FF camera have better specs in this regard or are there any limitations?

I did not find any discussion like this on the forum, but if I missed it, please delete this post!

What lens was on the K-1 (if any)? Indeed, the viewfinder can appear a little dark with slower lenses, such as the 28-105mm.


That said, the size of the VF is actually a still good deal bigger than the KP because of the FF format. LV magnification is always there if you need to finely adjust the focus

[Smolk]

Probably the kit lens, but you're right - I did not take the lens into account. And yes, the viewfinder of the K-1 remains bigger - probably 1.05x vs 0.95x taking the 1.5 larger sensor into account. I had expected a bit more, still. Had it been 0.8x, it would have been 1.2 comparatively and the difference would've been much more noticeable.
(Another less useful comparison: the Nikon 810 has 0.70x, the 850 has 0.75x magnification.)

[Not a Number]

Most 35mm SLRs from the MF era had around 97% coverage because that was about the typical cutoff from slide mounts. The only cameras I know for certain that had 100% coverage viewfinders were the Nikon F,F2 and F3 and the Canon F1. I don't know what the magnifications were.

[kiwi_jono]

The viewfinder on my ME Super is just wonderfully bright (love it) but this camera is from manual focus days. Compromises were made with most viewfinders when the world shifted to auto focus (Phase Detect) sadly.

That said, I do find the viewfinder on my K-1 is quite a bit better than the one on my K-5. I used to use a magnifier for MF on my K-5 but so far I have not really needed it on the K-1. Also, as Adam says, the view finder is quite a bit brighter with a fast lens mounted.

[Merv-O]

I own both cameras and I have to say there is little noticeable difference to me. Probably never thought too much about the .7x vs. .95x. Both take wonderful pictures and that is all I am concerned about in the long run. The differential is so subtle and the K-1 as already sizable due to the FF sensor, then there was no need to bulk it up further with a larger VF.

[rawr]

The differential is so subtle and the K-1 as already sizable due to the FF sensor, then there was no need to bulk it up further with a larger VF.

Not too many current FF have viewfinders that show more than 0.70x. It costs a lot to get a tiny bit of extra viewfinder magnification.

Nikon:
D750 - 0.7 - $1296
D5 - 0.72 - $6,496
D850 - 0.75 - $3,096

Canon:
6D2 - 0.71 - $1,499
5D4 - 0.71 - $2,999
1DX II - 0.76 - $5,499

(B&H prices)

[Merv-O]

Not too many current FF have viewfinders that show more than 0.70x. It costs a lot to get a tiny bit of extra viewfinder magnification.

Then certainly Pentax RICOH have a good formula to maintainability their price points and quality

[Smolk]

I own both cameras and I have to say there is little noticeable difference to me.

Thanks, that's what I thought. It probably shows how good the KP is.
After having my 35mm film fogged by airport security this month, I'm probably going to make the jump to digital later this year for FF, although the KP, I've got to say, is an attractive alternative. I may sit on the fence and wait to see what comes out.