[bertwert]

It's unfortunate for Pentax that with the demise of many B&M photo shops it is difficult for most folks to experience the difference between OVF and EVF when camera-shopping.

Indeed, not that I'm going to be giving up an OVF, but it'd be nice to try out some of the newer EVFs so I can be better informed for arguing online. As it stands, all I can say is that my last time trying one, I found it absolutely horrible, but that was around 5 years ago, and it would be unfair to use that experience in comparison to the new top of the line ones out now...

[ThorSanchez]

It's unfortunate for Pentax that with the demise of many B&M photo shops it is difficult for most folks to experience the difference between OVF and EVF when camera-shopping.

My only experiences with EVFs are 30 seconds at Best Buy with some kind of APS-C Sony. I have no idea if it was a good or bad EVF, and I have no idea if I'd get a headache if I used it for 30 minutes. I've thought about renting something like a X-T4 just to find out. Although with a K-3 III coming I've lost a little of my curiosity.

[luftfluss]

Indeed, not that I'm going to be giving up an OVF, but it'd be nice to try out some of the newer EVFs so I can be better informed for arguing online. As it stands, all I can say is that my last time trying one, I found it absolutely horrible, but that was around 5 years ago, and it would be unfair to use that experience in comparison to the new top of the line ones out now...

My only experiences with EVFs are 30 seconds at Best Buy with some kind of APS-C Sony. I have no idea if it was a good or bad EVF, and I have no idea if I'd get a headache if I used it for 30 minutes. I've thought about renting something like a X-T4 just to find out. Although with a K-3 III coming I've lost a little of my curiosity.

I owned a Fuji X-T20 - their previous-gen midrange model - concurrently with my K-70, and found the Fuji's 2.36M dot EVF fine for snaps, but unsatisfactory for more intense work. I've been intending for a while to check out a Nikon Z6 with its 3.69M dot EVF to see if it's decent, but just haven't gotten around to it. There actually is a genuine camera shop about 30 minutes drive from me, so I'm fortunate in that regard.

Side note: the K-70's apparent build quality felt significantly better than the X-T20's. My K-01 felt better, too. Too bad the online camerascenti seem to have little regard for such things.

[Biff]

I can imagine someone, maybe more than one, who has only every used an EVF to pick up a camera with an OVF and say, wow, this is pretty cool, I like it.

[swanlefitte]

Can someone explain this?
"Viewfinder magnification figures are usually calculated with 50mm lenses, regardless of sensor size, so some of that high figure comes from the apparent magnification of the camera's APS-C sensor" How does sensor size play into an optical viewfinder? That seems to make sense for an evf.

[RobG]

Indeed, not that I'm going to be giving up an OVF, but it'd be nice to try out some of the newer EVFs so I can be better informed for arguing online. As it stands, all I can say is that my last time trying one, I found it absolutely horrible, but that was around 5 years ago, and it would be unfair to use that experience in comparison to the new top of the line ones out now...

I'd like to try a high end EVF as well. I just bought a Sony camcorder, and the resolution of the EVF makes it really hard to find things like birds in the distance in order to zoom in on them. I imagine there would be a similar problem with an EVF on a mirrorless camera with a long zoom or telephoto lens if the EVF resolution is low. OK, the majority of use cases for a camcorder will be wide angle, but it's a bit pointless putting a 10x zoom lens in it if it's really hard to use. In the case of the camcorder, the argument would be to use the swivel screen, but personally I dislike doing that. So I'd like to see what it's like using an EVF on a mirrorless camera with a long lens.

[swanlefitte]

Now my 2nd question. The Nikon Z7ii review says 10fps with buffer of 77 12bit raw. The k3iii says 12fps. What is at 14 and what at 12?
In the comparison the z6ii looks to show head to head with 12bit vs everyone elses 14bit.
Nikon Z6 Review - Performance
Edit: faster burst rate is a dynamic range eater on steroids!

[biz-engineer]

How does sensor size play into an optical viewfinder?

Format doesn't play any role.

That seems to make sense for an evf.

I don't think so.

Viewfinder magnification means, that for a magnification of 0.7, if you look at a scene thru a viewfinder with 50mm lens on a FF camera, and then look at the scene directly with eyes, what you see in the viewfinder is compressed by 0.7 . That's why , for me, the difference between 0.7 and 0.75 magnification is negligible, it's only for marketing bragging rights. With 0.75 VF magnification, you still don't see exactly how the image will be like on a photograph. Ideally, I'd want my camera to have a VF with 1.0 magnification, so that when I look thru the 1:1 VF I see exactly what I see bare eyes and exactly how it's going to look like on the photograph. Today, live view (rear display) is the only true to life representation of what's in front of the camera (when using a 50mm lens on FF).

[swanlefitte]

So if i have 50mm lens on an apsc 100% would show me what a ff sensor would see? Is dpr complaining that it doesn't show more than what the sensor sees? And seeing more than the apsc sensor on a ff that cuts off what the ff sensor sees is better? I still can't make sense of the comment.

[Serkevan]

Format doesn't play any role.


I don't think so.

Viewfinder magnification means, that for a magnification of 0.7, if you look at a scene thru a viewfinder with 50mm lens on a FF camera, and then look at the scene directly with eyes, what you see in the viewfinder is compressed by 0.7 . That's why , for me, the difference between 0.7 and 0.75 magnification is negligible, it's only for marketing bragging rights. With 0.75 VF magnification, you still don't see exactly how the image will be like on a photograph. Ideally, I'd want my camera to have a VF with 1.0 magnification, so that when I look thru the 1:1 VF I see exactly what I see bare eyes and exactly how it's going to look like on the photograph. Today, live view (rear display) is the only true to life representation of what's in front of the camera (when using a 50mm lens on FF).

Format absolutely plays a role, because magnification for a given focal length depends on the sensor size. VF magnification has nothing to do with how the image will look like in the final photo and everything about how large the finder is. My old Pentax ME looks like my eyes at 50mm, the K-1 (I use the O-ME53 magnifier) looks close to life-sized with the FA77.

I don't look at my prints at OVF distance

---------- Post added 04-06-21 at 12:01 AM ----------

So if i have 50mm lens on an apsc 100% would show me what a ff sensor would see? Is dpr complaining that it doesn't show more than what the sensor sees? And seeing more than the apsc sensor on a ff that cuts off what the ff sensor sees is better? I still can't make sense of the comment.

100% magnification just means that the angle of view with a 50mm is the same angle of view as with your eyes.
Lower magnification means that the VF is physically smaller - this is best exemplified by looking first at a cheap Canikon (a bit over 0.6x FF-equivalent) and afterwards at a Pentax ME (0.95x).

[davidsladek]

found an K-3 III Eye-AF test video on YouTube (not sure if previously posted in this thread)

You Tube

You Tube

[swanlefitte]

Now i understand. They are saying since with apsc it is comparing a telephoto view to a normal view on ff. Interesting that this wasn't needed in the Nikon d500 review as the first 100% viewfinder.
"Another sign that this is a true high-end camera is the inclusion of a larger viewfinder. Like previous DX00 class cameras it has 100% coverage but it also offers 1.0x magnification, which is the largest optical viewfinder we can remember seeing in an APS-C camera (electronic viewfinders are a different matter, since size and brightness isn't constrained by sensor/mirror size)."
Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review: Digital Photography Review
I doubt it has ever been a concern before the k3iii but I won't go through all the reviews.
With Nikon it is a feat, with Pentax surpassing it, it isn't really good.
Edit. They do mention it, just not on the introduction page.
"The D500 has a 100% viewfinder but in this case offering a 1.0x magnification. Because the magnification figure is based on the use of a 50mm lens, this the magnification figure includes the 1.5x multiplier from the camera using an APS-C sensor. With this taken into account, it's still the largest viewfinder we've ever seen on an APS-C DSLR. 0.67x magnification isn't huge by full frame standards but it's about as nice as optical finders get in this format."

[Smolk]

Years ago, as I once mentioned here, I was surprised to see that the OVF of the KP came close to that of the K-1 II.
The former: 0.95x, 100%, the latter 0.70x, 100%.
If you apply the crop factor to the latter, it becomes 1.05x, which is just better than the KP, but identical to the K-3 III. Or perhaps you do it the other way around, and it would be 0.63x (KP) and 0.70x (K-3 III) vs 0.70x (K-1 II). I'm not sure whether the new OVF is also brighter, and how that affects the image.
On this calculation, the OVF of the K-1 II and K-3 III would be more or less identical. I don't understand how the number of 0.68x is achieved by DPR.

[Serkevan]

Years ago, as I once mentioned here, I was surprised to see that the OVF of the KP came close to that of the K-1 II.
The former: 0.95x, 100%, the latter 0.70x, 100%.
If you apply the crop factor to the latter, it becomes 1.05x, which is just better than the KP, but identical to the K-3 III. Or perhaps you do it the other way around, and it would be 0.63x (KP) and 0.70x (K-3 III) vs 0.70x (K-1 II). I'm not sure whether the new OVF is also brighter, and how that affects the image.
On this calculation, the OVF of the K-1 II and K-3 III would be more or less identical. I don't understand how the number of 0.68x is achieved by DPR.

Because crop factor is actually ~1.53; the K-1 would require a 1.07x APS-C OVF if we get strict.

Of course, DRP would round 0.687x to 0.68x and not 0.69x, though...

[beholder3]

I think any referencing of the 50 mm lens (or any other) is complete nonsense.

What makes more sense is to reference the focusing screen size (which typically is connected to sensor format).
It is the image we see on the focusing screen which actually needs to be magnified x1,53 times more to become comparable to a FF viewfinder impression, simply because the focusing screen is so much smaller.

The viewfinder magnification is the same with all lenses. Only the nominal "x1" is anchored to the angle of view of a 50 mm lens.

For reference: The Leica M3 has x0,91 FF.

And: Bigger is not necessarily better from a certain point onwards, unless you do not mind needing to look around the image and not see it "all at once".
It is like choosing a seat in a movie theater.From the front rows you see more details, but you don't see the whole picture at once.