[Spodeworld]

I am so totally with you on this one!

It's irritating that Pentax cameras don't feature the built-in finder blinds that even mid-level 35mm cameras from the 1970s offered. Having some little plastic accessory that you have to fit over the viewfinder is no substitute for a simple lever you flip open and closed.

[Al_Kahollick]

It's irritating that Pentax cameras don't feature the built-in finder blinds that even mid-level 35mm cameras from the 1970s offered. Having some little plastic accessory that you have to fit over the viewfinder is no substitute for a simple lever you flip open and closed.

What other modern cameras offer this?? I would think since a vast majority of shooters do so with the camera at eye level, built in blinds add an un-necessary expense. A piece of gaffers tape, or even draping your strap over the eyepiece will do in a pinch.

I'll take weather sealing over a built in eyepiece cover any day!

[tibbitts]

What other modern cameras offer this?? I would think since a vast majority of shooters do so with the camera at eye level, built in blinds add an un-necessary expense. A piece of gaffers tape, or even draping your strap over the eyepiece will do in a pinch.

I'll take weather sealing over a built in eyepiece cover any day!

I haven't shopped for a camera outside of Pentax, so I haven't noticed this feature on other current models.

Tape won't work because even gaffer tape isn't THAT reusable - it sticks to itself, collects dirt when detached, etc. It's great for semi-permanently covering the lens release button, so when the button falls off your k5, you won't lose it, but it's not useful for a viewfinder blind. And draping the strap is too delicate an operation, and something that even just a little breeze could blow off. I probably used the blind on my film cameras for over 10,000 exposures. If you multiply the time it takes to do anything other than flip a lever by 10,000 times, it's not trivial, and I'm not a professional that's shooting every day. Yes, you can cover it with some object, and I do that, but then you need to remember to keep yet another object in your pocket (and remember it), and since you have to hold it, you occasionally touch the camera and induce vibration. So a built-in blind is definitely a common requirement for which there's no good alternative.

I like weather-sealing too, but that's a more complicated and expensive feature to implement.

It's also true that at least some older film cameras had superior digital viewfinder displays (aperture, shutter speed) than Pentax DSLRs, at least up through the k5 era. Certainly not as much information (iso, shake reduction, etc.) but the displays handled high ambient light much better, so it wasn't just a matter of character size. So while we've gained many capabiliities, we've lost a few, too.

[Al_Kahollick]

I haven't shopped for a camera outside of Pentax, so I haven't noticed this feature on other current models.

Tape won't work because even gaffer tape isn't THAT reusable - it sticks to itself, collects dirt when detached, etc. It's great for semi-permanently covering the lens release button, so when the button falls off your k5, you won't lose it, but it's not useful for a viewfinder blind. And draping the strap is too delicate an operation, and something that even just a little breeze could blow off. I probably used the blind on my film cameras for over 10,000 exposures. If you multiply the time it takes to do anything other than flip a lever by 10,000 times, it's not trivial, and I'm not a professional that's shooting every day. Yes, you can cover it with some object, and I do that, but then you need to remember to keep yet another object in your pocket (and remember it), and since you have to hold it, you occasionally touch the camera and induce vibration. So a built-in blind is definitely a common requirement for which there's no good alternative.

I like weather-sealing too, but that's a more complicated and expensive feature to implement.

It's also true that at least some older film cameras had superior digital viewfinder displays (aperture, shutter speed) than Pentax DSLRs, at least up through the k5 era. Certainly not as much information (iso, shake reduction, etc.) but the displays handled high ambient light much better, so it wasn't just a matter of character size. So while we've gained many capabiliities, we've lost a few, too.

So which older camera had them. I've been using SLR's since the mid 1970's, subscribed to pretty much every photo mag in that era, and worked in retail thru the 80's (we sold Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta's at the time) and frankly, I've never heard of such a "feature".


Yes, weather sealing is more complicated / expensive, but also of more benefit to more people. A cheap piece of plastic can do what very few photographers likely realize they need to be doing, like I said, most shooters shoot from eye level.


Anyway, in thinking about the OP's problem, I'm not so sure it's from light coming through the viewfinder anyway. I've always thought the light coming thru the VF only affected metering, once the mirror is up, light can't hit the sensor from the VF.
Looks to me like possibly a faulty sensor, or a leak from some other area.


Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

---

Last edited by Al_Kahollick; 07-05-2014 at 08:01 PM.

[G and T]

So which older camera had them. I've been using SLR's since the mid 1970's, subscribed to pretty much every photo mag in that era, and worked in retail thru the 80's (we sold Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta's at the time) and frankly, I've never heard of such a "feature".

I have a Minolta XE and a Minolta XD7 both with viewfinder blinds.
Glenn

[tibbitts]

So which older camera had them. I've been using SLR's since the mid 1970's, subscribed to pretty much every photo mag in that era, and worked in retail thru the 80's (we sold Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta's at the time) and frankly, I've never heard of such a "feature".


Yes, weather sealing is more complicated / expensive, but also of more benefit to more people. A cheap piece of plastic can do what very few photographers likely realize they need to be doing, like I said, most shooters shoot from eye level.


Anyway, in thinking about the OP's problem, I'm not so sure it's from light coming through the viewfinder anyway. I've always thought the light coming thru the VF only affected metering, once the mirror is up, light can't hit the sensor from the VF.
Looks to me like possibly a faulty sensor, or a leak from some other area.


Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

For me I've only had an issue with metering accuracy, which can be thrown off considerably if you don't prevent light from coming through the viewfinder. So I can't confirm or deny light leakage around the mirror when it's in the "up" position. My Canon A-1s, which were extremely popular mid-range cameras, had a viewfinder blind lever right next to the viewfinder, and they had an excellent aperture/shutter display in the viewfinder that was highly visible in a variety of lighting conditions.

On the other hand, A-1s had to be frequently lubricated to hush the infamous mirror squeak, had battery doors that regularly fractured, super-slow 1/60th sync speed, and worst of all, the abandoned FD mount. So it's not like they were perfect cameras.

[Al_Kahollick]

I believe none of the above mentioned cameras with built in blinds were considered "mid-level", they were "top end" / "advanced" cameras in their day.

[stevebrot]

It's irritating that Pentax cameras don't feature the built-in finder blinds that even mid-level 35mm cameras from the 1970s offered. Having some little plastic accessory that you have to fit over the viewfinder is no substitute for a simple lever you flip open and closed.

My Ricoh XR-2s (ca 1977) has a viewfinder blind as did other related Ricoh bodies,but the feature was not really that common. Later Ricoh cameras had a slip-on blind. Pentax never offered it on any of their cameras. As noted above, the Canon A-1 (high-end body) had a viewfinder blind as did upper-end Minolta models a little later in the 1980s. I don't remember any mid-range cameras from the '70s (or '80s for that matter) other than the first-generation Ricoh K-mount bodies that had the feature.

As for current dSLRs, The 1-series Canons have a blind, but I think that is about it. It would be a nice feature, but the slip-on version or the photographer's thumb both work pretty well. I think it is a good feature, but hardly something to get irritated about.

As for the OP's original complaint from some time ago, I don't believe that a viewfinder light leak was the cause. What is more likely was reflection off the back side of a rectangular filter frame.


Steve

[tibbitts]

My Ricoh XR-2s (ca 1977) has a viewfinder blind as did other related Ricoh bodies,but the feature was not really that common. Later Ricoh cameras had a slip-on blind. Pentax never offered it on any of their cameras. As noted above, the Canon A-1 (high-end body) had a viewfinder blind as did upper-end Minolta models a little later in the 1980s. I don't remember any mid-range cameras from the '70s (or '80s for that matter) other than the first-generation Ricoh K-mount bodies that had the feature.

As for current dSLRs, The 1-series Canons have a blind, but I think that is about it. It would be a nice feature, but the slip-on version or the photographer's thumb both work pretty well. I think it is a good feature, but hardly something to get irritated about.

As for the OP's original complaint from some time ago, I don't believe that a viewfinder light leak was the cause. What is more likely was reflection off the back side of a rectangular filter frame.


Steve

The A-1 was decidedly mid-range: the AT-1, AE-1, AE-1P etc. were entry level, the A-1 was mid-range, and the F-1 and F1n high range. I paid $536 2014 dollars for my A-1s (new) in 1983 (a couple years from the end of their long run - the A1 was a 1970s design), so nowhere near high-end prices. It's not a deal breaker to not have the blind, but once you've used it for 30 years, you're somewhat addicted - and yes, irritated when you don't have it.

But I agree that it seems a viewfinder light leak seems unlikely to be an issue in this case. And it's also true that today, at least if light through the viewfinder disrupts your meter reading, you'll know about it before getting your film processed.

[stevebrot]

I paid $536 2014 dollars for my A-1s (new) in 1983

You got a hell of a deal ($225 in 1983). I paid $209.95 mail-order November 1982 for my Ricoh XR7 with Pentax-M 50/1.7 and did not even consider the A-1 because of price. Street price for an A-1 in 1983 was about $210 body only or about the same as the Nikon FE2. The FD 50/1.8 added another $60 or so.* Although the XR7 was Ricoh's flagship model, it was definitively a mid-range body in my mind and was priced a little higher than a Pentax ME Super (~$130 body only). The Pentax LX was just over $400 body only and the direct competitor Super Program was $189 body only. So, yeah, I will grant that the A-1 might be considered a mid-range body in 1983, but on the upper edge of such.

1983 prices courtesy of Nesster: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/3968685179/sizes/o/


Steve

* The $60 difference does not seem that much, but at the time I was only making about $75 per shift at the hospital where I worked. If the extra money had been available, I would have bought the more substantial Nikon FE2 over the Canon A-1 and would probably be shooting Nikon today as a result.

[snipenekkid]

ummm...a small portion of wadded up kleenex works fine if you don't have the eyepiece cover. I have used this forever with all my SLR/DSLR bodies as none have had a nifty eyepiece curtain. Anything that can be used to fill the eyepiece is fine as well, whatever you have that won't damage or scratch the viewfinder window.

[MJSfoto1956]

all Nikon pro-level cameras offer OVF "blinds" -- e.g. D3, D4, D700, D800, etc.
I was surprised that the K-3 didn't come with one (one of my few complaints btw) as I consider this a "pro level" camera.

M