[Imageman]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Ok,


As usual im spouting utter shite.


I think my time spent in here has been wasted.


Bye guys

[stevebrot]

i don't know of a single slr that has the autofocus built into the viewfinder and that uses a clear screen. care to name one?

I don't know of a single SLR that has the autofocus built into the viewfinder, period. I just ain't done that way,* though you are right about the clear screen. They essentially don't exist.


Steve

* The AF system uses a micro lens array situated in the bottom of the mirror box. Light is supplied courtesy of the half-silvered main mirror and an auxiliary mirror below.

---------- Post added 04-04-14 at 01:59 PM ----------

Ok,


As usual im spouting utter shite.


I think my time spent in here has been wasted.


Bye guys

Your comments are not wasted (assuming they are well stated and correct) regardless of whether the OP pays attention or other participants agree with you. Part of the value of online forums is that they are a future reference to people outside the discussion. Now you may feel disrespected and that is fine, but yet another parting shot at people who don't/can't/do understand what you are writing sort of has me shaking my head.

My explanation was totally disregarded (even though it was right ), but I figure that I gave it my best and if my best attempt was not adequate...

If the OP prefers the D7100 finder, cool! I just hope that he is able to test its screen outside the showroom before he lays down the cash.

I still can't figure out what he means by a "clear" screen though. I have 20+ cameras on my shelves and have been shooting for about 45 years and have never seen a "clear" screen on any camera. There are some systems which project an aerial image (no screen), but one of the characteristics of a focus screen is that it scatters light at its face so that you can see the image. That generally requires some "roughness" or texture. If you have an in-focus view of the screen and adequate visual acuity, it will always appear somewhat grainy, particularly when contrast is low.


Steve

---------- Post added 04-04-14 at 02:15 PM ----------

I just looked through a Nikon D7100 viewfinder at a local store today and it has the same size pentaprism viewfinder as the K30 but was crystal clear sharp without the grainy-like appearance. Wish the K30 was like that

Did you adjust the D7100 viewfinder diopter to your eye and then direct the camera to a blank, evenly lit wall and intentionally de-focus the camera lens? That should show you the native structure of the screen. If the Nikon product is more to your liking than the Pentax, it may be a good choice for you. Another option might be a 35mm Nikon screen cut down to APS-C size to replace the screen in your K-30. You can do this yourself or maybe purchase one of the options from focusingscreen.com. The Canon "S" screen, by all reports on this site, is supposed to be very fine-grained and a joy to use with manual focus:

Focusing Screen Comparison

Focusing Screen for K-30

I use a Katz Eye screen with Optibrite and really like it, but it is rather expensive and has a definite texture.

Steve

[Imageman]

Your right steve, I over reacted.


I have always respected you on here, and many others too, I was simply carrying some baggage with me at the time of responding.


Sorry guys.

[Eyewanders]

Your right steve, I over reacted.

I have always respected you on here, and many others too, I was simply carrying some baggage with me at the time of responding.

Sorry guys.

I didn't take your response to mean that you were implying that AF is "built-in" to the screen itself, but rather that because on cameras that rely solely on AF, a matte screen isn't really necessary, since the user doesn't need any more confirmation other than the focus confirmation points themselves... Which would be true.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

For what its worth, I tend to agree with Steve that the better definition of the K-30 (pentaprism and more magnification) would allow someone to sense some grain in the viewfinder compared to a supposed clearer appearance (from recollection of the OP) likely due to an inability to discern detail - essentially almost a smeared look. Given that the comparison is from recollection rather than direct comparison, our conclusions are going to be based on speculation.

[stillshot2]

Both K30's I have used are even distinctly more grainy/ smeared looking than my old Canon AE-1 which has a larger, more magnified viewfinder. And no modern DSLR I have used from any other brand is like this, and are nearly perfectly clear to the point that any grain they may have is nearly indiscernible during normal use. At this point I suppose I will have to conclude it is from manufacturing processes and perhaps Pentax is using more archaic methods that date back to the AE-1 era. It still isn't a dealbreaker, I am not going to switch brands, and it is better than the efv's I was using in Sony cameras (I personally hated those, hence the switch to Pentax in the first place).

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I sold Canon AE-1 bodies by the boatload back in the day. It is correct to say that - for a 35mm viewfinder - the screen was dark and dull, and the contrast was poor. This was probably the poorest aspect of the camera. At the time, I also sold comparable competing MF brands whose viewfinders and overall screen brightness made it easier to focus - with Pentax and Minolta leading the way, Nikon (depending on model) and Olympus not too far behind, but Canon distinctly trailing - especially the AE-1.

The Pentax K-30 is not comparable to the AE-1 in any way, and I just don't see a problem related to viewfinder quality. It is at least as good (and in terms of information provided - better) than my flagship dSLRs before it (and still have) - the *istD and K20D. It is no surprise that the dullest dSLR viewfinder I own now is a Canon 20D (which is not as good as the Canon 5D I owned at one time - but that's FF and not easily compared). I regularly MF with the K-30, and find it pretty easy to do so unless the light is very poor (I use a quality 1.3x VF adapter - and that does make a big difference).

[stillshot2]

Perhaps I will invest in a VF magnifier and see if it improves my MF abilities

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

This multi-coated version is inexpensive and higher quality than the Pentax or KPS versions:
1 3X Magnifier View Finder Eyecup for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Sony DSLR | eBay

[pacerr]

Just as you can't "see" a clear window pane as you look through it, you couldn't focus on a perfectly clear VF screen.

Screens come in various degrees of "un-clear-ness?" -- from very fine ground glass to course micro-prism spots; each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The course screen tends to "pop" more when in focus but is darker, generally requires faster lenses and definitely requires close attention to on-axis viewing.

If you ever have the opportunity to explore both fine and course center-spot micro-prism screens you'll immediately see the difference.

One manual focus technique you may find helpful on ground glass is to concentrate on the front and back edges of the in-focus area. It's often much easier to bracket the window that's in sharp focus than to clearly see a single point of sharpness against a busy background. Try that looking at a grassy lawn about 20 feet in front of you. I try to place the desired plane of focus at about 40 percent of the distance into the area of acceptable focus. (Sort of like using peripheral vision at night.)

[stevebrot]

Both K30's I have used are even distinctly more grainy/ smeared looking than my old Canon AE-1 which has a larger, more magnified viewfinder.

Your comments are a bit of a puzzle to me. I had a K-50 (same viewfinder as K-30) in hand this weekend and the focus screen appearance is quite nominal. My optometrist told me that except for presbyopia, by visual acuity is above average, so I would expect that my picky eyes should have picked up the graininess or smear or whatever it is that you are seeing.

I do wonder, however, whether you have the viewfinder diopter properly set for your eyes. Use the AF bracket lines as a reference and adjust the slider at the top of the eyepiece until those lines are sharp. If you can't get the lines sharp using the slider, then you will need to use the viewfinder with corrective lenses (eyeglasses or equivalent).


Steve

[maltfalc]

Both K30's I have used are even distinctly more grainy/ smeared looking than my old Canon AE-1 which has a larger, more magnified viewfinder. And no modern DSLR I have used from any other brand is like this, and are nearly perfectly clear to the point that any grain they may have is nearly indiscernible during normal use. At this point I suppose I will have to conclude it is from manufacturing processes and perhaps Pentax is using more archaic methods that date back to the AE-1 era. It still isn't a dealbreaker, I am not going to switch brands, and it is better than the efv's I was using in Sony cameras (I personally hated those, hence the switch to Pentax in the first place).

hold on, lemme get out my k-30 and my ae-1, slap a couple of 50mm f/1.8 lenses on them and compare... yep, you're full of it. maybe you need to adjust the diopter or clean the eyelash grease off the k-30 viewfinder, because mine is just as sharp as my ae-1, which actually has significantly more graininess and flare than my k-30.

[stillshot2]

@ScooterMaxi Jim: Thanks for the link. Have you tried this exact magnifier?

@stevebrot: I am certain the eyepiece is set correctly for my vision. The af lines are set as perfectly clear and it's only when I add too much plus diopter power that it causes the graininess to go away but also makes everything blurry including the af area lines which isn't helpful. When you point your K50 up to a plain bright blue sky, do you not see a textured pattern on the sky caused from the viewfinder?

---------- Post added 04-08-14 at 10:59 AM ----------

@maltfac: Your comment is not helpful and kind of rude. My AE-1 is brighter and less grainy than my K30 and for you to call me a liar is unappreciated. The eyepiece (not called diopter; diopter is the measurement of power of the eyepiece) is set correctly and I keep all my gear spotless from dust, eyelash grease, etc.

[maltfalc]

[/COLOR]@maltfac: Your comment is not helpful and kind of rude. My AE-1 is brighter and less grainy than my K30 and for you to call me a liar is unappreciated. The eyepiece (not called diopter; diopter is the measurement of power of the eyepiece) is set correctly and I keep all my gear spotless from dust, eyelash grease, etc.

i'm not calling you a liar, i'm saying you're wrong. pointing out the fact that someone is wrong may not be polite, but it's certainly helpful to anyone reading this who might otherwise just take your word for it. and don't pretend to correct me on my use of the term diopter when i was obviously referring specifically to setting "the diopter" with the diopter adjustment lever, and not to the eyepiece as a whole. what lenses do you have on the two cameras when you're comparing them?

[stillshot2]

Any of the modern lenses I have attached (18-55 dal, 55-300 dal, da 50mm 1.8) on either of the 2 K30's I have owned (both with less than 5,000 shutter count) have an indisputably more grainy look than any of the many modern DSLRs I have ever peeped through. And I don't care if anyone believes me and I no longer care that my K30 does have a grainy looking viewfinder since it's the final image result that matters most. That being said I may invest in a viewfinder magnifier to hopefully make up for the lost clarity caused from this graininess and in the meantime I am going to spend less time on this thread and more time capturing images.