[biz-engineer]

VF magnification is like the difference between prints of the same image of either: 1) different sizes held at the same distance or 2) the same size held at different distances.

Yes, that's what I got wrong about VF magnification. Conclusion: I prefer VF with 0.7x magnification, because I can see the edges and bottom indicators of the VF while wearing glasses, without conscious effort.

[Serkevan]

Yes, that's what I got wrong about VF magnification. Conclusion: I prefer VF with 0.7x magnification, because I can see the edges and bottom indicators of the VF while wearing glasses, without conscious effort.

Yeah, I have the O-ME53 and I use it for some specific work (mostly portraiture so I can get a better view of the subject) but I came to the conclusion that it was messing my framing too much.
The K-1 doesn't correct my vision entirely (the 3.5 diopters of myopia would be taken care off, but the astigmatism wouldn't) so taking off my glasses isn't an option either... And it would be a hassle anyway, because I can't see nuthin' without them 😅

[ZombieArmy]

Yes, that's what I got wrong about VF magnification. Conclusion: I prefer VF with 0.7x magnification, because I can see the edges and bottom indicators of the VF while wearing glasses, without conscious effort.

Yah I feel this. When using my spotmatic with glasses it's tough to even see the edge of the frame unless I smush my face into the camera at a .88x magnification. Though I don't mind it as much there cause it makes manual focus a breeze.

[zapp]

You may want to check literature on telescopes and not look for literature on viewfinders.
A lens in front, a prism in between, an ocular on the end. Now it is all about eye position, magnification, illumination.... Any change in parameters has an effect on cost, but will also tweak a system towards, i.e. more light, high eyepoint, cheap implementation...

[mikesbike]

With a 21mm lens the OVF has a magnification over real life of probably 0.3x or so. With a 300mm, it's probably closer to 3x (Pulling numbers out of thin air, you get the point).

Well of course the lens has everything to do with magnification of what comes through the VF. Of course a 300mm lens will magnify more than will a 21mm lens. Objects in a scene will be much smaller in the frame with the 21mm lens, while relatively few objects will fill the frame with the 300mm lens. The job of the VF is to provide accurate information of what the lens is "seeing" and will be "seen" by the sensor, and conveying this information in an accurate representation to the user. Also being designed for good brightness and having adequate eye relief so the user can see the informational panel at the edges of the VF, even for those with glasses. Too much of getting very close to the image (say 1x with a FF VF) will probably make for not enough eye relief.

---------- Post added 08-05-22 at 02:21 PM ----------

Yes!

VF magnification is like the difference between prints of the same image of either: 1) different sizes held at the same distance or 2) the same size held at different distances.

A VF that is 1X @ 50mm is like holding an 8" x 12" print at 16".

A VF that is 0.7X @ 50mm is like holding an 5.6" x 8.4" print at 16" or an 8" x 12" print at 22.9".

photoptimist responding to biz-engineer above- These are good explanations! Very well illustrated so anyone can understand the situation.