[Gareth.Ig]

Is it just me or does the MX have a wider image ratio than 2:3?

[Adam]

It has a really big viewfinder, that's for sure. Not sure about its coverage and resulting ratio (should be pretty good, but not 100%), but obviously the film size is standard

[stevebrot]

Not sure about its coverage and resulting ratio (should be pretty good, but not 100%), but obviously the film size is standard

95% coverage, but the big difference from lesser viewfinders is the magnification of 0.97x. For comparison, the K-1 has ~100% coverage and 0.7x magnification. What that means is that with the MX and a 50mm lens focused to infinity, the relative size of objects in the viewfinder is just a little smaller than what you would see with your other eye. One can test this by keeping both eyes open with the camera in vertical orientation and alternate opening/closing each eye. If the objects are almost life size, the apparent frame boundaries (how big the frame looks) are also larger than with a lesser finder. The MX frame appears about half again bigger than that of the K-1. High viewfinder magnification is the hallmark of most SLRs from the 1970s and 1980s with the MX being among the highest.


Steve

[Gareth.Ig]

I just measured a negative, its definitely 3:2, but my scanner is producing higher ratios that that, around 3.5:2. I'll have to spend some time having a closer look at the instruction manual I guess.

[LesDMess]

I just measured a negative, its definitely 3:2, but my scanner is producing higher ratios that that, around 3.5:2. I'll have to spend some time having a closer look at the instruction manual I guess.

Of course all you had to do is measure the physical image on the film to know that the scanner must be the issue as the MX has been a known quantity now for a few decades.

[ChrisPlatt]

The Pentax MX viewfinder image is bigger than practically any SLR or DSLR
due to relatively higher magnification and closer apparent viewing distance.

OTOH "aspect ratio" is a function of the negative size.
24x36mm is standard for all 35mm full frame cameras.

It sounds like your scanner is distorting the images of your negatives.

Chris

[nickthetasmaniac]

I'm confused. Why is everyone talking about the MX's viewfinder when the OP asked a very simply question about image ratio (which has nothing to do with viewfinder)?

[cooltouch]

I'm confused. Why is everyone talking about the MX's viewfinder when the OP asked a very simply question about image ratio (which has nothing to do with viewfinder)?

I think the assumption is that the OP meant viewfinder magnification, even though he asked about image ratio. Of course, the MX being a 35mm camera, its image ratio is standardized at 24mm x 36mm, as are all other 35mm full-frame cameras. But the vf magnification is a variable that can change from camera to camera, so it makes sense to ask about it.

[nickthetasmaniac]

I think the assumption is that the OP meant viewfinder magnification, even though he asked about image ratio. Of course, the MX being a 35mm camera, its image ratio is standardized at 24mm x 36mm, as are all other 35mm full-frame cameras. But the vf magnification is a variable that can change from camera to camera, so it makes sense to ask about it.

Heh, ok - seemed pretty clear to me...

On a tangent, there's no physical limit to a manufacturer making the long side of a 35mm frame as long as they want (as demonstrated by the Xpan family) - are all '3:2' format 35mm bodies exactly 36mm x 24mm, or are there small variations in the frame masking between different bodies?

[timw4mail]

Heh, ok - seemed pretty clear to me...

On a tangent, there's no physical limit to a manufacturer making the long side of a 35mm frame as long as they want (as demonstrated by the Xpan family) - are all '3:2' format 35mm bodies exactly 36mm x 24mm, or are there small variations in the frame masking between different bodies?

I doubt every body is exactly 36mm x 24mm, but you're probably talking fractions of millimeters.