[digitalintrigue]

I found this very interesting article describing the design compromises inherent with optical viewfinders.

Understanding Viewfinders - Luminous Landscape

Thanks everyone for your replies. I was looking at picking up an AF body and some Limited lenses. What is the manual focus like on those?

[stevebrot]

I was looking at picking up an AF body and some Limited lenses. What is the manual focus like on those?

The three FA Limiteds? Manual focus is better than most AF lenses, but still below historic standards as far as "feel".


Steve

[Huss]

Not only is it not a Pentax but the F6 only has a 0.74X magnification compared to the MX's 0.97X. This of course is typical of all AF cameras since they all rely on their autofocus system. I assume the F6 has focus confirmation with older manual lenses? On the EOS1V, there are "chipped" adapters that enable focus confirmation when using older Olympus OM lenses. Or you can use a viewfinder magnifier.



But if you don't wear glasses, the MX's huge viewfinder is a great advantage in nailing critical focus.

The finder in the F6 may be only .74 but it is 100% of the image, and very bright, with the image popping in and out of focus. It is brighter than the MX, and clearer to see the image pop into and out of focus.
Also, with my MX currently on my desk checking it out, you can only see all four corners at once if you have to jam it up against your face and have your eye perfectly placed.
The F6 also shows focus confirmation with old manual lenses. I have the magnifying Nikon diopter eyepiece, but stopped using it as it prevents you from seeing the full frame at once.
I really like the shutter speed readout in the VF of the MX, not so much the diodes which disappear in bright light, much like many cameras of this era.

Like you mention, forget seeing the MX's finder clearly if you wear glasses.

Glad you like your MX so much. I prefer the KX to the MX, seems to me the big deal about the MX is its tiny size, for better or worse. I have added a grip to mine as I find the camera too small for my size medium hands. (I use the Buttergrip and highly recommend it).

Anyway, sorry for taking this thread off on a tangent! This is about Pentax AF slrs with manual focusing abilities.

[stevebrot]

The finder in the F6 may be only .74 but it is 100% of the image, and very bright, with the image popping in and out of focus. It is brighter than the MX, and clearer to see the image pop into and out of focus.

Did you read the Luminous Landscape article linked above? It discusses brightness, pop, and why only 074x. Turns out that the low magnification is related to the space taken by the viewfinder display.

Glad you like your MX so much. I prefer the KX to the MX,

Pentax KX has the same magnification and coverage as the Spotmatic, 0.88x and 93%; numbers that were typical both then and through to the mid-1980s. The Super Program was the first Pentax model to offer a lesser spec'ed finder at 082x and 92%, probably to accommodate the finder's LCD display panels.

Anyway, sorry for taking this thread off on a tangent! This is about Pentax AF slrs with manual focusing abilities.

Seemed pertinent to me.


Steve

[LesDMess]

I found this very interesting article describing the design compromises inherent with optical viewfinders.

Understanding Viewfinders - Luminous Landscape

Good article and I can corroborate some of the info.

Regarding brightness, one of the common issues with manual focusing with most split-image screens is the center area will black out especially when using slow lenses or stopping down. With the Canon New F-1 release came a split image screen that never blacks out regarless of how slow the lens is or if it is stopped down or even on bellows. Sounds like the only screen you'll ever need right but not so. Seems that when using this ultra bright screen that never blacks out with wide angle lenses it is near impossible to focus because everything looks in focus! Also, when it is a dark setting, everything looks in focus as well! There maybe others but I've only seen another of this type screen with the release of the Nikon FM3A. Same results.

There is one statement in the article that is not factual, "That’s why all the top pro SLRs have 100% coverage but only so-so magnification."
Not so in the manual focus era as only the Nikons F, F2 and F3 had 100% coverage.



All of them - except one, had so-so magnification and that is the Pentax LX. For being Pentax's first and only interchangeable viewfinder 35mm, it had the widest variety of magnification and eye relief.



---------- Post added 11-15-20 at 07:01 PM ----------

The finder in the F6 may be only .74 but it is 100% of the image, and very bright, with the image popping in and out of focus.

With regards to viewfinder magnification, Nikon and Pentax obviously took two different paths in their first SLR. The Nikon F started with 100% coverage and smaller magnification while the Pentax AP provided near lifesize magnification less coverage. Today we can debate the pros and cons of both but back then I am not sure how much this mattered.

[UncleVanya]

I found this very interesting article describing the design compromises inherent with optical viewfinders.

Understanding Viewfinders - Luminous Landscape

Thanks everyone for your replies. I was looking at picking up an AF body and some Limited lenses. What is the manual focus like on those?

As Steve said they are ok but poor compared with traditional manual focus lenses. The FA LTD lenses lack the tactile feedback and drag that makes good manual focus lenses a joy to use.

[gofour3]

Hi, love the huge magnification on my MX. What Pentax AF SLR has the highest mag?

I have the SF1n, Z-1p, MZ-S & *ist Pentax AF bodies, none come remotely close to the MX or other manual focus bodies for coverage/magnification.
I use the PENTAX Magnifier Eyecup O-ME53 to help in manual focusing or the Refconverter A while using a tripod.

Phil.

[Huss]

I have the SF1n, Z-1p, MZ-S & *ist Pentax AF bodies, none come remotely close to the MX or other manual focus bodies for coverage/magnification.
I use the PENTAX Magnifier Eyecup O-ME53 to help in manual focusing or the Refconverter A while using a tripod.

Phil.

Forget coverage/magnfication for a sec. How is the MZ-S for actually focusing manually? Does the image pop into focus? Is it easy to focus w/o electronic aids?
Thanks!

[gofour3]

Forget coverage/magnfication for a sec. How is the MZ-S for actually focusing manually? Does the image pop into focus? Is it easy to focus w/o electronic aids?
Thanks!

It's OK with the replacement eyecup O-ME53 for most work and the green focus indicator also helps a bit. For macro work I use the Refconver A mounted on a tripod. This is the best for critical manual focusing.

Phil.

[digitalintrigue]

Good article and I can corroborate some of the info.

Regarding brightness, one of the common issues with manual focusing with most split-image screens is the center area will black out especially when using slow lenses or stopping down. With the Canon New F-1 release came a split image screen that never blacks out regarless of how slow the lens is or if it is stopped down or even on bellows. Sounds like the only screen you'll ever need right but not so. Seems that when using this ultra bright screen that never blacks out with wide angle lenses it is near impossible to focus because everything looks in focus! Also, when it is a dark setting, everything looks in focus as well! There maybe others but I've only seen another of this type screen with the release of the Nikon FM3A. Same results.

I have the K3 screen from the FM3a in my FE2 and it’s fantastic. It’s very easy to focus, and not because everything looks like it’s in focus.

---------- Post added 11-17-20 at 11:11 PM ----------

The finder in the F6 may be only .74 but it is 100% of the image, and very bright, with the image popping in and out of focus. It is brighter than the MX, and clearer to see the image pop into and out of focus.
Also, with my MX currently on my desk checking it out, you can only see all four corners at once if you have to jam it up against your face and have your eye perfectly placed.
The F6 also shows focus confirmation with old manual lenses. I have the magnifying Nikon diopter eyepiece, but stopped using it as it prevents you from seeing the full frame at once.
I really like the shutter speed readout in the VF of the MX, not so much the diodes which disappear in bright light, much like many cameras of this era.

Like you mention, forget seeing the MX's finder clearly if you wear glasses.

Glad you like your MX so much. I prefer the KX to the MX, seems to me the big deal about the MX is its tiny size, for better or worse. I have added a grip to mine as I find the camera too small for my size medium hands. (I use the Buttergrip and highly recommend it).

Anyway, sorry for taking this thread off on a tangent! This is about Pentax AF slrs with manual focusing abilities.

Thanks for your comments.

You are correct, have to jam the MX close to the eye. As described in that article, the eye relief was sacrificed for magnification and I’m ok with that.

I like the small size as I’ll be carrying the MX on a bike and every gram and cubic centimeter counts.

[LesDMess]

I have the K3 screen from the FM3a in my FE2 and it’s fantastic. It’s very easy to focus, and not because everything looks like it’s in focus.

It seems great but unfortunately this brightness does come at a cost. Although it doesn't specifically identify the Canon New F-1 and Nikon FM3A screens that I am referring to, the article you linked corroborates my observations stating, "Similarly, “focusing snap” and viewfinder brightness don’t exactly go hand in hand. The super-bright screens are essentially bundles of very small fiberoptic cables, sliced crosswise, or miniature fresnel (flattened) simple lenses. While they transmit a ton of light, they can be very difficult to focus on. Everything looks pretty sharp; it’s not very obvious what’s in focus and what’s not. (The effect is worse with wide-angle lenses, which have more depth-of-field.) Old-fashioned ground-glass screens had better focusing snap the coarser the grind (surface texture) was. But, the coarser the surface, the dimmer the finder."

I first experienced this shortcoming of everything looking in focus when I took my FM3A to shoot some family portraitures in available light setting with a not too wide lens. The resulting frames of film were not as critically focused as I normally get. Sure it's annoying when the split image prism blacks out, but getting critical focus was never an issue. Maybe a reason why all the manufacturers didn't make such a superbright screen for manual focus cameras?

[Huss]

I like the small size as I’ll be carrying the MX on a bike and every gram and cubic centimeter counts.

I carry the MX w/ the 40mm 2.8 and that package is as small as it gets for a 35mm slr! Some people don't like the lens but mine is great! Maybe I got lucky.

[Jonathan Mac]

As many have said, there aren't really any AF cameras that come close to the best MF cameras in terms of focusing manually. A few other Pentaxes come close to the MX (ME Super, P30 for example) but even the better AF film SLRs have focusing screens without MF tools such as split prisms.

For manual focus you really want both camera and lens designed for manual focus.

[digitalintrigue]

It seems great but unfortunately this brightness does come at a cost. Although it doesn't specifically identify the Canon New F-1 and Nikon FM3A screens that I am referring to, the article you linked corroborates my observations stating, "Similarly, “focusing snap” and viewfinder brightness don’t exactly go hand in hand. The super-bright screens are essentially bundles of very small fiberoptic cables, sliced crosswise, or miniature fresnel (flattened) simple lenses. While they transmit a ton of light, they can be very difficult to focus on. Everything looks pretty sharp; it’s not very obvious what’s in focus and what’s not. (The effect is worse with wide-angle lenses, which have more depth-of-field.) Old-fashioned ground-glass screens had better focusing snap the coarser the grind (surface texture) was. But, the coarser the surface, the dimmer the finder."

I first experienced this shortcoming of everything looking in focus when I took my FM3A to shoot some family portraitures in available light setting with a not too wide lens. The resulting frames of film were not as critically focused as I normally get. Sure it's annoying when the split image prism blacks out, but getting critical focus was never an issue. Maybe a reason why all the manufacturers didn't make such a superbright screen for manual focus cameras?

I haven't experienced that with the K3 screen on my FE2, I find the focusing 'snap' to work well.

[LesDMess]

I carry the MX w/ the 40mm 2.8 and that package is as small as it gets for a 35mm slr! Some people don't like the lens but mine is great! Maybe I got lucky.

It seems the price is what's put most people off about it compared to what one can get a standard 50mm for.

I haven't experienced that with the K3 screen on my FE2, I find the focusing 'snap' to work well.

That's the most important consideration for sure!