Ok, having received the O-ME53, I'll try to make initial comparisons between the two. in a week I'll have a comprehensive review, and in a month or so I'll give my final impression on both.
Initial impressions:
O-ME53
pros:
-
feels like a better made product
-less vignetting on the VF (since your eyes can go closer to the viewfinder glass easier). And there's less vignetting in general anyway.
cons:
inferior magnification
KPS:
pros:
-although it doesnt feel like it's better made, it actually is quite well made and looks just as nice (if not better) than the OME
-KPS has much higher magnification, no contest. I actually see the difference when I put the KPS on and off. My K100d actually felt pretty close to the MZ-M viewfinder (that I really miss). Not so with the O-ME where it's more subtle.
-no discernible light level loss even with higher magnification
-in terms of manual focusing, I think the KPS have a slight edge since it's bigger, but we'll see if I notice this in around a month.
cons:
-maybe because I live in cold climate, the rubber cup creates pressure difference between inside and outside, and makes me cry everytime I take the eyecup off my eyes.
-if you get the UMC version, you'll only get the eyecup and not the ring, and it actually obstructs the lcd when not popped out. It annoyed me quite a bit in the beginning but I quickly get accostumed to it.
-in line with the eye thing, I actually sometimes hurt my face around my eyes from pressing against the rubber cup because you need to get a bit close to eliminate the vignetting. Vignetting does disappear somewhat to a ignorable (?) level after you get close enough. YMMV
Right now, I won't recommend one over the other. Definitely don't get the KPS if you wear glasses. We'll see in around a month....
Final impressions:
I decided on the KPS. Manual focusing with the KPS is superior to O-ME using the chinese split screen. Maybe for some only slightly so, but for me the advantage is drastic enough to keep the KPS. I like the O-ME since it looks like it's really built for the Pentax Cameras and has less vignetting in general, but in the end the difference is too significant for me to ignore. In the end i stay by what i said in my initial impressions.
Vignetting on both of these eyepieces do not show up as a black shadow, but rather a blur on the corners, making the viewfinder less sharp there. The closer your eyes are to the glass, the more blury it becomes, so you have to get as close as you can without getting yourself uncomfortable. With the O-ME it's easy to get as close as you want to the viewfinder. For the KPS, if I use the eyecup as a flat piece rather than an eyecup , my eyes just touch the glass and I find this uncomfortable. If I use the eyecup shape... I find it too suction-cuppy as I mentioned above. However I think I have found the best compromise by flattening only the top part and cupping the rest. This seems to work best with me. There's some kind of frame that stops me from going too far, but there's not much vignetting since I'm close enough to the glass.
The ring might be a better compromise for this, but as a UMC version owner I don't have this option. It may also be that my eyes are relatively in the skull that I have to press harder to get to unnitocable amounts of vignetting, so YMMV.
Cheers, and thanks to Diego for answering most of the questions
Last edited by Andi Lo; 04-19-2009 at 08:04 PM.