Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-12-2016, 11:13 AM
|
|
I very much agree with your opinion. I have never owned a digital SLR but have been using film SLRs intermittently since the1960's. My current cameras are ME Super and MG. Even the cheap and cheerful MG has a viewfinder magnification much greater than any digital SLR that I have heard of.
My comments here are not meant to detract from the K-1 camera. I am sure it will be popular and I congratulate Ricoh and Pentax on its development. I have just come to the conclusion that it is just not the camera that I want. Of course, I don't have the opportunity to handle the actual K-1 so my judgement is based purely upon the reading of the camera specification. Reality might not be as bad as I imagine.
These disappointing viewfinder facts are both baffling and frustrating me. I don't want autofocus lenses either, I just want to be able to use my Pentax-M lenses on a full frame digital SLR body that has a viewfinder of film-body level quality and characteristics. The viewfinder is, for me, one of the most important elements of any camera. Staring at a camera back display is not my idea of progress, nor is viewing a relatively small, dim pentaprism finder, containing numerous visual distractions. Blinking"autofocus points", electronic levels, GPS and tilting camera-back displays are totally inessential for me, and all add weight, complexity and cost to the camera.
Surely there must be a market for such a simple camera for the likes of you and me.
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-10-2016, 08:42 AM
|
|
Yes. This is disappointing.
As I said in my original posting, my expectations are conditioned by use of the ME Super: this, as you agreed in your earlier earlier posting, has a beautiful finder. It calculates as being 25% bigger than the K-1. Gulp!
I have never used a digital SLR at all and am trying to understand why there is the apparent substantial reduction in finder field of view. One reason might be that the eye relief is greater on the K-1. The other might be, as I suggested ealier, that there is a need to display more symbology outside the imege field.
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-09-2016, 04:16 PM
|
|
Yes, that is my understanding, too.
Frankly, I am disappointed in the angular size of viewfinder image in the K-1, compared to that of my ME Super. The latter is very nearly 25% larger.
I can only attribute this to the K-1 having been designed to display more "outside the image" data, as suggested in this image on the Ricoh website.
I will be pleased to discover that my fears are unfounded.
|