100% view finder

Proving it is difficult, I agree, but I was there, I took it and got what I did not expect when looking through the viewfinder and NOT seeing the blades and then finding them on the photo. Hindsight, being an exact science, I should have deleted it and tried again.

With a bit of lateral thinking, all is not lost though. The blades are not particularly intrusive and could be easily cloned out using Photoshop. I think that's the way forwards as it is, otherwise a revisit and a reshoot.

As you got the tip of the blade in the photo is it possible that the view you saw was between the blades, then when the blade moved it was in your photo?

Why is everyone doubting what the OP is saying? I don't think he would lie about this and it seems to me that the viewfinder is not representing correctly what the sensor is recording.

Regards
David

Nobody is suggesting the OP is lying - that's a bit strong David. What is being explored is whether or not there is another explanation, in an attempt to be helpful.

It just seems that no-one, except perhaps Steve Ledger, is offering an explanation of why his viewfinder isn't producing the image that he is expecting. See Nigel's comment:

'Fair enough if it's what you believe' etc., is this not suggestive of disbelief?

Regards
David

I don't think it's been taken the way you have taken it David - I'm sure the OP would have said so if it had.

The original premise is a bit imprecise, leading to various suggestions. Whether or not there's a fault could be established, which has been discussed.

Of course I don't think he is making it up David ...I am saying that clearly he believes that it was framed as in his cropped version. But this shot was not the result of a scientific test ... The photographer simply sees more in the image than he thought was there in the viewfinder. Why should we automatically accept this as a camera fault?

There absolutely are a variety of ways that this could happen ... Only a scientific text could prove it to be a camera fault. My only 'disbelief' is to doubt that camera fault is the obvious one.

Show me how steady your hands are

--

I think there are always going to be opportunities to see things differently through an optical viewfinder. The aperture is often different for viewing/composing, with the aperture shifting during the actual taking of the shot. Then the mirror flips up and you hope the sensor is perfectly aligned to match the optical viewfinder framing etc.

Only an EVF is going to show exactly what the sensor is going to make the photo from when you press the button.

Is that top left element flexible? As in was it a windy day? Clutching at straws here, but thought I'd ask all the same.

Q for the OP:
Have you added one of these to the K-3?
► http://www.pentaxslr.com/accessories/Viewfinder_Loupe_0-ME53

I just ran some tests with my K-50. The OVF and resultant capture are identical. The K-3 is a far superior camera in both build quality and features, it would be extremely unlikely that in terms of OVF coverage/accuracy the K-3 is worse than the K-50.

Are you a spectacle wearer? The extra eyeball distance may restrict your view of the edge of the frame.

Thank you, that is just how I am feeling about some of the comments.

I have cropped them out, thanks for the suggestion.

I am but I tahe them off when using the camera, and before you say it my vision is almost normal.