Viewfinders compared

Hi all

A quick question for you! See, I dug out my old film Mz5 the other day and looking through the viewfinder was a very positive shock - it is huge compared to what I have becomed used to, the GX10. I want that! Why can't I get that!! You can have my SR if I can get that!

So here are my questions:

- Why does it have to be so small? The Gx10 body is way larger than the film one. I know the sensor is smaller, but still?!

- How does the K-7 compare in this respect (still haven't seen one live )? I know they boast 100% coverage (versus 95%) but is the actual glass larger?

I like to focus manually, but even though my eyes are fine it's damn hard to get it 100% sharp. Looking through the Mz5 was a revelation.

I quess the subject has been discussed before but I couldn't find it.

The viewfinder size is directly related to the recorded image size, try looking through a 645 its like a plasma TV, or even better a 10x8 view camera - IMAX!

The K7, I think, will have the same size image as any other Pentax DSLR but without any cut-off.

You could buy one of the accessory viewfinder magnifiers.

The OME-53 (IIRC) viewfinder magnifier helps a lot. It brings it almost to the same size...
Matt

I think it's is about the same if my previous K20D is anything to go by (as Ken says). The 100% coverage with is what you actually see in the frame verses what the sensor sees, so with the K-7 you see everything the sensor sees, which makes more accurate framing a little easier.
I use a O-ME53 Magnifying Eyecup on my K-7 which magnifies the frame by about x1.2, makes manual focussing easier and is generally very pleasant to use. It was permanently attached to my K20D and now resides on the K-7 all the time

Before the mz5 I had a mz50 which had a smaller viewfinder - both "full frame" cameras but different size viewfinders. So I am not sure the relation is quite so simple. But I just had a glance behind the stage (disconnected the lenses of both cameras) and the size of everything is smaller in the GX10. Obviously lots of tech stuff to fill up the larger body of the GX10.

But NOW I'm really hoping for FF - damn, I thought I had been cured for that illness. And then again, I don't want one of those huge boxes to carry around. Arghhh. Dilemmas killing me ...

For a start I will give that magnifier thing a thought.

Thx

The focusing screen is the same size as the sensor/film size, but the magnification of the eyepiece is something that changes according to the apparent distance to the focusing screen.

just think yourselves lucky you didn't go for a low end Nikon, or worse an Oly.

The MZ5 has a proper pentaprism finder whereas the MZ50 had a (cheaper to make) pentamirror I believe. The pentamirrors offer a lower magnification as a rule, hence the difference you saw.

Two figures to look for with viewfinders are magnification and coverage. Coverage (as mentioned above) is the proportion of the image seen by the film/sensor that you can see through the viewfinder (100% shows you everything, 90% means the edges are cut off). Magnification is the size of the image compared to the film/sensor (so 1x would imply a projected image the same size as the sensor/film area, 0.75x implies a projected image three-quarters the size of the film/sensor).

You'd think, given that information, that the ideal viewfinder would have a magnification of 1x and 100% coverage - you'd be wrong. A viewfinder with those stats would actually be quite hard to use as your eye would be unable to take in the entire scene in one go without moving your head right back, at which point there's little need for 1x magnification. Hence all viewfinders are subject to design compromises to make something that's useful but also comfortable to look through.

It's a whole topic in its own right...

Pentaprism finders are much better than pentamirror ones, which is very striking when you compare Pentax finders with some other makes.

Having said that, the Nikon D90 has an excellent large clear viewfinder.

Hi Joe

Get yourself an OME-53. Worth every penny.

The K-7's viewfinder is about the same size as the GX10's, but the 100% coverage means the magnification is slightly less.

The pentamirror finder of the inexpensive Canon camera I had a go of was brighter than that of any Pentax DSLR, but quite a lot smaller (even though the sensor is about the same size). It would be dimmer if the manufacturer had made it larger.

Ok. Think, I am going to buy one of those eyecups. Apart from the O-ME53 i found this TENPA 1.36x on Ebay. It look quite good and Olympus users like it. I will visit a local camera store or two first - in any case I haven't held any other brand of camera lately (don't plan to buy a Canon so don't get started :lol It's about time I have a look at that K-7 as well.

Indeed it does, I believe in direct response to the K10D. The D70s viewfinder is rubbish, as are those of the D40, 60 and 5000.

Even the D90 is no better than the K10/20/7 finder. In my opinion this is the only currently sustainable reason to go to a larger format.

Not long ago I wrote to a magazine about a review they had done on a new dSLR camera. The review was quite comprehensive but nowhere in it did they mention the viewfinder. The reviewer answered back saying he didn't mention it because viewfinders on all modern dSLR's are "a given", and that they are all of an equal quality so not worth writing about. As anyone who uses Pentax cameras knows (or Nikon D90), this is far from the case. Probably the most important part of the camera IS the viewfinder.