FF?

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Steven wrote:<br>

....or unless you (like me) want a decently large viewfinder.....!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you looked through a <em>digital</em> SLR viewfinder? They are nowhere near as impressive (i.e. large and bright) as their film SLR couterparts. The viewfinder is not the reason you want a FF DSLR, believe me (although I've read that the Sony A900's VF is not that bad).</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Hiya,<br>

"Quite frankly I don't find the K10D viewfinder to be that much off the K1000"</p>

<p>...I got to say Justin, that really surprises me. Comparing any APS DSLR viewfinder with my Contax 35mm film SLR's side by side and the difference is very large and very obvious...and yes it does make that much difference, certainly to me.</p>

<p>"Have you looked through a <em>digital</em> SLR viewfinder?"</p>

<p>....yes, I have handled and looked through ALL the mid market and top market models. I used to have a Pentax istD and now a Canon 40D...I compared my 40D directly alongside the K20D, A700, E-3 and D300. They were all virtually identical apart from the E-3 which was quite obviously better than all the others, being both larger and less tunnel like.....and yes, I did take into consideration the format aspect difference.</p>

<p>I also directly compared my 40D to a Canon 5D and again, there was a large jump in quality with the 5D...far larger and less tunnel like and just much, much better to use.</p>

<p>"They are nowhere near as impressive (i.e. large and bright) as their film SLR couterparts"</p>

<p>....I simply cannot agree with this. Our eyes must be different. I have to say that do not forget that 35mm film SLR viewfinders also vary more than most people think. The current FF DSLR viewfinders are IMO close to most of the 35mm film ones....and I have used many film SLR's. The FF DSLR do not match the better 35mm film viewfinders, but they are just as good as a lot of them.</p>

<p>cheers Steve.M.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Steven, when I asked "Have you looked through a <em>digital</em> SLR viewfinder?", I meant a digital FF SLR.</p>

<p>Take a look at this comparison of viewfinder sizes (not taking into account FoV):</p>

<p><img src="http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/stingOM/ViewfinderComparisons.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="473" /></p>

<p>The difference between the Nikon D3 or Canon 5D and the Pentax K20D is not that big. Now compare the D3/5D to the Olympus OM-1. The difference between the D3/5D and the OM-1 is larger than the difference between the K20D and the D3/5D, at least to my eye. Like I said, upgrading your K20D to a Nikon D3 because of the viewfinder is not a good reason. If you have a Canon XTi or XSi on the other hand...</p>

[glenn_holden]

<p>I agree that it probably stands for full frame, but you should look at this in context.<br>

Now this is giving away my age, but if the "FF" is on a lens or a teleconverter, it could stand for Flat Field- ie: it is corrected for close shooting of flat images, not a curvature, that is, it is a copy lens.<br>

For those of you who remember slides, a "FF" lens on a projector was used for glass mounted images.<br>

LGH</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>The current FF DSLR viewfinders are IMO close to most of the 35mm film ones....and I have used many film SLR's. The FF DSLR do not match the better 35mm film viewfinders, but they are just as good as a lot of them.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually Mis had posted this photo a while back now that I see it again, and it definitely disproves that current FF digitals are vastly superior to 1.5X digital which was I believe why he posted it last time. The D300 I think has a 100% coverage, vs. the K20D 96%, I think that is the only difference in those two in terms of size, if Pentax released a K30D at 100% it would further reduce the difference in size.</p>

<p>As far as the K1000, I think its only like 92% coverage and .88X magnification. So I admit it might not be the best comparison. DSLRs tend to have higher magnification because of the smaller sensor. The OM-1 looks like it was in a class of it's own with I'd assume 100% coverage! The Pentax ME probably has one of the best Pentax viewfinders at .97X but only 92% coverage.</p>

<p>The other thing is FF DSLR viewfinders are all penta prism, and all on $3000-8000 cameras. It would stand to reason they are probably better viewfinders than are on most APS-C cameras using penta mirrors, but probably not drastically better than APS-C penta prism in terms of brightness.</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I remember the size of the Canon 5D viewfinder being substantially bigger-seeming than the pentaprism-equipped Pentax D-SLRs. I wonder if this comparison in any way accounts for eyepoint?</p>

<p>I would assume that the Pentax pentamirror D-SLRs have viewfinders at least as good as XTi and possibly comparable to the Canon XSi.</p>

<p>In my mind the Pentaprism-equipped APS-C D-SLRs are roughly comparable to a pentamirror-equipped film AF SLR; I can't really tell the difference between the K10D or *ist DS2 viewfinders from the ZX-L.</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>A few points:</p>

<p>"I remember the size of the Canon 5D viewfinder being substantially bigger-seeming than the pentaprism-equipped Pentax D-SLRs"..</p>

<p>...this is exactly the way I see it also and the viewfinder diagrams of Mis do not change my eyesight.</p>

<p>"Steven, when I asked "Have you looked through a <em>digital</em> SLR viewfinder?", I meant a digital FF SLR"......YES..... as my previous post says, I have compared the APS cams to a 5D.</p>

<p>1. The most important aspect in viewfinder size is the magnification of a viewfinder, not the coverage...which is often over looked or forgotten. That is why the 1.15X magnification of the E-3 gives it an even better viewfinder than any of the APS ones. Also the eyepoint is fairly short, so the view is also less tunnel like.</p>

<p>2. Using the OM-1 as the film SLR example is hardly a reasonable comparison, as the OM-1 had just about the largest and most up-front viewfinder of any 35mm SLR. Using a 'typical' film SLR and the difference between that and a FF DSLR becomes much smaller.<br>

Try substituting the OM-1 viewfinder diagram for a Canon EOS-3 film SLR and the results will be a little different....I am guessing the OM-1 was used for the exact reason that it is a poor choice of FILM SLR to use as a comparison, as it has such an unusually large viewfinder.</p>

<p>3. The nice diagram does not show:</p>

<p>a) viewfinder brightness, nor does it show b) the viewfinder eyepoint, which also determines how immediate the view is through the viewfinder...these diagrams are a very crude and simplistic way to try and compare viewfinders.</p>

<p>I can only re-iterate, actually looking through a typical APS viewfinder and then directly comparing it to a 5D and the view is far better through the 5D...whatever these diagrams may or may not show.</p>

<p>"and it definitely disproves that current FF digitals are vastly superior to 1.5X digital"...<br>

.......I am afraid I just do not agree at all. Comparing simple diagrams which only show part of the story and actually comparing the real camera side by side and it is a whole different story, for reasons I have mentioned above. When you actually look through the viewfinders, the FF ones ARE a revelation.</p>

<p>As a final comment, it gets a little silly often on these forums, when two sides lock horns....ie FF users V APS users, but I am on neither side....I just want a larger more immediate viewfinder than any of the current APS cameras give....and I do not care a hoot if that comes in the shape of a better APS cam, or a FF cam. In fact, I would prefer an APS cam with a viewfinder of 1.0X or 1.1X.....Pentax please listen....</p>

<p>cheers Steve.M.</p>