>>> From my experience with K1000's, the reason no one knows the viewfinder >> coverage is because there was so much sample to sample variance that they >> couldn't publish an absolute value. > > Well, now, that's logical enough ~ but since they DID 'publish' it, > I'm supposing you're simply telling me the unknown angle is one of > those things that 'everybody knows.' > > I can go along with that. Let's say it was a design goal, and never > quite met on purpose.
They didn't publish it as far as I know. I've never seen a published value for coverage for the K1000. Of course I may simply have missed it. (If you've seen it, Keith, where is it, and what is it?) Does anybody happen to have an original _Modern Photography_ camera test of the K1000? I have the 1979 and 1980 _Moderns' Buyers Guides_ and the K1000 is not in those, just the MX and ME. Sample variation for coverage makes no sense at all to me. I don't think they could do that if they tried. I can, however, believe that the spec was changed from run to run, which would account for the lack of a published claim. (And maybe that amounts to the same thing Bill was trying to say.) --Mike
