> Unfortunately F5 has 0,7 magnification too, although 100% coverage. So with > MZ-S you have bigger view than in F5 or F100, but it has worse coverage. > Unfortunately smaller magnification doesn't help with manual focusing. So > ideal viewfinder would be something like the one on LX or MX...
Here are some of the specs of some of the viewfinders being offered today in top-of-the-line cameras, with one lower-level camera, the Contax Aria, included to make a point. (Magnification, coverage, diopter correction range, and eyepoint) Minolta Maxxum 9: .73X, 100%, -3 to +1, high-eyepoint (22mm) Contax RTSIII: .74X, 100%, -3 to +1, high-eyepoint (not specified) Contax Aria: .82X, 95%, none built-in, high-eyepoint (25mm) Leica R9: .75X, 96% vertical, 97% horizontal, high-eyepoint (not specified) Canon EOS-1V: .72X, 100%, -3 to +1, high-eyepoint (20mm) Nikon F5: .75X, 100%, built-in but not specified on website, high-eyepoint (20.5mm) Pentax MZ-S: .75, 92%, -2.5 to +1.5, not high-eyepoint Generally, there is a trade-off between magnification and coverage. The higher the coverage, the lower the magnification. Ironically, magnification for 100% finders has to be made lower so that viewfinder information displays can fit in the finder and be within the user's field of view. Contax gives its users the best of both worlds: with the Aria, which has a particularly excellent viewfinder, the coverage goes down slightly to 95% (which is still pretty good), but the magnification goes up, to .82X. This, plus the Aria's excellent "focusing snap," makes manual focusing much easier. Combined with the Aria's outstanding eye relief (more than one inch, better than both the Nikon F5 and Canon EOS-1V!), it makes for a very good viewfinder indeed. This tradeoff, by the way, is one that Pentax _used_ to understand. To doubters: try the Aria, then try the Pentax MZ-S. There will be little doubt in your mind as to which is nicer. --Mike
