Let's think in practical terms, ok?
Between 93% and 97% coverage viewfinder with 35mm format, the
difference amounts to somewhere around 1.5mm more format coverage on
the long axis, less than that on the short axis. If you can really
see that and find it significant in hand-held field photography, god
bless you, you have better eyes than me. I could only really see the
difference as significant when I was doing photogrammetric mapping,
with a 4x high magnification finder and focusing screens equipped
with reticle calibration scales.
Spending too much time looking at numbers and specifications obscures
the basic truths here: the FM/FM2/FM2n/FE/FE2 were very high quality
cameras, suitable by dint of durability and reliability for
professional service. I think the MX is close to that as well, but
its cloth shutter puts it at a disadvantage in durability. Whether
the FM2's E2 screens were "as bright" or not, or by how much, my eyes
couldn't tell the difference... I know that they were very bright,
very contrasty, and allowed me to focus with consistency.
Neither of them gave me enough eye relief to see the whole viewfinder
without having to move my eye around a lot, and the same is true of
the MX. That was an annoyance which I solved with the F3/T and HP
finder. The F3's HP finder was the best finder for my use, and the
Pentax *ist DS finder is so close to it in total feel that it is a
natural for me. The F3's 100% coverage was also required by some of
the work I was doing at that time, but was never of much significance
to me before or since.
I used the FMs/FEs for 20 years and got many many many thousands of
superb photos with them, far more than I did with the F, F2 or F3,
and never once did a single one of them fail me. The MX may be
marginally better in some ways, or not, whatever suits you; but it is
completely irrelevant to me at this point in time.
All of these film cameras are obsolete and passing into history.
Debating about them is more an exercise for idle moments than
anything to do with photography now. ;-)
Godfrey
On Jan 2, 2006, at 8:09 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
Godfrey, the Nikon FM has 93% coverage and .86x magnification,
which is distinctly inferior to the MX's 97% coverage and .95x
magnification (which is actually more coverage and as much or more
magnification than any non-F body from Nikon, the closest for
coverage being the F100 at 96% [albeit .76x magnification]. Of
course, as a glasses-wearer you may find the MX to have too much
magnification (I myself cannot stand the F3 HP finder, but I love
the higher magnification non-HP finder). My MX is also at least as
bright as my old F90x's finder, which is as bright or brighter than
the FM2.
