No, the F3hp has an lousy viewfinder compared to the F3, only you did not have to drive the eyepiece into you eye to see the whole screen. Decreasing the magnification gave more eye-relief and was a godsend to anyone who wore glasses, it was worse in every other way. I certainly preferred my MX's viewfinder to the F3hp's.
The best viewfinder on any camera I have ever used was the old Leica M3, my Mamiya Universal Press's viewfinder was almost as good. Of course, they were not SLR's. Maybe Rob can tell us how the Mamiya 7's compares, it is supposed to be rather good. -graywolf Adam Maas wrote: > I'm comparing them to two models which are considered to have among the > best finders ever put in a 35mm SLR. The F3HP finder is generally > considered the best 35mm finder ever (Matched only by the Leica R8/9) > and the F100 has one of the best finders of an AF SLR (Outdone only by > the F5 and EOS 1v). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> HUH? I looked thru an istD finder and was shocked >> how small (tunnel vision ) the image looked compared to ANY of my >> Pentax (full frame) 35mm film bodies. Why are you >> comparing them to some of the worst slr finders in this regard >> that arent even pentax made models? I agree with graywolf that they have >> a long way to go if they ( pentax dslrs ) are all similar to the istD >> at this point and the goal is to better match the pentax >> 35mm film bodies views. >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Adam Maas >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:36 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: manually focusing a DSLR >> >> >> Actually, they don't need a 1.5x magnificationto match the 35mm finders >> (except maybe an MX or OM) as they already run much higher >> magnifications on most DSLR's than 35mm film(Digital Rebels and >> pentamirror Nikons excepted). >> >> To match my F3 (0.75x magnification) a DSLR would need 1.125x >> magnification to match the magnification of the F3 (0.75 x 1.5). If you >> put a DK-21M on the DSLR (1.17x magnification) you'd need a .96x >> magnification finder (1.125/1.17) which is damned close to the .95x on >> the K10D. >> >> I've compared the F100 (96%, 0.76x [x1.5x=1.14]) to a D200+DK-21M >> (0.95%, 0.94x x 1.17x = 1.0998x) and they're nearly indistinguishable. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> graywolf wrote: >>> And these cameras really need 1.5x viewfinder magnification to match a >>> similar 35mm. I suppose the eyepiece is too far from the ground glass >> to >>> do that economically. >>> >>> Adam Maas wrote: >>>> Note the 10D/20D/30D finder is smaller than the *istD or K10D (it's >>>> the >>>> same coverage, but only .9x magnification instead of the .95x of the >>>> Pentax's) >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
