On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > Having had the MX and F3HP at the same time(up until a few months > ago), > I always picked up the F3. Better viewfinder, didn't have to drive my > face into the camera to see the full frame. And I don't wear glasses. > High magnification is useless without enough eye relief to see the > frame.
I agree. The only SLR viewfinder that surpassed the F3/T for my vision is the one in the Leica R8, and the F3 viewfinder is 100% coverage where the R8 is not. The MX viewfinder reminded me of the Olympus OM-1n, which I liked as a camera but was just a little too uncomfortable for me to look through. The Nikon FM/FM2/FE2 were somewhere in between the two and a more comfortable fit for my use. (I looked, wanted at but couldn't afford an R8 ... not because of the exorbitant price of the body but because of the triple exorbitant price on the lenses. It would have cost me $16000 to build the R8 system I wanted in 1998, where the same thing in Nikon or Contax equipment would have been about $6000. Oh well. The Leica R lenses are nice, the R8 body is terrific, but it never happened.) > ... I like a good rangefinder finder, and appreciate the > advantages with slow glass (Finder doesn't get dimmer with slower > lenses) but with fast glass, I'll take the SLR, especially if I > have to > shoot wide open, since I don't have to focus & recompose. But this > is an > area where I know my opinion and that of most people differs. Having used Leica M and Nikon SLR side by side for 30 years, I have to agree with you here too. I almost always prefer the SLR viewfinder. I used the Leicas because of the lenses ... Leica's M lenses are terrific. Funny: the closest I've found to them in overall rendering qualities are Pentax lenses. :-) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
