Op Tue, 06 May 2008 16:39:26 +0200 schreef Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On May 5, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >> I much prefer the LX viewfinder as well. I hated the F3 viewfinder. >> >> It was one of the reasons I >> >> switched from my F3 based Nikon system to an LX based Pentax system. >> >> >> >> > The standard F3 finder is IMHO far better than the HP finder and also >> > better than the LX finder. >> >> I wear glasses. The F3's hp finder fit my vision needs perfectly and >> is the best viewfinder I've had on an SLR camera. >> >> The standard F3 finder has too much magnification and too little eye >> relief. Just like the FM, FE, LX, MX, OM-1, OM-2, etc etc. >> >> Godfrey >> > > Since I'm not a glasses-wearer, the F3's non-HP finder was just about > perfect for me. The MX and OM-1/2 had WAY too much magnification and a > lack of eye relief and the Minolta's and Leica R's also suffered from > a lack of eye relief. I do wonder how anyone can use an MX or OM-1 > finder easily. Take a static subject, put your eye to the finder and let it roam around until you're satisfied? I'm not even being flippant: I liked both the OM-1 and the MX. What is the big deal with eye-relief? -- Curious, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
