On 12/09/2012 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Ann, the tiny viewfinder, if I've done my math correctly, gives the same
size image as that in the *ist-D, (which seems to be exactly the same
unit used in the K20D), The K-5 differs in showing 100% frame coverage,
with a slightly lower magnification. Compared to the finders in most
mid to upper level APS-C DSLR's it's excellent. It's only when compared
to the viewfinders in 24x36 format cameras that it seems tiny.
Yes, the istD viewfinder is tiny as well. The APS-C format doesn't allow
for a decent sized viewfinder, it is cropped, the same way that the
format is cropped.
In fact I just dragged out my ZX-5n and didn't find the K20D to be
noticeably different in quality, and the image size only a tiny bit
smaller.
The image size is about 2/3 the size of a 35mm viewfinder, slightly
smaller IIRC.
I have an MZ-5, it has just about the worst viewfinder imaginable in a
35mm camera.
Anyone who expects the finder in an APS-C SLR to give as big and bright
a view as an LX, or one of the new 24x36 frame DSLRs, is kidding
themselves, but compared to even an all glass pentaprism finder in a mid
range SLR from the end of the film era it's pretty good.
You've just moved into the twilight zone Peter. No one said anything
about expecting an APC-C viewfinder to be as big as a 35mm viewfinder
(until you decided to set it up as a false argument)
The viewfinder in the K5, like the viewfinders in all APS-C finders, is
small, and also suffers all the problems one would have when trying to
focus a wide angle lens on a 35mm camera, because they are wide angle
lenses due to the registration distance.
Saying it's a good viewfinder because it has a nice pentaprism is just
saying that it's dog breath is more palatable than the dog breath from
another dog.
In fact the Pentax magnifying eyepiece, I can't remember it's real name
at the moment, pretty much brings the viewfinder image up in
magnification to be almost exactly the same size as the ZX-5n. I highly
recommend it to anyone who doesn't wear glasses.
If you want accurate manual focusing with a cropped viewfinder,
especially with shorter lenses, a magnifier is a necessity.
On 9/12/2012 10:39 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
"tiny view finder" scares me a bit...
My only wish was my ist-d was lots less noisy at 3200 and went up to
6400. seeing the great stuff in relatively low light I was seeing
from youse guys that have the K-5 made for camera lust.
but hey, I'm just dreamin anyway at this point.
thanks for making me feel less deprived :-)
ann
On 9/12/2012 01:59, William Robb wrote:
On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus?
takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right?
It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when
compared to the midrange AF from the other guys.
Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the
maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and
unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is
going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of
30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a
decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is
accurate enough.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
