One of the things I've noticed with the modern AF cameras is the overall degeneration of the viewfinders compared to mechanical cameras. The image is smaller, less bright, and they never cover the entire image area (neither does the MX, but it shows more than the MZ cameras). At least not the Pentax ones. Why is it so difficult to put a decent viewfinder on the newer models? I've compared of course the LX, but also MX, with the MZ-3 and MZ-S and the difference is apparent. I just don't get it.
First I thought it was the high eyepoint, which is the only thing that's better with the AF bodies. Holding a N**** for a while made me understand that you can have both. It can't be because of the integrated flash either, since even the horrible Nikon F70 has a better viewfinder. Is it to minimize the size of the camera? Or is it simply for cost reasons? Either case it's a lousy tradeoff. Anybody got a clue? I haven't really bothered until I got the MX as a backup body, only to discover that I like the viewfinder in it so much more. I was thinking of saving money for a MZ-S, but I really think that a pro-level body should be equipped with a topclass viewfinder. /Erik - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
