So, 92% (or whatever) finders are convenient for the automatic people. Pentax market their flagship stuff as being aimed at the conscious photographers - being able to determine the image content of the negative in the finder should be an obvious feature.
-----Original Message----- From: lbparis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: den 27 oktober 2001 17:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax AF viewfinders Believe it or not, 100% viewfinders used to take a certain amount of criticism too, years ago. Mainly from people that used the full frame to compose their pictures and then found that they couldn't print them on 8 X 10" paper without cropping. Len --- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Pentax AF viewfinders > Erik wrote: > > > 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. > > > Erik, > You ought to search the archives for some of my rantings and ravings on this > subject. It's a real weakness of cameras IMHO, modern AF cameras especially, > and not just Pentaxes. > > --Mike > www.37thframe.com > - - 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 . - 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 .
