Why Konica AutoReflex have such a dim, unsusable viewfinder?

[fabulousrice]

Konica AutoReflex T, T2 and even T3 (to a degree) all have unusable dim, and even cloudy viewfinders.

Without split image focusing aids (which was offered optional on a T3) , these cameras are essentially unusable indoors.

Does anyone know history/justification of why a company with otherwise, almost impeccable reputation for quality optics, and mechanical construction -- decided to execute this part so poorly?

Did they think it did not matter, or may be the materials they used to coat the viewfinder degraded overtime, any other reasons?

Konica finders on the later generation plastic bodies all were much brighter.

Sorry to disagree, for me Kodak is one of the worst companies to have built and designed cameras ever... In my book they're next to argus...
Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Zeiss, Fuji, Leotax, Bronica, KMZ, Bolsey, Polaroid, and for motion film, Bauer, Bronica, Pathé, Bolex, Agfa, etc... all are better by far in durability, design, etc.
Kodak cameras were - 90% of them - cheaply made, from really crappy materials. It's one of the problems with U.S. manufacturing in general, the consumer base is too vast to produce quality products m(anyone who's lived in the US and experiences urban infrastructures, habitations, roads, sidewalks, trains can attest...).

 

[Outjo2]

I want to agree with ts1000. I have T3 and T4 and find them very dark compared to most others. It's just OK with fast lenses, but beyond 2,8....
Just have a look through the finder of an OM1, OM2 or even a canon AE1. I find the difference huge, so I went shopping for a FS1 even if it has a reputation of beeing less reliable and that one's finder is much better. My T's are gathering dust.

 

[Les Sarile]

I want to agree with ts1000. I have T3 and T4 and find them very dark compared to most others. It's just OK with fast lenses, but beyond 2,8....
Just have a look through the finder of an OM1, OM2 or even a canon AE1. I find the difference huge, so I went shopping for a FS1 even if it has a reputation of beeing less reliable and that one's finder is much better. My T's are gathering dust.

Not only does the OM1 & OM2 have relatively bright finders, they also have the biggest magnification - with the exception of the Pentax MX and LX, among all other SLRs

Brighter finders have improved over the years culminating in what is possibly the brightest screen available - the K3 on the Nikon FM3A. This split image type focusing screen will never blackout regardless of how slow the lens is or using teleconverters or even mounted on a bellows! Seems like the best solution doesn't it. But alas, if you are in a relatively dim setting using a relatively wide angle lens, the screen remains so bright - even stopped down, that everything looks in focus. This makes it very hard - if not impossible, to get critical focus! Maybe this is why this type of screen can only be found on the FM3A as well as the Canon New F-1?

 

[CMoore]

My neighbor, earlier today, was just Telling/Showing me that he got a Konica Auto T-4 (if that is all the right nomenclature) for 20 bux, with a 50mm lens. It was sitting at a local thrift store.

He was just taking the thing over to the Union Pacific tracks to shoot some color film.
He said he likes it, but i have no idea how "Bright" the finder is, i did not look through it.
It was a rather handsome looking camera...in good shape and all black.
Not sure i have ever held Any Konica camera before.

 

[grat]

I have a T3 (not the N) with the split-focusing screen (50mm f/1.7) and honestly, it's not that much dimmer than my 2007 era EOS 30D. It's certainly not cloudy or hazy, and it's perfectly usable indoors.

The only cleaning I've done was to the lens on the eyepiece itself-- I've never cleaned the prism or screen.