Nikon v. Nikon, Manual Focus Ease (Revisited)

I just ran another viewfinder test. I used a standard eyesight

test chart, the one that starts with the big capital E, the one

used by optometrist, ophthalmologist. I used the same AF 50/1.8

Nikkor in all tests. The distance from the tripod column to chart

was 20 (6.1m). The light level was EV 4.1 (ISO 100).<br>

<br>

I tested the following cameras (Best to Worst)...</p>

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="2">

<tr>

<td>Camera</td>

<td align="right">Line No.</td>

<td align="right">Corresponding Vision</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>FM2n/FE2 </td>

<td align="right">9</td>

<td align="right">20/15</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>F3 (DE-2)</td>

<td align="right">8</td>

<td align="right">20/20</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>F5</td>

<td align="right">8</td>

<td align="right">20/20</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>F100</td>

<td align="right">7</td>

<td align="right">20/25</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>N80</td>

<td align="right">5</td>

<td align="right">20/40</td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<p>I also tested my eyes (Corrected)...</p>

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="2">

<tr>

<td>Camera </td>

<td align="right">Line No.</td>

<td align="right">Corresponding Vision</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Me </td>

<td align="right">9</td>

<td align="right">20/15</td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<p>Please dont make too much of the term "Corresponding

Vision" as this is just the value read off the chart. Most

would have no way to gage what the line numbers meant without

having one of these charts on their wall.<br>

<br>

In the first group the F3 is listed before the F5 as the F3 is

slightly clearer.<br>

<br>

I hope those who prefer manual focus and those who wish to use

both manual focus and auto focus interchangeably will find this

information useful.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

PS: no surprises but this time I used a test that anyone can

replicate if they wish as the test conditions are specified and

the chart is a standard chart costing about $15.00.

Id love to see this with the different DSLR's, as the inability to MF on most of them well is what is keeping me away. And I own an FM2n, so it would be quite a step down.

Stephen, even with a DSLR, I guarantee you could see the big "E" ;)

curious about other Nikon manual cameras: like FG, FM, F2

 

Is there any significant difference in viewfinder between the FM2 and FM2n?

 

Recently I showed a D100 user who had never much used film cameras and was coming to that Nikon from sony digicams, the view through my N8008s with a 28-70 3.5 - 4.5 Nikkor lens. He couldn't believe how much brighter the N8008s was.

To manually focus an SLR, it is important to have a focusing screen that has a "split image" center. My very first SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 that I bought back in 1972. It only had micro-prism but not split image, and sometimes it could be difficult to focus with it.

 

The Nikon focusing screen with split image is the K type and there is also a K2 type. Nikon provided that option for the F4 but not for the F5 and other newer (D)SLRs. Without a K type screen, manual focusing will be difficult.

<em>"curious about other Nikon manual cameras: like FG,

FM, F2" --WJ Gibson<br>

</em><br>

You can put an F3 Red-Dot screen in an F2 focus screen frame so

you can consider them equal. If you were using super speed

lenses, f/1.2 to f/0.75, youd want to do the reverse

according to reliable sources. I dont have access to an FG

or FM and never owned these.<br>

<br>

I forgot to mention that the F3 had a Red-Dot focus screen. I

bought it as an F3HP then bought a new DE-2 prism as the F3 edges

the F3HP in focus ease on the matte focus screen surface.

Previously I compared the F5 and F3HP using various subjects,

printed text on boxes, flowers, crystal lamps, my computer

screen, etc. and couldnt call a winner. Ive sold the

DE-3 prism so the F3HP is not in the list but its safe to

say its equal to the F5 and less than the F3.<br>

<br>

<em>"Is there any significant difference in viewfinder

between the FM2 and FM2n?" --WJ Gibson<br>

</em><br>

As I recall the FM2s K, B and E screens (same as the FE)

are 1/3 stop slower. You can install the K2, B2 and E2 screen in

the FM2 so these can be considered equal. I owned an FM2 with K2

screen that was adjusted by a professional repairman. After much

protest I bought it from a friend for $35.00 and MASM 5.1.

Probably the K, B and E screens would be better for super speed

lenses.<br>

<br>

<em>"And I own an FM2n, so it would be quite a step down."

--Stephen Gomes<br>

</em><br>

Hang loose and carry a lot of cash. If you get a D2H or D2X they

shouldnt be too bad. If you can use the electronic

rangefinder display with peripheral vision the newer AF module

should be as good, probably better than the F5. Id think

there is no contest with AF if the subject is moving since the

new DSLRs have 11 focus points, newer memory and surely

faster CPU(s).<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

"To manually focus an SLR, it is important to have a focusing screen that has a "split image" center. " -- Shun

 

I always found split-image focussing screens pretty much useless for all practical purposes. You need to have some kind of vertical line/pattern to really make use of it, and the split-image center becomes annoyingly dark with slower tele/zoom lenses and nacro lenses.

 

For those with good enough eyesight, the clear matte type screens are always the best bet. My 2 cents.

Arnab, since you shoot a lot of macro, I can see your point. But in my images it is almost always easy to find vertical lines among people, animals, landscape, etc. Once upon a time I had a 500mm/f8 mirror Nikkor and that was very difficult to focus. The split image area got completely dark and was useless. Now I don't own any lens that is slower than f4.

I find split-image focusing difficult and too slow for any practical purposes that I might run into. I find it difficult to find those lines that would work with it, and the matte screens on *good* SLRs allow reliable focusing from any point of the frame, thus leading to more accurate focusing (because recomposing causes an error in focus due to focus plane flatness) and faster too because no recomposition is needed. On a tripod, split-image focusing is even worse.

 

As you can see, there are as many opinions as there are people. I wish people would just remember to add "in my opinion" to what they say instead of saying absolute truths when they're not.

I switched back to K screens in my F3 and FM2n from E screens because I found I was

much more accurate & fast in low light focussing. I mostly use 1.4 to 2.8 lenses in

situations like concerts and (IMO:)) a clear matte screen is not as accurate. I do miss the

grid however, I wish there was a screen like the E with a split image and no microprism

collar.

 

Having a split image is a bit like having rangefinder focussing plus SLR focussing in one

viewfinder. I use a Leica M2 sometimes also and find it hard to focus unless you have a

vertical line in the center of the composition, often end up zone-focussing the darn thing.

<p>I generally don't like split prism screens either. I made the mistake of getting a

Brightscreen diagonal split prism screen for my Bronica ETRsi and have used it maybe

once. It's for sale if anyone is interested...</p>

<p>I prefer matte screens in my F4's and in the Bronica</p>

<p>Yep, I'd get a D100 or D70 if the viewfinders weren't complete sh*t. I suppose

that camera companies figure the majority of users are going to AF so the screen just

has to be sort of bright but not contrasty (which is needed for critical focus). I

borrowed a D70 and about 20% of my shots were soft on static subjects when using a

50mm 1.4 AIS. I should add that I wear glasses and am very nearsighted.

Nevertheless, a D70 finder cannot compare to an F4's finder.</p>

David -

 

There is an interesting variation on the test that you've run.

 

Something that I noticed with the built in rangefinders of the modern Nikon AF bodies.

 

I noticed that my manual focus lenses snap into focus with an F90X or F90 when using the rangefinder built into the camera body.

 

Focusing via the rangefinder in the Nikon 8008 and 8008s bodies is not far behind.

 

The F4 I found slower to snap on, via the rangefinder, than either any of the above mentioned non-pro bodies.

 

The F5 I found somewhere between the F90 series and 8008 series when focusing ONLY via the rangefinder.

 

The F100 (3 bodies tried with half a dozen lenses each time) I found essentially useless for instant lock on of focus via the rangefinder. The 3 F100 bodies always seemed to be hunting when I focused manually via the rangefinder.

While this technique is seldom practical for general photography, I have found that in the lab or studio the most accurate focussing was by parallax viewing on an aerial image. This requires a type C (or similar) screen, and is best with a 6X magnifying eyepiece. I generally used this method when doing copy work of flat objects, though I have used it for some telephoto work.

For general purpose focusing, a split image focus screen always delivers more reliable results. I am not going to qualify this by saying, "in my opinion". Because that is the general consensus among most photographers.

 

Type C, Type M and such screens are great for macro photography and those who are used to that would find the D70 screen not that difficult.

 

And those with a 20/40 vision also do not find focusing with the fabulous D70 viewfinder not that difficult. Others will have to do with a D1x, D2h or a D2x. That is the new norm.

 

Vivek.

It's nice to see the FE2 viewfinder coming out so well on this somewhat quantitative

test -- I am impressed with how big and sharp mine is every time I use it. Also, it

would be interesting to see the results of some Canon cameras assessed using the

same test (EOS A2, Rebel, etc.) -- I largely switched from Canon to Nikon because of

my subjective impression the the viewfinders were generally better on Nikon and I felt

I simply couldn't manually focus my EOS A2.

This test doesnt cover everything thing one might care

to know about finders. With the evenly lit off white wall behind

the chart I can see a bright box if you will in the center of the

FM2ns finder. I dont notice this when shooting but its

there. This clearly shows that although I can see all the way to

the corners of the finder image some of the light is cut off due

to eye-point and my need to focus and view through glasses. My

vision is about 20/50 uncorrected. This is partly astigmatism and

partly near sightedness. I do not see this with the F100, F5 and

F3 (DE-2). The eye-point of these cameras, flexible eyeglass

frames and facial structure allow more relaxed viewing with these

three than with the FM2n and FE2. Although the F3 (DE-2) and F2As

use the same finder eyepiece the F2As doesnt equal the F3

and some shading of the edges occurs. If I had deeper set eyes or

thick glasses the FM2n, FE2 and F2As would be less suitable for

my use.<br>

<br>

This test does not show whats possible. Ive seen a

custom or prototype eye level 6x finder for the F3. It appears to

use a front surface mirror and the standard DW-4 optic. It would

be correct right to left and be like looking at an exceptionally

bright 5x7" cameras focus screen. It looked

professionally made. Its on the F3 site at Photography in

Malaysia. I want one, damn it! The photos were lifted from eBay

according to the caption.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Im drawn to the B, E and U screens over the K and A screens

for the same reasons as Arnab Pratim Das. I have three lenses

that violate my f/4.0 minimum requirement. The 300/4.5 ED-IF AI,

400/5.6 ED AI and AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D ED Micro. Id love to

replace the 300/4.5 ED-IF with an AF-S 300/4.0D ED-IF, the 400/5.6

ED I just bought for size, weight and performance issues. Id

love to bracket it with an AF-S 300/2.8G ED-IF VR (Ugh! Why does

Nikon keep making G lenses I lust for. Life was so much easier

when I could pass them off as G for garbage) and an AF-S 500/4.0D

ED-IF. The AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D ED gets slack because of its

macro performance.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Neil,<p>You want the R screen for your F3. It has the grid lines of the E with a horizontal split image prism that Shun is so enamoured of. The prism slopes are gentler on this screen - doesn't block out with f/5.6 lenses. I too found the E hard to focus with in dim situations.<p>The FG has a bit higher screen magnification than the F3, so I would think that it will be a bit easier to focus with than the F3. That's been my impression in comparing my FG (with fixed K screen) to the F3 with the E screen. However, if you put the 6x finder on any of the F series cameras, nothing can come close to them in focusing accuracy!

Here you go again David;knocking the current Nikon technology even if it be in a round about fashion!Yet the emporor has no clothes & many if not most newer viewfinders are not acceptable.In the "dark ages" we had choices be it a K screen or whatever.If Nikon did not produce it we could go to Beattie.Alas that was in a day when viewfinders were important.We now work with the economies of scale!Take enough photo's & you are sure to get a good one.BTW so far no one has mentioned the FM3a which is brighter than my FE2 or my other three manual focus bodies.

>You want the R screen for your F3. It has the grid lines of the E with a horizontal split

image prism

 

Thanks Robert. I've wondered about the R screen. The one thing that worries me though,

is according to the Nikon focusing screen compatibility chart: 'For lenses with an aperture

of 2.8 and larger, focus in the center of the screen does not correspond to that on the film

focusing must be performed outside the 12mm center reference circle.'

David H. Hartman wrote:

 

"This test does not show what?s possible. I?ve seen a custom or prototype eye level 6x finder for the F3. It appears to use a front surface mirror and the standard DW-4 optic. It would be correct right to left and be like looking at an exceptionally bright 5x7" camera?s focus screen. It looked professionally made. It?s on the F3 site at Photography in Malaysia. I want one, damn it! The photos were lifted from eBay according to the caption."

 

David, I also saw this modified DW4, but don't you think with a simple mirror instead of a pentaprism it will give an inverted image left-to-right and upside-down also?

 

Marco

<em>"Here you go again David;knocking the current Nikon

technology even if it be in a round about fashion!" --Melvin

Bramley<br>

</em><br>

Ive tried to be as objective as possible. After testing all

the cameras I repeated the tests on the N80 and F100 to see if I

could grade them up a line and I could not. The cameras fall

where they fall. If I were cooking the data my favorite of the

bunch, the F5, would have come out on top. There is no value in

lying to ones self or anyone else here. I dearly wish the F100

equaled the F5. Why would I want it to be less? I paid $1,229.95

for it before the price dropped. I wish the F3, F5 and F100 all

equaled or beat the FM2n and FE2. Its not so.<br>

<br>

Its a known fact the finder magnification has dropped so as

to allow more space for LCD displays and such. The F5 has more

space taken for this than the F3 (I think, Im not checking).

The F5 and F3 have 100% finders, the FM2n and FE2 only 93%. If

the FM2n and FE2 had 100% finders the finder magnification would

have to fall and so would their rating. If their eye-point

remained the same even non-eyeglass wearers wouldnt buy

them. There are technical reason why each camera fell where it

did.<br>

<br>

<em>"We now work with the economies of scale!Take enough

photo's & you are sure to get a good one." --Melvin

Bramley<br>

</em><br>

Not me. There are a lot of situations were ones reputation

depends on getting a specific shot. The window of opportunity can

be as little a few seconds perhaps not even that. If your editor

wants a particular shot you get that shot. You cant say my

cameras finder ate the shot.<br>

<br>

<em>"BTW so far no one has mentioned the FM3a which is

brighter than my FE2 or my other three manual focus bodies."

--Melvin Bramley<br>

</em><br>

The FM3a can use the FM2n/FE2 screens and the FM2n/FE2 can use

the FM3a screens so the only difference will be the finder

magnification. The FM2n/FE2 has a magnification of 0.86x while

the FM3a has one of 0.83x, this according to Nikon specs. I dont

think there is anything here to loose sleep over. The FM2n/FE2

should be easier to focus on the matte surface while the FM3a

should be easier to see the whole finder image. How much

difference? I'd want to test both cameras side by side.<br>

<br>

This was a test of focus ease on the matte focus area and thats

all. The last time I did this I used cereal boxes, ant trap

boxes, the clock on the wall, a lamp in the next room with

crystal tear drops and my computer screen. This time I use a

standard eye test chart so any one with a mind to could perform

the same test.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

<em>David, I also saw this modified DW4, but don't you think

with a simple mirror instead of a pentaprism it will give an

inverted image left-to-right and upside-down also?--Marco P.<br>

</em><br>

If there are two flat front surface mirrors it should work like a

periscope. Oops! Yes, the image would be flipped 180 degrees like

a view camera. I could deal with that. Wheres my dark

cloth? In some ways I prefer a view cameras simple rotation

to an upright but reversed right to left image.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Ah, the <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/screens/index.htm>the golden age of Nikon focusing screens</a>. The F3 had 23 (count 'em, 23) focusing screens.

D.J. SOROKA - Do you have any idea why the F100's electronic

rangefinder performs differently than the exact same module in

the F5? Does not stand to reason -or am I missing something?

-dmk

David E. Kelly:

 

I just got your e-mail inviting me to continue participating in this thread.

 

I've just returned from the PhotoExpo here in New York City at the Javitts Center. Got to try out the F6 and D2X. At least the F6 provides matrix metering with Ai'ed or later manual focus lenses, although it doesn't provide shutter priority or program mode unless you get the lenses chipped. Still, by inputing manual focus lens data (focal length, maximum aperture), you get to use your maual focus lenses on the D2 or F6 cameras with aperture priority or manual mode, with a choice or spot or center weighted metering (and matrix in the case of the F6).

 

Anyway, to answer your question, no I can't explain the difference between the F100 and F5. I understand your point. My point is the F90X series rangefinder (1994 release) is better than the F5's (1996 release) or F100 (1998 release) when using manual focus lenses.