viewfinder revolt(ing)

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there really dismayed by the viewfinders of the digital world? Maybe I'm

spoiled, coming from a Canon F-1 (which isn't even known for its viewfinder). But when I've picked up any

of the new cameras on the market, I just hate the views. Are optical viewfinders on smaller cameras

more expensive to mass-produce, and are the manufacturers just cramming LCDs down our throats?

They're certainly a pain to look at outside. And electronic viewfinders a la Fuji? You've got to be kidding--

you want me to look through THAT? Even when pocket cams do have optical viewfinders, they're really

awful, unlike my old Olympus 35 RC or my Contax t2. And finally, SLRs: I've been shocked when I've

picked up the lower end Canons or Nikons. You want $1000 for this? Ok, maybe full-frame is better, but I

just spent my last $8000 on a used Accord so I'm tapped out today. Is there some physical reason they

can't simply magnify the pentaprisms on SLRs so that you have a nice big image to work with? It's like

flyfishing: yes, a $39 fly rod will catch a trout just the same, but you have to enjoy casting with it.

 

I know the results from the new digitals are great. But the process counts for something as well, and I feel

as if the disregard for quality viewfinders has caused something to get lost in that process.

There are probably a hundred different threads in the archives on viewfinders in the world where sensors are smaller than a 35mm frame.

 

For some people it's a problem. For others it is not. There is no right answer here. The market is moving away from optical viewfinders for point and shoot cameras, but I rather doubt they'll be eliminated completely. As for DSLRs, take a look at Pentax. Good viewfinders for a non-full-frame sensored camera.

Put a Helios 35/85/135 finder in the hot shoe (or hot-glue it on a P&S). They go for about 5 bucks on ebay. I guess auto-focus is good for something.....

There are DSLRs with good viewfinders, among them the Nikon D2 cameras. If you can't afford a camera that does all you want, you have to want something less (or wait).

Stop whinging and get used to them .. they work just as well as anything in film. Optical finders are as they always were pretty inaccurate so the EVF is the best type short of the DSLR's VF. But then the DSLR's VF is deficient compared to the prosumers EVF in that it cannot give you a review of the shot taken. This is something which the digital age has given us but most DSLR are incapable of doing.

> Stop whinging and get used to them .. they work just as well as anything in film.

 

Well, that's simply not true.

 

> Optical finders are as they always were pretty inaccurate...

 

And neither is that.

 

Try the Pentax dSLRs. They were by far the least sucky of the models I looked at, and I bought a DS. Look around carefully and maybe you can find a used D or DS for a very reasonable amount.

I get along with a Pentax *istD. I believe the VF of a Optio 60 to be close to unuseable but better than nothing and surely a sacrifice to compact size and price. I don't see a way around LCDs with 10x-14x zooms. At least almost any jacket put over your head will allow you to spot your LCD in brightest sunlight, while good old groundglasses are by far more demanding.

 

In general you get what you pay for; soon there'll be a digital Leica M. You're also free to enjoy Crown Graphics with wireframe sportsfinders, Kalart RMs and scanner backs...

 

About the Pentaprisms: I believe somebody will sooner or later build a apropriate one, but most probably the current ones were designed for 35mm FF and are a few cent cheaper. They also offer a quite high eyepoint and well, you get used to them.

If you continue to increase the magnification of the image coming off that little DSLR mirror the resulting finder will be darker than you want. I guess it's just a matter of trade-offs...

Thanks for the input, everyone. However, I must say the "stop whining and get used to it" or

the "if you can't afford it settle for less" philosophies don't do it for me. The camera

companies can darn well make really great finders--just look at the advances in optics over

the years. Nikon 35mm cameras have been great. Unfortunately, the "let's all just settle for

what they give us" attitude means they have no incentive to do it. Unfortunately, better

products don't always dominate the market. If they did, everyone would be using Macs now

instead of PCs. It's just hard to cough up $700 and more and settle.

Well, actually the F-1 has an exceptionally good viewfinder, and the last generation was simply spectacular with the K and J screens. DSLRs are all autofocus, and the autofocus mechanism takes a lot of light that would otherwise be used for manual focusing, so the view you get is darker than it would otherwise be if they sold a manual focusing DSLR.

 

Magnifying the image from a 1.6 or 1.5 sensor DSLR will only darken your view further.

 

The $1,000 you're spending is mostly for the sensor. So if you want digital, there's a price to pay. You can have a small viewfinder for relatively small money, or pay the big bucks for a 5D. You still won't have a viewfinder as big and bright as the F-1, due to the autofocus balogna, but it's as close as you're going to get with through the lens viewing and interchangeable lenses.

 

If you have really big bucks to spend, there will be a very nice rangefinder coming on the market soon. The Leica digital M will have a big bright viewfinder.

It's all relative, isn't it?

 

A $1000 entry level DSLR may be over-priced, but to some, so is an $80,000 car. Yet, people pay $1k (and more) for a DSLR and pay $80,000 (and more) for a car.

 

Even if your rant is 100% true, what choice do you have? That's the stuff that's available these days.

 

I guess you can drop photography and stick to flyfishing, but I hear that can get costly too.

 

KL

There are/were some really bad viewfinders on film cameras- try an old Signet, Retina, or any one of hundreds of others. The good ones, OTOH, were really good- F3HP and later Minoltas and such. For me, one of the big selling points for the D200 is the viewfinder. Nothing like the rest of the entry level stuff. IMO, eventually EVFs will take over everything, but they just aren't there yet.

>>when I've picked up any of the new cameras on the market,<<

 

That's a broad statement! there are MANY digital SLR on the market to today.

 

>>You want $1000 for this?<<

 

I always felt film was overpriced too. Now, you get both in your camera....

Not sure where you're looking or what you're hoping to buy, but you certainly don't have to spend $1000 at the entry level. Not any more. <p>

 

How 'bout $554.95 for a Nikon camera, a Nikkor lens (kit lens of course) and a 1 gig card, new with warranty, from an <a href=http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D50-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-Lens-1GB-Kit_W0QQitemZ7628833724QQihZ017QQcategoryZ122616QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem>authorized and apparently reputable dealer</a>? <p>

 

I believe there are similar alternatives available from Canon, Pentax, and Olympus, give or take a little money, slightly different lens, etc.

 

I have no connection to the auction, by the way. Just pointing out that the underlying "rant" is also an exaggeration. Not a small one, either -- close to 80% off the mark. :-)

All of the sub-$1000 dSLRs I know of use a pentamirror design, which is less efficient than a prism and thus isn't as bright.

 

The viewfinder is one of the main reasons why I use manual focus(Canon FD) cameras. They don't get much brighter than the laser matte screens found in the F-1N, T90, and AE-1 Program.

Scott - "However, I must say the "stop whining and get used to it" or the "if you can't afford it settle for less" philosophies don't do it for me. The camera companies can darn well make really great finders--just look at the advances in optics over the years."

 

No, they can't "darn well make" such things. We'll get to "why" in a second.

 

But first, consider that you're really not making fair comparisons with your F-1. An $800 DSLR like a Nikon D70 isn't a $800 "camera", it's a $180 "camera" (Nikon N75) which includes a $620 supply of Nikon brand "digital film". The F-1 is a pro camera, in year 2006 terms, between an EOS 3 and EOS 1v, in Nikon terms between F100 and F5. If you want something like that, you really have to look at a $1700 Nikon D200, which is a $800 F100 class camera with $900 of film. Canon doesn't quite have an offering in that class, although 30D is close. D200 has a beautiful viewfinder, the best you'll get under without springing $3000+ for a low end full frame Canon 5D.

 

Despite the "the advances in optics over the years" you mention, there are these pesky laws of physics in the way of making big, bright viewfinders. They can't increase magnification for two reasons: first (as others have pointed out, it makes the screen dimmer. You have a finite amount of light: spread out over a larger area, there's less light density). Second, the viewfinder is a 2, 3, or 4 lens telescope, focused on the screen. Like any telescope, if you increase magnification, you decrease eye relief, making the camera harder to use for glasses wearers. Canon actually sells "unmagnifiers" to increase eye relief for comfort. D200 and Canon 20D (same as 30D) are pretty much "tuned" for the "sweet spot" of viewfinders, just about as big as you can get without becoming unacceptably dim or having too little eye relief.

 

Nikon sells viewfinder magnifiers, to make the finder 20% bigger. DK-21m for the rectangular eyepiece cameras (D200, D7, D50) and DK-17m for round eyepiece cameras (D2X, D2H). 20% is enough to make the viewfinder pleasantly larger, and it only causes a 1/2 stop loss of light and a couple mm loss of eye relief. I use them on my D2X and D100, but not on my D200 (I find the D200 viewfinder quite pleasant).

 

Now, if a camera manufacturer tries to compensate for the dimmer screen that increased magnification brings by using a "brighter" screen, there's another problem. Bright screens scatter less light (that's why they're brighter) but this causes them to give you something more like an aerial image: it just floats there, you can't actually focus on it, or use it to preview depth of field. Screens have been moving in this direction since the 90s, and many people find today's bright screens to be very aggravating.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking with it, gumshoe.

<P>I'd like to second Conrad's remarks about film camera viewfinders - some of the old ones were absolutely atrocious, and I've never seen anything that bad in a digital camera. OK, a minority of them were marvellous, and made picture taking a pleasure, but the same goes for digital cameras.</P><P>Plus, of course, as others have pointed out, small sensor areas dictate that viewfinders in digital reflex cameras are compromised relative to 24x36mm imaging film reflex cameras. That's just the laws of physics, as Scotty would have told the Captain.</P>

<i>..."All of the sub-$1000 dSLRs I know of use a pentamirror design, which is less efficient

than a prism and thus isn't as bright."...</i>

<br><br>

Correction: <br>

The Pentax *ist DS and *ist DS2 both have a pentaprism, not a pentamirror. The Samsung

rebrand of the *ist DS2 does as well.

<br><br>

Godfrey

A couple additional thoughts. I just bought a used Minolta Dimage A1 for $250, and it is my first experience with an Electronic View Finder. I love the camera, and I really like the way it automatically boosts the gain on the viewfinder image when light levels drop. That said, I also notice a bit of eye strain after using the EVF for a while. The A1 also has an irritating habit of switching its live display from the LCD to the EVF if anything gets near the viewfinder (but that's fixable by switching to only-EVF or only-LCD display mode).

 

Another nice feature of the A1's EVF and LCD is that you can rotate them...to simulate an old-fashioned waist-level finder or to take high-level shots with the camera held overhead. This feature isn't as flexible as with the Panasonic Lumix FZ-30 (on which the LCD can flip completely around for protection when not in use).

 

But EVFs and LCDs are getting better. The Panasonic's is vastly sharper and brighter than the A1's, for example...but I was feeling frugal, and sprung for the older used camera!

I have not seen the Nikon D200 so I cannot comment on it. I do agree that the viewfinders on most DSLR's are really poor.Last year with Nikons best offering in "my price range" being either the D100 or D70; I bit my tongue & purchased a Olympus E1 with the 14-54MM lens.

The Olympus VF is ok for me but it is not as good as most of my Nikon film camera viewfinders. There is more to the viewfinder than just its size. Eye relief & coverage are also important.The Nikon & Canon "cheaper" offerings are particularly bad,for my eyes, & $ for $ are no where near as good as Pentax, Minolta or Olympus.Good viewfinders can be made but Nikon & Canon can sell cameras without such a feature!

Scott,

 

You're absolutely right. Most digital camera's viewfinders are crappy but judging from comments above, people aren't very demanding and will buy most everything as long as it's the latest and the credit card isn't max'ed out. So why mfg's should change anything ?

What Melvin says! A friend of mine uses a Canon DSLR extensively to shoot events for a senior center and a photo museum. And when he saw the EVF in my Dimage A1, he practically croaked. It was apparently MUCH easier to see images and information in the A1's EVF than in the more-recent Canon DSLR! And the Panasonic Lumix FZ-30's EVF is light years ahead of the older A1's!

<I>but judging from comments above, people aren't very demanding and will buy most everything as long as it's the latest and the credit card isn't max'ed out. So why mfg's should change anything ?

</i><P>Because they've drank the 'APS sensor Kool-aid', and are too retarded to use manual focus anyways. "Depth of Field" control? Hell...must be something you use on a submarine. For them they shoot 99% of the time with crap-tacular zoom-kits at F8 and ISO 400-800 with noise reducers, so it doesn't matter.<P>Even the Canon 1Ds I used to rent was inferiour to my 20+ year old Nikon FE-2, which had a great viewfinder in my opinion. I could focus on the edge of a dime with the FE-2 in dim room light, and nail it at F1.4. Impossible with every dSLR I've used.

Oh yes to the Nikon FE...wonderful videfinder. The Canon FT-QL also has/had an amazing finder. I once tried pointing it at a smoking candle, and I could see when the smoke was in focus!

Returning to the digital realm...This weekend, I remembered another thing that I really liked about the Lumix FZ-30's EVF. Right after I bought the camera, I was sitting in the kitchen and zoomed the lens focal point out thru the screen door into the back yard. As I did the EVF showed me (crystal clear and rock solid) when the cells in the screening were in exact focus...and I could similarly follow the sharpest focus point in the grass, as it moved away from me and up the back hill. A very good EVF...even for my aging 58-year-old eyes.

 

Now, if the camera had just been able to do digital infrared, I would have kept it. But I couldn't even SEE the light-enhanced EVF image when I was shooting through a Tiffen 87 filter. Crying shame.