DSLR optical viewfinders- Does a great one exist?

I have wondered in the past and am wondering now, why are optical viewfinders

in DSLR's so inferior to the finders in old film SLR's? Taking a look through my Oly OM-4

finder the difference is dramatic between it and my 1st version 5D. Sure, the 5D's finder

gets the job done, but is there a DSLR with a really great or signficantly better

optical finder?

 

Yeah, I know, it's all about live view these days, but for me, a good optical finder

is still my preference.

 

Of course Leica digital M's have great finders, but that's an RF camera...

 

Thanks....

<p>The reason is fairly simple -- with autofocus the emphasis has been put elsewhere than on manual focusing capability. Most default screens work well enough if you actually know how to manually focus (it's not like rolling off a log), but they are certainly not like those on the old film cameras (see in my report on the MF EF-M --<a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00Zyz7">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Zyz7</a> )</p>

<p>As you move up the scale toward more 'professional' digital cameras, the manufacturer normally will have interchangeable finder screens, some of which are optimized for MF.</p>

<p>I do a fair amount of shooting MF lenses with my digital cameras, and I am very reluctant to get a dSLR camera that does not have MF screens available for it.<br>

In Canon, the 'grid' screen, which is what I use, is usually pretty close to the 'pure' MF screen, if not identical except for the gird lines.</p>

<p> </p>

It appears as if the Canon 1Dx has a larger viewfinder than other DSLRs (Nikon D810, Canon 5DIII, Sony Alpha FF). See chart below:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/4

 

Assuming that the Nikon D4 finder isn't materially larger than the 1Dx (didn't find a comparison in my 1 minute search), then if a 1Dx size finder isn't big enough for you, you have your answer with respect to currently available DSLRs.

 

My recollection is that the OM-1 finder was shocking large and bright compared with other SLRs.

<p>I believe the beloved split-prisms and microprisms from old MF viewfinders were removed because the newer generation of light meters operate off the image resolved on the viewfinder, and the prisms interfered.</p>

<p>Some light is diverted through the mirror to the AF sensors as well. I'm not sure how much light loss that amounts to. I think not a lot but I might be wrong.</p>

<p>The modern viewfinders are optimized for slower lenses as well. Back in the 80s everyone's first lens was a 50mm f/1.8 or so, but now everyone's first lens is an f/3.5-5.6 zoom.</p>

<p>Beyond that, I'm not sure what the deal is. When I got my 5D mk I, I was pretty disappointed with the viewfinder as compared to my old Minolta X700. I had a Tamron Adaptall lens that could be mounted on both cameras, and I used that and a light meter to measure light passed through to the eye - the X700 was about 1.6 stops brighter, around 3 times as much light.</p>

<p>I'm now using a 5D mk III and the viewfinder seems significantly brighter. I'm not sure what they changed. The 5D3 viewfinder gets dull and dark if you take the battery out of the camera. Which makes no sense to me at all. They did something sophisticated; I don't know what but it does seem to help.</p>

<p>Remember the AF system requires the use of a partially silvered meter (to allow light through to the secondary mirror for the AF sensor). This means that only about 2/3rd of the light through the lens is sent to the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Ah dunno, those old SLR VF aren't that great. I still have a few laying around--Miranda F, FE and FM--and, albeit large, they're too dark to use with most lenses. You really need to use with F2.8 or faster lenses or they look really gritty and dark. Also, the exit pupil of most pre-AF era SLRs is really tiny compared to the 20 or 22mm exit pupil of modern DSLRs. You nearly have to press your eyeball on the eyepiece glass to see the whole frame. I greatly prefer the VF on my 5D series and 6D to my old film SLRs.</p>

<p>Alan, if you take the battery out, the lens will stop down and stay stopped down. Did you have it wide open when you pulled the battery?</p>

<p>I checked and it wasn't stopping down.</p>

<p>I realize it's very strange so I made a video. This shows the viewfinder with the camera on, then turned off, then what happens when you remove the battery, then put it back in.</p>

<p>

<p>Those of you up north may be amused to know this was recorded today in Texas. Enjoy your snow.</p>

<p>Working link?</p>

<p>

<p>Interesting.<br /><br />I don't take any pictures with the battery out, so it's not high on my list of things that I need to understand. ;-)</p>

<p>Well yes. I first noticed it when I got the camera. I put the battery on the charger, mounted a lens and looked through the viewfinder. It was awful, unusable, really dark and not sharp at all. I was already a little annoyed because the mk III viewfinder isn't interchangeable, so for a while there I was worried that I'd have to return the camera. Then the battery charged up and I put it in and looked again, and the viewfinder was 1000% better.</p>

<p>Something strange is going on there...</p>

<p>(sorry, posted in error)</p>

<p>Ah, he reminisces, the <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00Y2PJ">Olympia OM-1</a> finder!<br /> That and the 100% Nikon F finder are among the finest SLR finders ever offered. I suspect that the shock of the OM-1's viewfinder view was as responsible for its great sales as was the small size of the body.</p>

<p>In the last couple of years, I've been shooting a lot of old rangefinders, and I honestly find it hard to see how anyone could prefer them to the various SLRs I've also been shooting. There are a few exceptions, but not many.</p>

<p>Alan, if you take the battery out of the 5D3 then the transmissive LCD panel in the viewfinder loses power and becomes less transmissive. This is the reason for the effect you described.<br>

The panel displays the AF points and some other stuff. It is powered even if the camera is switched off.<br>

</p>

<p>I think the best finders on DSLR's are the ones that cover 100% of the frame. Usually the top and maybe second tier of Professional and Prosumer cameras. Comparing to an old, admittedly musty Nikon F, the viewfinder on my D700 is much brighter than the F's. I just never thought viewfinder brightness to be a problem on most of these cameras.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity - the problem with these comparisons is that usually we tend to compare them to the best we know. I know I do, and I know I haven't yet touched a DSLR that has a viewfinder than rivals my F3. But, as pointed out by some above, AF and to a lesser extend the transmissive LCD do come into play.</p>

<p>How does a EOS1V compare to a EOS1Dx? Or a D810 or D4 to a F100, or F5? A 5D Mk. III to a EOS3? Those ought to be apple-to-apple comparisons. If I'd knew, I'd share, but the only valid comparison I can come up with is between a Nikon D50 and a F65 (same range more or less), and they're both really not good at all. Choosing which is worse is like choosing your favourite disease.</p>

<p>I agree more with Puppy's line of thought. I find the 6D viewfinder at least on a par with the Olympus OM1, Minolta SRT101, Canon FtbN, and Leicaflex SL in terms of brightness. It's brighter than a Nikkormat FT, or Pentax Spotmatic. It's a pretty good viewfinder also in terms of manual focusing, but the lack of a focusing aid is what makes it less reliable for manual focusing. The real issue is not so much things at close distances, where it is pretty easy to focus, but at distances 15-25 feet away or so, when out of focus areas are harder to see. Fitting the Eg-S screen helps here. It is of course possible that my other SLRs have lost brightness over the years (my Leicaflex certainly has and could do with resilvering).</p>

<p>What I do is pre-focus and compose with my speedfinder-equipped F1n and then switch over to my dslr to take the pic. Problem solved. ;)</p>

<p>W.T., good luck if anything moves.</p>

I put Beattie screens in my OM-1s and

OM-4s. Still seem slightly dimmer tan

both my old 40d and new 6d although I

did put an architectural screen in the

6d. It seems brighter to these old

eyes....

After Barry's comment I compared my 5D to OM-4, and he's right, the 5D is just as good, maybe even better, so my perception and memory were wrong. Posting this topic was probably completely bogus!

 

I think part of why I even thought about it was because one day recently I had put a Leica M up to my eye on

an outing where I had been using the 5D. Huge difference, but that comparison is really apples and oranges.