100% lifesize finder?

What, if any cameras either film or digital, ever offered a viewfinder with 100% coverage and life-size image?

Thanks

A Leica M3 is close, at about 93%. The illuminated frame reflects the field of view, and is smaller for longer lenses. The net magnification of the ground glass of a DSLR or EVF of a digital camera depends on the focal length. Going back 50+ years, the "sports" finder of a Speed Graphic, Rolleiflex or Hasselblad has no optical elements, hence is intrinsically 100%.

The magnification of a Sony A9 is about 78%, which means a 64 mm lens would be 100%. If you look through the viewfinder with one eye and keep the other eye open, you have an instant verification of the net magnification.

Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder with 97% frame coverage and 0.92x magnification. I loved to look trough it, very easy to focus. A true blessing for the eyes. And mind you, it's a 40+ year old camera which was the smallest 35 mm SLR back then.

Later models were equipped with smaller and dimmer viewfinders.

The 100% viewfinder thing with SLRs(or at least 35mm and 35mm-based DSLRs) often is a function of where the model is positioned in a manufacturer's line-up. The top end Canon and Nikons often have 100% viewfinders. Depending on the era, you might get 100% on some of the "advanced amateur" models or you might get less than that.

Magnification is often specified with a "normal" lens, and moving to a longer lens often will get you close 1.0x. When I was thinking about my response to this thread last night, I pulled out a Nikon F3 with a "standard" low eyepoint finder. The HP finder is probably better known on these cameras, but it's actually lower magnification than the standard finder. Offhand, I think that the standard finder is .83x or so and the HP finder is .75. Both of these are with a 50mm lens. I suspect it would be somewhere around 1.0 with around a 60mm lens-I didn't have a zoom handy to cover that range so that I could check.

I don't know if it's optically possible to get both 100% coverage and 1.0 with a standard lens on a 35mm SLR with a pentaprism. I suspect that you would find that the eyepoint is uncomfortably short.

Of course, mirrorless with an EVF totally changes things.

Offhand, I think that the standard finder is .83x or so and the HP finder is .75.

0.8 and 0.75, respectively.

The 100% viewfinder thing with SLRs(or at least 35mm and 35mm-based DSLRs) often is a function of where the model is positioned in a manufacturer's line-up. The top end Canon and Nikons often have 100% viewfinders. Depending on the era, you might get 100% on some of the "advanced amateur" models or you might get less than that.

 

Magnification is often specified with a "normal" lens, and moving to a longer lens often will get you close 1.0x. When I was thinking about my response to this thread last night, I pulled out a Nikon F3 with a "standard" low eyepoint finder. The HP finder is probably better known on these cameras, but it's actually lower magnification than the standard finder. Offhand, I think that the standard finder is .83x or so and the HP finder is .75. Both of these are with a 50mm lens. I suspect it would be somewhere around 1.0 with around a 60mm lens-I didn't have a zoom handy to cover that range so that I could check.

 

I don't know if it's optically possible to get both 100% coverage and 1.0 with a standard lens on a 35mm SLR with a pentaprism. I suspect that you would find that the eyepoint is uncomfortably short.

 

Of course, mirrorless with an EVF totally changes things.

Manufacturers specify magnification with the 50mm lens regardless of format so it doesn't make too much sense.

Lots of stuff out there and quite a bit here on this topic. [e.g., How important is the viewfinder coverage percentage? (Figures like 95%; 100% for Canon 7D?))

In film days the excuse for not having 100% (the Nikon F did) was that the slide mount covered up the edges of the image. Actually, I think it was often cheaper and easier to make the slr view smaller. The worst, maybe, was one model of the Soviet Zenit.

The worst, maybe, was one model of the Soviet Zenit.

I own one (a later and 'better') model. When I look trough its viewfinder I see a light at the end of a tunnel. On the other hand, when I look through the VF of Oly OM-1, I have a feeling of standing on a huge balcony.

But small VF is the least of Zenit's problems.

On closer examination, a "life-sized" view is the wrong criteria by which to judge a viewfinder, since it is limited to a single lens focal length. Likewise 100% coverage is a good thing, if you compose to the edge of the frame, but most people find it wise to allow some space for cropping, in the camera or in the printing process. A finder with 90% coverage builds in a reasonable margin. The issue is probably moot with electronic finders, which are inherently 100%, with some reservations (see below).

I like the finder view to be physically as large as practical, so that I can see all the edges without moving my eye from side to side. In other words, I can see the entire image without difficulty. This limits the practical magnification, and also requires attention to the optical components of the eyepiece, most of all, the relief distance. This was a valued feature of the Nikon F3HP, and continued on in the single-digit Nikons to the present day, at about 20 mm. Fortunately the Sony A7/A9 cameras picked up that ball, with an eyeopint of about 23 mm. This means I can see the entire frame while wearing glasses. The original A7 and A7ii fell somewhat short in this respect, but Sony has listened and responded well.

When shooting bracketed HDR and panoramas without a tripod, you lose a lot of image through cropping, due to small variations between frames. Leaving ample margins is essential if you wish to retain key elements in the image, like mountain tops.

a "life-sized" view is the wrong criteria

Yes, there are two kinds of "life-size" here.

One is a view that presents the same view for the viewfinder eye and the other eye. This was often a concern for rangefinder cameras, especially.

The other is a view that shows a 100% of what is on the film/sensor. Nowadays, when a viewfinder is described as 95% or such, this is usually what is meant.

Life size and 100% makes me think of something like the SBOOI finder Leica used to make. I believe these were only made for 50mm. I've got one and use it on old Leica models with squinty finders. Using this type of finder, you keep both eyes open retaining your 3D vision and being able to see outside what the camera does. You get the finder frame lines floating in your field of vision, probably similar to the HUDs (Head Up Display) used in fighter planes, and some new cars.

Here's a link to what they look like... SBOOI - Leica Wiki (English)

Yes, there are two kinds of "life-size" here.

I had that covered.

Using this type of finder, you keep both eyes open retaining your 3D vision and being able to see outside what the camera does.

One can do the same thing using the SLR camera since most of them have prisms high enough for you to open the second eye and have unobstructed view. Can't say the same for rangefinders though.

I had that covered.

Yes, and I agreed which is why I said "yes"; but I feel that I made a little clearer and more direct.