Largest Viewfinder. Which Camera?

Im tired of small viewfinders.

I think I would take better pictures with a large and clear one, so that I

really can see what is happening in front of me.

 

Is there any particular camera that is known for a large viewfinder?

 

Thanks in advance.

Any 8x10 camera would probably be good!

 

If you're talking digital, the size of the viewfinder is related to the size of the sensor and mirror, which is why a full-frame camera like the Canon 5D or 1Ds/II can't be beat.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page4.asp

Thank you Ralph!

I was hoping that there were a "less known" digital camera out there, with a very large viewfinder:-)

 

The 1D series is very expensive, and the 5D viewfinder might be a little bigger but it still only covers about 96%:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page2.asp

Hi Martin,

 

Yes to the above, 4x5 is cool because you use both eyes, so is a tlr though. Also, the image maginification in the top line dslr's is less than the mid range models, by design. Although, sometimes people prefer a better image magnification to a 100% view. The bigger finders are preffered by most though, more eye relief too.

 

I wish Pentax would make a digital LX, that would be the dogs bollocks. The LX has a removable finder with good magnification.

 

Cheers.

For "APS" size sensor DSLRs the Pentax *ist D, DS, DS2 cameras have the best viewfinders for that class of camera. Besides the size and brightness, most aps type cameras have viewfinders that show less than 100% of the frame. Pentax are pretty good at 95%.

 

The Epson RD-1 would provide the brightest and clearist viewfinder if you like rangefinder cameras.

 

For compact digicams, the Ricoh GX8, or Ricoh GR-digital with optional shoe mounted RF viewfinder will match the RD-1 in that respect.

 

You might take better pictures with a good viewfinder, or you might not. You might also take better pictures with what you already have if you adapt to it and pay attenttion to everything in the frame corner to corner.

 

Also worth considering is the EVF on the KM-A2, and the Sony R1 EVF is good too, albeit a little course. The views are clear and big and accurate, but you have to be ok with the latency lag of the image and the granularity. Some people hate them, but I find I like them.

Dean is right in saying you might be better off with the viewfinder you have already. I have used lots of viewfinders over the last 3 years and I find that my point of view has changed, unfortunately.

As a beginner I found it easier to obsess and swap gear rather than learn from what I already have, and learn from the light I am seeing.

By sticking with one view, you learn to adapt to it. Even if it is basic, as my first camera was, it still has a point of view, to find. I think the viewfinder helps one find a point of view. The best finders provide the best view, that's why I think Pentax should make a digital LX with interchangable finders.

 

Cheers.

I would argue that the D200 has the best viewfinder of the APS-sized sensor cameras costing under $2000 USD. I suspect the D2x is better but costs a lot more. The Pentaxes may trump the less expensive DSLRs such as the D70/Rebel XT/D50.

Hello Martin,

You are absolutely right. The viewfinder is absolutely key in composing and getting a

better image. I think the argument you should adapt to what's there is plain non-sense.

Why should you adapt to a inferior product where almost of the late film cameras offer

good to outstanding viewfinders. When R. Jackson spoke about the nikon D200, he must

not have looked around. the D200 may have a better viewfinder than a lot of DSLR, it is

still bad. The only good viewfinders are the Canon 5D and the Pentax Ds-DS2. I think the

pentaxes is even brighter.if you are not in hurry, you might want to wait and hope that the

new Pentax K10D

to be introduced at the Photokina this september will have a real prsim finder like the DS

and not the porrofinder. hope this helps

H

I wouldn't argue that the D200 has a better viewfinder than the Pentax cameras, because I've never looked through one. Have you compared them yourself?

Also the reason why I think the DS & DS2 have a better viewfinder than the 5D is that while

they both offer a field coverage of 95% , the magnification ratio is of 0.71X for the 5D which

is low versus around 0.95 X for the Pentax

Yes, Dean I own a DS2 and used a Nikon D200 for one day

"I think the argument you should adapt to what's there is plain non-sense."

 

It's not plain nonsense. And I wasn't arguing that anyone "should" do anything. I'm not undervaluing the joy of a great viewfinder, but to imply that it will of itself improve one's pictures..now that's complete nonsense. I think the picture is, ideally, conceived before ever looking through the viewfinder. How would you account for the many great photos from early LTM users like Kertez, HCB etc (before he used the M).. those peep holes were are fairly dismal IMO, and it didn't seem to hinder them.

 

Anyway I made a few suggestions for better viewfinders. And if one increases one's enjoyment of the process then some of that might trickle down to the output, or simply increase productivity because you enjoy more thus do more. Beyond that, for myself, I don't think it's a good idea to hang to many hopes on the gear, be it camera, viewfinder, whatever. And I think it is counter productive to become too inflexible and fussy about what you use.

Martin: <i><br>:Im tired of small viewfinders. I think I would take better pictures with a large and clear one, so that I really can see what is happening in front of me.</i><p>The <i><b>brightest</b></i> viewfinders in DSLR land are PENTAX branded-bar none.

I looked up all the cameras you recommended.

I think the Ricoh GR Digital sounds nice with the external viewfinder. It should be extremely large and bright.

 

But im affraid that the quality is low compared to DSLR even if one shoots in RAW mode.

 

DO you think that if I use low ISO with the Ricoh, and shoot in RAW, that I can make good looking prints in A4 size?

I don't have one, but I think if you do some more web research, you'll find that they can produce some really nice images. But the sensor is 1/1.8" so noise beyone ISO 100 is probably objectionable to some (but I've seen ISO 400 and higher examples that look fine to me). Other than that, the small sensor and wide angle lens will rule out any selective focus. And they are expensive. But from what I understand, the GR-digital is a well crafted camera. There are some threads on photo.net. If you don't mind doing a little post correction for distortion, the GX8 offers more flexibility with its 28-85mm zoom lens, and pretty much everything else the GR-D has for significantly less cost. It has a hot shoe right above the lens center-line, not offset like the GR-D's, so something like a CV mini-finder would fit real well there.

Hi Dean !

 

I will look up the GX8. Though I like the prime lens on the GR. I would think that it is more sharp without the zoom.

 

I wish I could see a raw file from the GR, or even better a print of a well exposed picture.

 

Thanks...

<I>the 5D viewfinder might be a little bigger but it still only covers about 96%</I><P>

 

Sorry, but a full-frame DSLR <B>will</B> produce an appreciably bigger view.<P>

 

There are two separarte issues: coverage and magnification. (Brightness is really a third.) Coverage is how much of the image appears in the viewfinder, versus how much is cropped from the viewfinder's view.<P>

 

Magnification is how big the image in the viewfinder appears to be. I <I>think</I> (i.e., not 100% sure!) that one reason why many DSLR's appear to have magnifications similar to full-frame DSLR's and 35mm film cameras is that, well, the saying goes: figures don't lie, but liars figure. Generally, 35mm film camera (and full-frame DSLR) viewfinders were / are rated magnification with a 50mm lens, which is (roughly) a "normal" lens for the film (or sensor) size. But APS-sized sensor DSLR's also usually rate the viewfinders with a 50mm lens, which is long for the sensor size. If you rated them with a lens that gave the same field of view on the APS-sized sensor that a 50mm lens gives on 35mm film and full-frame DSLR's, the rated magnification would be much lower. How much? The same as the 'lens factor'. So an APS-size sensor DSLR with a rated 95% viewfinder magnification is really, truly, more like a 62% magnification, in real-world, comparable terms.

Try the KM 7D. Per dpreview, 95% coverage, about .9x magnification. I'd suggest checking other cameras against the same reviewer's finder descriptions, any reviewer will likely be consistent within their own review process/measurements whereas there may be some differences if compared between different reviewers.

 

How much difference a finder will make will depend on the user. When I'd been away from film slrs for some time, using a Fuji s602, the Nikon d70 seemed quite good in comparison. Yet it's roundly berated as being like looking through a tunnel, etc.

Viewfinder quality and comoirt has always been high on my list of shopping criteria. I

enjoy my KM 7D for its viewfinder. It's acceptably big, and the eye relief of 25mm is the

best of any DSLR, according to dpreview's comparisons. I'm happy with it, but when I

looked again into the VF of my Contax SLR, I was struck by what we're missing in the new

century. It was the difference between a picture window and a porthole.

 

It's a sign of the times, I guess. More and more artificial, plastic images are available. From

Pixar down to the daily paper, we can go a whole day without glimpsing any

unmanipulated images. But it gets harder and harder to find an honest analog image, or

even a direct view through a decent viewfinder.

Well, despite Herve's pronounciamneto, the D200 is the best viewfinder I've seen on a DSLR

under 2-4000 dollars. The DX2 probably has a 100 percent viewfinder as does the

Professional level Canon. That traditionally is a mark of Nikon's pro camera is it has a 100

per cent viewfinder, and I imagine Canon is the same. But why don't you just go to Steve's

Digicam or some sight like that and do your own research?

Yes I tried to look through a 5D this morning. It was quite big, the viewfinder. But I cant live with a camera that only shows ME 96% of what I get out of it. Ok I can just crop the 4%, but I like to compose the picture right where I stand. The same goes with the KM7D.

 

Yes the Nikon D2X sounds nice...

 

Im on my way to Steves Digicam. Didnt know it.

For my needs, I've settled on EVF's and LCD as the most informative and accurate viewfinders for digital cameras. While many photographers hate the EVF, I've really enjoyed using the KM-A2 (the best EVF ever) and the Sony R1 EVFs. And I've also been using a hoodman LCD 2X viewer with my compact camera.

 

While my DSLR, a Pentax *ist DS, has a beautiful OVF for its class of camera, I find I miss the EVF's 100% coverage and knowing that what I'm framing is exactly what I'm going to get, because it is the sensor itself that I'm looking through. In that sense the EVF goes a step further than the SLR TTL in that one is effectively looking not only through the lens, but you actually are looking through the "film" and at a preview of exposure itself.

 

And IMO the EVF allows an easier comprehension of the abstraction a photo makes of the viewed reality, because it lacks the fidelity of a good optical viewfinder. Viewing a subject, there's always a mental leap that I have to make from what I'm seeing with my 2 eyes, to how the camera will see it, and an EVF is more effective in showing that.

 

Latency is the only EVF problem for me, but generally not an issue because I photograph mostly static subjects.

I have never tried a camera with EVF. But I agree that it must be nice to get what you see. Anything else for me is unacceptable.

Here I am, spending 3 minutes to compose a picture of for example a model. And I dont even get what I see:-(

Yes I CAN crop it, but then again, whats the point in waisting pixels, when I want to get what I see 100%.

That is also why I considered the Ricog GR Digital. The viewfinder is great. I just tried it today.

But I must admit that there is far to much noise in the pictures. Even with ISO 64 IMO.

I think I will go for a Canon 1Ds. Not the new mark II but only the 1Ds. I can get it for 2500-3000$ in good condition.

Herve

 

I've compared the *istDL side-by-side with the D50 and noticed maybe a marginally brighter viewfinder on the *istDL. I've used the D50 and the D200 extensively (before that a D70) and still use an F5 and FM2n (I finally sold the last of my F3HP's). The D200 is much brighter than the D50. Therefore, in my experience, it must be brighter than the *istDL by an equal or very slightly less margin. I have not compared it to the *istDS or DS2, so I can't say for sure. Are they much better than the *istDL? How does Pentax manage to make a pentamirror viewfinder that is superior to Nikon's pentaprism finder? Just curious.

I guess I answered my own question-- it looks like the *istDS has a pentaprism.