Viewfinder Quality [Why]

 

 

<p >I am primarily into film but considering a Nikon DSLR to post images on the internet.</p>

<p >My camera is a F2, I have yet to see a DSLR that has a viewfinder as nice as this old film camera, last night I checked a friends D300, the viewfinder is simply crappy compared to the F2, why?</p>

<p >Why are the DSLR viewfinders so crappy?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Vahe</p>

<p>The DX (d300) sensor is much smaller than 24x36mm (film size) and it's AF. MF nikons will always be better/clearer VF than AF especially the F2 at 100% coverage. </p>

<p>On the other hand, there are so many advantages with digital and AF...</p>

<p>The FX cameras, such as the D700, and D3 series cameras, have very nice viewfinders. For my D700, I've added a DK-17M magnifying eyepiece from Nikon, that provides about 1.2x magnification and while the corners are a little darker I can still see to the edges of the frame (and to the indicators on the bottom) easily. I think the DK-21M for the DX DSLRs has a similar effect and can improve your viewfinder experience as well. For manual focus lenses a replacement focusing screen, such as one from focusingscreen.com. KatzEye or Haoda might be helpful.</p>

<p>Check out a D700 or D3. The viewfinders are much better than the D300. On the other hand, what do you dislike? I for one prefer a split-image to focus manual lenses with, so I replaced the screen in my D300 with a Katz Eye and use a magnifier eyepiece. The D3 is good enough without such aids, but it is still arguably not quite up to the standards of the F-bodies. The best viewfinder (IMHO) I currently use is on my F6 but I am quite happy with the others.</p>

<p>Why? Because they're used for composing, not focusing.</p>

<p>...plus you can shoot frames 37 to 200 [or so] without worrying about changing film. And you may change the ISO settings as you wish, without looking in your camera bag for that other roll of film.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had two D3 cameras for two years now, and while I'd classify the finder as 'useable' for eye-focusing, it's not as good as I <em>remember</em> the F2 finder being. The F3 was a step down in finder contrast from the F2, but still, with the F3, it <em>seems</em> easier to discern focus than with the D3. I do find that periodic adjustment of the diopter setting on the D3, multiple times during a single day, helps keep the focusing as easy and accurate as it can be on the D3. And yes, the DK-17 helps sometimes.</p>

<p>Hi Vahe,</p>

<p>It is expensive to manufacture a prism finder of the quality of the various Nikon F2 prisms. I believe the inferior finders of today's amateur Nikon digital camera bodies are a cost cutting strategy.</p>

<p>The Nikon F2 is the best manual Nikon body ever built, in my opinion, and its various prisms are exceptional in function and quality.</p>

<p>In any case, compared to your Nikon F2, Nikon DSLRs are disposable cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In any case, compared to your Nikon F2, Nikon DSLR's are disposable cameras.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Disposable cameras they maybe but they surely are more useful for most people for taking pictures...</p>

<p>It's a smaller image, but I have no problems with my D90.</p>

<p><strong>Robert Hooper- "</strong>In any case, compared to your Nikon F2, Nikon DSLRs are disposable cameras."</p>

<p>The F2 is a slightly better anvil/hammer, but its digital counteroarts (D1x, D2-2x, D3-3x are better, more productive, picture-making instruments for both rank amateurs and working pros. I write this while currently owning and using two Nikon F2's (and having owned several) & many Nikon and one Canon DSLRs. In its heyday, the F2 ruled. That day is now history.</p>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

<p>Luis,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I write this while currently owning and using two Nikon F2's</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but will anyone still be using a, "D1x, D2-2x, D3-3x", 40 years from now, oops, I mean 40 months from now?</p>

<p>Nice camera, the F2, but I have a couple of questions.</p>

<p>Where do you put the back when loading or unloading the camera? Unlike the Leica bottom plate, it's too big to fit in a shirt pocket.</p>

<p>Where do you find a cable release for that proprietary release button? Or do you just poke and hope when shooting long exposures on a tripod? Do you ever use a tripod?</p>

<p>Where does the flash go?</p>

<p>How do you shoot with your glasses on (if you wear glasses)? High eye relieve took a while to catch on at Nikon.</p>

<p>I could go on. My point is, to paraphrase Will Rogers, "Things ain't as good as they used to be, and they never were."</p>

<p>Edward,</p>

<p>The back hinges on an F2 body and does not require removal to load film.</p>

<p>Dedicated cable releases were ubiquitous in the day and are still readily available on eBay.</p>

<p>Flash mounting does require an AS-1 adapter. I must admit to having misplaced a few of those at just the wrong time.</p>

<p>I wear glasses and never had a problem shooting an F2 because of it.</p>

<p>Thanks for pointing out a pet peeve I have with DSLRs. I had a D200 and traded it back because the viewfinder was junk and I wasn't happy with the manual focus capability. There is no comparison to the the viewfinder on the Nikon F, F2, or even FM / FM2. At some point I'm considering a D3X and the viewfinder is going to be a big criterion in deciding whether I plunk down the pennies.</p>

<p>D700 viewfinder is nice, almost as big as my mamiya 645 viewfinder, minus the dust.</p>

<p>I used an FM2 and an F2 for 25 years before adding a D200/D300. Viewfinder differences didn´t annoy me at all. Getting used to AF, AE, zooming and no winding got most of my attention.</p>

<p>The professional Nikon DSLRs have excellent viewfinders, much larger than the consumer models, and the D3 finder is magnificant - comparable to that of my F3. I have to conciously check the corners - you can't see the whole thing in one glance (although it's all visible, even wearing glasses and using an eye cup).</p>

<p>I have no difficulty with manual focus on my DSLRs, perhaps because I had 40 years of experience before owning a camera with autofocus. I do not need nor want a split-prism "rangefinder" screen, and have replaced them whenever possible with plain or grid screens. Where that's impractical, I find myself focusing and recomposing just to get the rangefinder out of the way. Your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>As mentioned, the viewfinder size and quality are based on a) the level of the camera in the lineup at the time, b) metering abilities, and c) sensor/mirror size.</p>

<p>While there are a lot of film cameras that have great viewfinders, your average AF SLR probably isn't going to be one of them, unless its a single digit F or EOS. Why? More crap up there means the viewfinder needs to shrink to make room. The F5's viewfinder was arguably the same size of the F2, and yet the prism's dimensions were bigger.</p>

<p>All of this is, of course, ignoring the fact that manual focusing is infinitely more accurate on a zoomed live view image than it is on even the best viewfinders. Yes, assuming you're not rushed.</p>

<p>Why are the DSLR viewfinders so crappy?</p>

<p>The question is obviously about the viewfinders only, and I can't understand why some people keep fighting about which camera is better, or more useful ...</p>

<p>why?</p>

<p>1. Cut cost, many finders even use mirrors instead of prism. Cutting cost is for the customers and because of the customers</p>

<p>2. Most users don't use finders for manual focusing anymore</p>

<p>3. Because sensors are not built to be interchangable, users need to replace their digital cameras much more often than their film cameras. Why build it too good if you will have to let it go soon!</p>

<p>Very succinct. Thank you, John.</p>

<p>Y'see, I don't think DSLRs have a shorter lifespan than film cameras. Assuming they're kept in good shape and taken out for a spin at least once or twice a year, the age of the camera has almost nothing to do with its reliability. But since 'film' is essentially free, people shoot way more.</p>

<p>I'd bet good money that if you took 20,000 frames a year with your F3 or your Leica, that'd crap out after a couple years too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd bet good money that if you took 20,000 frames a year with your F3 or your Leica, that'd crap out after a couple years too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be about 550 rolls of 36ex or roughly over $2200 at $4 per roll. Roughly, a d700 and that's not counting the cost of processing...</p>

<p>As one of the moderators here, I'd like to remind everybody that this thread is about viewfinders; in particular why some viewfinders are better than some others.</p>

<p>Please do not turn it into anyother film vs. digital debate. We already have way too many of those debates that have never changed anybody's position.</p>

<p>I have used the Nikkormat FT3, Nion FE, N8008, F4, F5, F100, D100, D2X, D300, D3000, D5000, and all flavors of the D3. I also have a Contax 645 SLR with its much bigger viewfinder, focusing screen and mirror. I have no major issue with any one of those viewfinders. The only really bad Nikon viewfinder I have seen is the one on the D70/D70S and D50. Otherwise, even the penta mirror on the D40 and D3000 is acceptable, certainly not that good, but acceptable.</p>

<p>But clearly it is a big deal for some people.</p>