Viewfinder Size : Nikon D2x.

I'm finally going digital after many years of 35mm & 645/6x7.

 

I currently own both Nikon & Canon lenses for 35mm (don't ask why)

and so the two cameras I'm looking out for are the D2x or 1ds mk2.

 

I'm a fashion/portrait photographer and 90 percent of my paid

assignments are indoors in my studio. I mostly shoot at ISO 100 or

160 and never go above 400, so high ISO noise isn't an issue for me.

This is why I'm leaning towards the D2x. I lot of my peers who use

Canon 1ds mk2's, 5d's, d1x's and Leaf 22mp backs say the d2x give

better skin tones than what they use. Some even go as far as saying

that if they could turn back time, they'd get a D2x.

 

I have no problem with the 1.5 crop factor and I like the idea of

using the centre portion of the lens (just makes sense). My only

worry is the viewfinder size of APS type slr's. I love the viewfinder

on my F6. I tried a friend's Eos 5d the other day and like the

viewfinder also. I absolutely hate the viewfinders on the d70, S3pro,

and 10d/20d/350d!

 

How large is the D2x viewfinder compared with my F6 or 1ds mk2/5d? My

camera store doesn't have one in stock at the moment, thet's why I'm

posting this question.

 

Thanx in advance. Cheerz!

 

Merry X-Mas and a Happy New Year.

The D2X viewfinder is very good, it's got good bite to it but it's not as big as the one in your F6. You need to try it out in person to see if you can be happy with it.

F6 eyepoint 18mm,

coverage 100%,

magnification 0.74x.

 

D2x eyepoint 19.9mm,

coverage 100%,

magnification 0.86x.

 

The above would lead me to believe that the D2x will be even easier to see assuming equal brightness of image since it has better eye relief and higher magnification.

That's like saying a 36" TV is easier to see than a 50" at equal distance because you only watch sitcoms.

 

Tell you what Harvey, get an F6, shove a cardboard mask in it that covers 30% of the frame, then tell me it's easier to see.

Scott, Gan said, "I have no problem with the 1.5 crop factor and I like the idea of using the centre portion of the lens (just makes sense)".

 

Your off topic since we all know Nikon ain't makin FF dslr's. You and I would both like Nikon to offer one but they are not listenning to us.

 

On the topic, what you see is what you get in the D2x finder and its large and clear. I have the d70 and it has a POS rinky dink finder but thats not because of the 1.5x crop factor.

 

The D2x finders shows everything you will get in the picture and guys with glasses will not have trouble seeing thru viewfinder. I wear glasses and the finder display is easy on the eyes.

I've looked through the D2x viewfinder at my local shop, and while it's pretty easy to manual focus, it is definitely smaller and more cramped than the finder on an F series Nikon or the likes of the Canon 1DsMkII. Only you will be able to decide if you can live with it or not.

I think Scott is on topic because, as I think he is saying somewhat obliquely, most people don't know how to read viewfinder specs, and most manufacturers quote the specs in a way that is deliberately misleading.

 

Unless I'm missing something big, physics dictates that no DSLR with a 1.5x, 1.6x, or 1.7x lens factor can have a viewfinder that is both as big and as bright as a DSLR or SLR with a 1.0x (or 1.3x) factor. You have only so much area in which to collect the light. How much light gets there depends on the lens (its maximum aperture etc.). All else being equal (not that it always is), FF has a big advantage.

 

Here's the thing: back in the day of 35mm SLR's, viewfinder magnification was quoted with a 50mm lens. Well, that makes sense, because a 50mm lens is a "normal" (actually, just slightly long) lens for 35mm, so it gives a perspective that (in apparent spatial relationships, at least) looks normal.

 

Now when you say the viewfinder has, say, 0.75x magnification, it means that the field of view looks 0.75x as large as it does to the naked eye. But wait--how big it looks in the viewfinder depends on how long the lens it. Longer lens = higher magnification, shorter lens = lower magnification. So a viewfinder magnification spec is meaningless unless it includes the length of lens with which it gives that magnification.

 

Now many DSLR viewfinder magnification specs also use 50mm lenses. But of course, if you have a 1.53x lens factor on that DSLR, like the Nikon, KonicaMinolta, and Pentax DSLR's do, that 50mm lens gives the same magnification (and field of view) as a 77mm lens on a full-frame camera.

 

So if the F6 gives 0.74x magnification of full frame with a 50mm lens, to get the equivalent field of view on the D2x, you need a 33mm lens, which would give you an effective magnification of 0.86x / 1.53 = 0.56x. In other words, if you select lenses for the F6 and the D2x so that each camera has the same field of view, the viewfinder image in the D2x will be only 0.76x as big as the one in the F6 (0.56 / 0.74 = 0.76).

 

Am I missing something? Or is it that many photo.netters have missed something, when they want to compare DSLR viewfinder specs based on 50mm lenses with 35mm SLR viewfinder specs based on 50mm lenses?

 

IMHO, the viewfinder is one of the big reasons to want full frame, and no Nikon wizardry with the D2x (or D3x or any other 1.5x factor DSLR) can change that. No?

If you want the size, brightness and depth of field to match what you see on your F6, you need a full frame digital SLR. The 5D is a great camera for the money. You can even use your Nikon glass in manual focus aperture priority with an adapter.

 

The skin tones on a 5D can be tweeked by setting some in camera variables or shooting RAW and tweeking the RAW converter.

 

Ron Purdy is a New York fashion photographer and he loves his 5D.

 

See http://www.ronpurdy.com/ for his work.

Although the D2X viewfinder is somewhat smaller then that of a film 35mm

camera, it's more then sufficient for any type of photography

 

I have a number of film 35mm Nikon's (including a F2AS with a H-type view

screen) and a couple of D1 series DSLR's and switch between them

comfortably

 

The D2X/D2H viewfinder is even better (have worked with the D2X), and the

D200 is reportedly on par with the D2X/D2H

 

The D50/D70 on the other hand is a whole different story. In the past I thought

about buying one but after I visited my camera shop and took one look to that

viewfinder my decision was made: not for me ..

 

But try get on hands on a D2H/D2X and decide for yourself, rather then risk

getting in the middle of yet another brand A vs brand B discussion