Quality of modern SLR viewfinders - now I know what people are complaining about!

[jaco_van_tonder]

Being a recent entrant to the photography world (4 years), I've

never really played with any of the old manual-everything bodies of

the 60's and 70's. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to take

some photos with a Pentax K2 and 50 f1.4 lens - Boy what an

experience!

 

The highlight of playing with the toy of yesteryear however, was the

absolute stunning viewfinder on the K2. First observation: The

viewfinder is HUGE compared to my Canon 10D and Elan 7E - It's like

the difference between watching a movie on a TV and in a cinema on

wide-screen! And it is a lot brighter - even compared to my 10D with

a 50mm F.14 mounted - I guess it has something to do with the K2's

mirrror that is much bigger than my modern Canon's.

 

This obviously begs the question - why are we stuck with such bad

viewfinders on modern cameras? Is it because they are using smaller

mirrors to reduce mirror induced vibrations and allow faster shutter

speeds?

 

Regards,

Jaco

[laurent_duchamp_de_lagenes]

Try... money?

Bigger viewfinder=more expensive.

Shutter speeds have nothing to do with it (the shutter still has to travel the same length no matter what you see in the viewfinder).

[leslie_cheung]

try a rangefinder.

[majid]

Most modern SLR mirrors are partially silvered, to allow some light to reach the meter cell located behind it. I doubt this reduces luminosity that much. Probably one big reason is that the better viewfinder is one of the few features manufacturers can use to differentiate a high-end model from midrange. Have a look through a 1D viewfinder, you will understand what I mean.

 

Luminosity is not the only way viewfinders have regressed - magnification and 100% frame coverage are the others. I have a Nikon F3 and two Leica Ms, the 10D's viewfinder is outright claustrophobia-inducing, as well as practically useless for manual focusing (the main reason I haven't bought a 45mm TS-E yet).

 

Why are we stuck with inferior viewfinders? Apathetic customers and cost-cutting spring to mind.

[panos_voudouris]

The mirror on a manual SLR reflects all the light up to the pentaprism and then in your eye it goes. The mirror on an auto-focus SLR reflects part of it while some of the light is let through the mirror into the AF sensor. Usually this is something like 70-60% to the pentaprism, 30-40% to the AF sensor. So you get less than 3/4 of the light that the lens lets through. This is a tradeoff, the more light that goes into the AF sensor the better the AF but the dimmer the viewfinder and vice-versa.

 

Also, the lens focuses the light onto an area that is the size of the film or the digital sensor. So the mirror can only be as big as that. A 10D will have a smaller sensor than a 35mm piece of film, hence there is a smaller mirror on a it. The smaller area means you need to magnify it more to get the same view as your Elan 7. That means either spreading the light over a larger area (say to make it as big as the Elan7) but having a dimmer view or keeping the same brightness but magnifying less, hence a smaller viewfinder.

 

So, compared to a manual camera, an autofocus camera loses a lot of light for the AF sensor and then a digital camera loses ever more due to the smaller size of the mirror.

 

Finally, some cheaper SLRs, like the 300 and 300D use a penta-mirror instead of a penta-prism. This does the same job as the pentaprism, is lighter, smaller, cheaper to construct but a bit dimmer.

 

More expensive AF SLRs like the 1V have brighter viewfinders because they have larger and better pentaprisms and because less light is used for AF due to the more advanced sensors, hence more light being reflected up to the viewfinder.

[kurt_radtke]

I just bought a Minolta clone in Shanghai (Seagull DF-1000A), new for less than 90 Euro. A cheapie, by all accounts, yet it has a beautiful clear large viewfinder like most Minolta SLRs. My conclusion: cost cutting is not necessarily the problem.

[andrew_hall1]

>I guess it has something to do with the K2's mirrror that is much bigger than my modern Canon's.

 

That's part of the reason. THe 10D has a small (relative to 135 format) sensor hence the small mirror. AF cameras also have focusing screens optimized for brightness but those on manual focus models have better contrast for easier manual focusing. A higher eyepoint (like recent models) also means a smaller finder image.

 

Also many SLRs now don't have a pentaprism in the finder - instead they have mirrors arranged in the shape of a prism, thanks to bean-counters, resulting in a dimmer finder image.

 

In this respect, a rangefinder isn't necessary better. The finder of my Aria with a 50mm lens mounted is brighter and easier to focus than my M6TTL.

[leslie_cheung]

I recently look through a pentax istD which have the same

sensor size as the d70 yet the vf is much bigger than the d70.

What's up with that?

[leslie_cheung]

...and the pentax is also in the price range of the d70 and not the

d1/2 series. hmmm....

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Careful, Jaco. Older cameras are addictive. Many are great values with lenses that are as good, or better, than current lenses.

 

I now own a Contax IIIA rangefinder, Contaflex Super B SLR, Minolta Autocord medium format TLR, Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 645, and a few other old cameras. I found that I liked older cameras so much that I sold my modern camera, a Contax N1. My newest camera that I really use was built in the mid-1960's.

 

You might also want to look at rangefinders. The lenses can be stellar and they can be focused very accurately. I'd suggest starting with an inexpensive Japanese compact rangefinder, such a a Canonet, to see if you like rangefinders. They have some advantages - very quiet shutters, compact, nice lenses. Limitations are imprecise framing at close distance and limited lense selection. See the following link for more info.

 

http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm

[panos_voudouris]

Are older cameras really that better? The viewfinder on my Praktica LB2 is rubbish compared to the one on my Elan 7. It is even worse than the viewfinder of the Rebel 2000 (which isn't that bad after all).

 

By the way, comparing a manual camera with a 50/1.4 on it with a 10D and a f/4-5.6 zoom on it is not exactly a fair comparison. The lens aperture has a dramatic effect as it controls how much light you get to begin with. A f/4 lens will be 8 times dimmer than that 50/1.4.

[franka t.l.]

The fact is most of today's SLR or DSLR had a smaller covergae and smaller Mag Ratio on their Viewfinder than most older ( but qualioty ) SLR bodies. There also exist the fact that AF body require part of the light to goto the AF sensor instead of feeding them to the Focusing screen. DSLR had another altogether different problem, the actual focsuing screen ( related to the sensor size ) is in itself already too small.

 

Combine all these facts and its no wonder good old Film SLR viewfinder can almost always beat todays AF SLR or DSLR's

[lachaine]

I had a Pentax K2 in the mid-1970s. I remember that time well. It was a period in which each manufacturer's new model had to outdo the other guy's in terms of viewfinder brightness. Cameras were bought or not bought based on it. It truly was a make or break spec. Today, reviewers talk about autofocus speed, frame rate of the motorized advance, etc. In the 1970's, the big thing with SLR's was the viewfinder. Today, the viewfinder's quality seems to be secondary to all the high-tech wizardy. The K2 itself was a great camera, but as I recall, it never really stuck in the market because it wasn't "pro" enough while at the same time being too expensive as a "consumer" camera. People who bought a Pentax generally bought a K1000 or a KM, not a K2. Then, it was superceded by the M series (Pentax MX). In those days, smaller was also "better. Olympus was the darling of the magazines then, and it had the brightest viewfinders and the smallest bodies. By the way, Pentax at the time was never winning the viewfinder brightness wars. It was always a step behind Olympus.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Oddly it's something that never bothered me when i went to a digital SLR (300D)

<BR>I'm not sure why not

[laurent_duchamp_de_lagenes]

Leslie: now you know why I just bought a Pentax *istDs (more in the price range of the 300D than the D70)!

Glass pentaprism with x0.95 magnification: very good thing if you want to be able to manually focus you 85mm f1.4!

[laurent_duchamp_de_lagenes]

BTW: Many thanks Mr. Pentax for this one! Now, could you move to USM lenses?

[richard_oleson]

If it's of any interest, Jaco, the K2's finder was not exceptionally large or bright in its day, it was about average.....

[peter_werner1]

> I remember that time well. It was a period in which each manufacturer's new model had to outdo the other guy's in terms of viewfinder brightness.

 

Look at a modern Leica R8/R9 or an older Leicaflex SL. Leica still believes in viewfinder size and brightness.

[bacsa]

Today, customers seem to care about weight, frame/second rate, AF speed, number of metering segments etcetc. way more than viewfinder quality. So manufacturers are doing the same and one of the most important element in an SLR gets ignored, reduced in size, quality, and is doomed to darkness. This is quite ironic, since the whole idea of a single-lens reflex camera was to SEE EXACTLY what you will get on the image.

 

And then we wonder why did that Thing in the background end up on the picture...while we are So Sure it was not there in the viewfinder.

[chris_chow]

I wouldn't hope for USM from Mr. Pentax. That's asking too much. I only hope for a better raw software with the *istDS.

[mike_elek]

<i>Look at a modern Leica R8/R9 or an older Leicaflex SL. Leica still believes in viewfinder size and brightness.</i><p>

 

Sadly, they are the exception and not the rule today.<P>

 

Yes, I remember the mid-1970s, sort of the heyday of the manual SLR and the beginning of the curve for the electronic cameras led by the plastic-bodied AE-1.<P>

 

There was a big emphasis on viewfinder coverage and brightness -- who could get closest to 100% finder coverage. I have to say that the Nikon F2A was nearly perfect for me. Shutter speeds, aperture and a small meter needle. I've always preferred a swinging needle over LEDs because I got a better sense of under or overexposure. I know LEDs are probably cheaper and aren't subject to damage, but they just don't feel the same.<P>

 

We went from the 1950s and 1960s of having little or no information in the viewfinder to using small microscopes to project the aperture in the viewfinder to more information to the left, right, above and below the viewfinder area to today's blitz of information that displays focus points, flash status, shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation -- all to the detriment of viewing the scene in front of you.<P>

 

I'd like to be able to see scrolling text messages from my mobile phone via Bluetooth. Seriously though, there is a point where we take technology too far.<P>

 

In the 1980s, some of the GM divisions decided to put all of the radio buttons and climate controls onto the steering wheel. Good in concept but not in use. The steering wheel ended up looking more like a computer keyboard.<P>

 

Some automakers have gone back to simple knobs and switches.<P>

[pvp]

<I><B>This obviously begs the question - why are we stuck with such bad viewfinders on modern cameras?</B></I><P>

Basic economics, I think.<P>

 

Better camera costs more to make, so mfgr raises price, sells fewer cameras, makes same profit as before.<P>

 

Cheaper camera obviously less to make, but mfgr charges same (or higher) price while advertising "new and improved," sells more cameras, makes huge windfall profit.<P>

 

Manufacturers are always, and must be (to survive,) looking for ways to reduce their cost to produce the product. As long as consumers swallow every downgrade with no more than a silent whimper, the new anti-features become permanent. One of the problems, IMO, is that once a person gets his/her kit in order, many of us don't consider new cameras for many years at a time. The result is that the primary customers for new stuff are newbie fotogs, meaning they are simply unaware that their new stuff just isn't as good as last year's.<P>

 

In years (long) gone by, individual or family-owned companies had to produce the best product they could to stay in business. Now, in a corporate world, the stockholder is the one who counts, and the company mantra is to separate consumers from as many of our dollars as possible, at the least cost to the company. IOW, they only make a product as good as they absolutely have to. Those companies that do make a top flight product, also make the cheapo's and price the high-end line accordingly.<P>

 

Sorry, there I go ranting again. Oh, well; nobody's convinced me that my theories are wrong yet...

[mike_elek]

Alan, you're right in so many ways. It's all about the corporation's bottom line. Gone is company loyalty to its employees and an employee's loyalty to the company.

 

Profit is the overriding motive, and it's really driven by the professional traders who focus on earnings made or missed by a penny. It's the worst kind of micromanagement.

 

That's working its way down the ranks, where managers want to try to control each and every move of their subordinates.

 

When I worked at The Wall Street Journal Online, our group was taken over by consultants. That's right -- a newspaper operation run by consultants(!) who'd never come up with an original idea in their life and still haven't. Their idea of solving the budget was to simply cut staff.

 

They have no vision, no idea of long-term profitability, other than a price hike and no thought of how to grow the market. The man who created the product was sent to a corner office and stripped of his duties. At that point, he would leave early to golf -- and the dimwits who ran the operation were so busy kissing the ass off the division VP they never noticed.

 

The second in command, who'd been with the company for 27 years as a very loyal editor, was given a job with no real duties. Oh yeah, he helped arrange for hotel rooms during 9/11.

 

By the time the axe fell on me, they had laid off my circulation, marketing and advertising assistance. Then I was supposed to report every freaking movement I made. Everything had to be cleared through New York. They would throw e-mail comments made months ago back into my face.

 

What use was there in keeping me around? Great product -- a bunch of back-stabbing, ass-kissing, micromanaging corporate know-nothings running the show. Bitter grapes? Hell yes.

 

Now, that's my rant.

[andrew_hall1]

>I recently look through a pentax istD which have the same sensor size as the d70 yet the vf is much bigger than the d70. What's up with that?

 

Because the D70 has longer eye relief/eyepoint (though it's not always a good thing)?

 

>Profit is the overriding motive, and it's really driven by the professional traders who focus on earnings made or missed by a penny.

 

This is so true and especially evident in the camera industry. Nikon (formerly Nippon Kogaku) began on the slippery slope back in the 1980s. (I remember the old days when everything it made was professional grade and the price premiums at least had some justification.) Now it's just another brand but still carries higher prices than equivalent products most of the time.

 

Even the stratospheric (price-wise) Leica cut corners such that usability and durability are affected. Some recent models have a plastic frame counter/gear that easily breaks. Two small, inexpensive and certainly NOT PRECISION parts were taken out of the M4-2 to M6 finders, resulting in flare that often makes it impossible to focus in bright conditions. And you can often hear horror stories in the Leica forum about how brand-new stuff have QC problems right out of the box.

 

More often than not, lower manufacturing costs only translate into higher profit margins, faster obsolescence and less durability (to keep you buying every few years), and prices are not correspondingly cheaper either.

[andrew_hall1]

>The K2 itself was a great camera, but as I recall, it never really stuck in the market because it wasn't "pro" enough while at the same time being too expensive as a "consumer" camera.

 

Still, the K2 was Pentax's flagship - just look at the specs. But of course Pentax wasn't consider a "pro" brand at all - Nikon (and to a much lesser extent, Canon) was THE Pro's choice. THE defining feature of Pro models was interchangeable finders.