Nikon D70 VS D100 viewfinder for manual focus???

[david_hay1]

Hello all,

 

I have a D70 and find the viewfinder very small, especially for manual focus

lenses.

I have never looked through a D100 or D200 viewfinder can anybody comment on

the viewfinders of these cameras compared to the D70

 

Thanks

David

[klix]

Can't comment on the D100.

 

The D200's viewfinder is much brighter than the D70.

 

If you stick with the D70, a possible option might be to get a Katz Eye focusing screen. I have one on my D200 and it really helps with focusing manually.

 

KL

[mawz]

The D100 viewfinder sucks just as much as the D70's.

 

Get a DK-21M for your D70 will do more good than getting a D100. A D200 won't suck.

[ShunCheung]

The D100's viewfinder is a bit better than the D70's, and the D200's is a lot better. Beyond that, you need to look through them yourself to get a more definite answer.

 

As far as manual focusing goes, I have difficulty unless I have a split-screen focusing aide as on many manual-focus SLRs. I tried Yaron's Zeiss 50mm/f1.4 ZF on my D2X and I found that hopeless. That is where the KatzEye type screen mentioned above helps.

 

On my Contax 645, whose focusing screen is like 3 times as large as those on 35mm film SLRs, I have the same problem and ordered a split screen, which is an option on the Contax, for that purpose.

 

Your eyesight may vary, though.

[joseph_smith3]

I have the D 200 and use it with manual focus lenses as well as AF lenses. I use a 500mm mf lens a lot with teleconverters and macro lenses all in manual focus modes. I tried to use the 500mm P lens w/o tcs on the D 70 and gave up because the viewfinder was not "clear" enough for accurate focusing.It reminded me of a rangefinder viewfinder from the 1950s. It was bright enough on the day I tried it. This problem is not a problem on the D 200. It is very clear and allows for accuratge focusing even if you wear glasses like I do. And forget about seeing the spot in the viewfinder to tell you that you are in focus. Yes, you can see it; however, IMO it does not always indicate accurate let alone sharp focus critcal for nature work. This is true for the D 200 as well as the D 70. I have never looked thru the D 100 so I cannot comment on that camera. Joe Smith

[david_hay1]

OK thanks everyone!

[hique]

I also think the D70 too small. It's the worst DSLR viewfinder I've ever seen. The D100, 10D, 20D are somewhat better. The D200 is much better but still no match to film SLR viewfinders.

 

I think manual focus is a little painfull with the D200 and completely impossible with the D70

 

Cheers

[vinh]

the D100 is supposed to have a slightly better viewfinder, just as small as the D70, but has higher eyepoint.

 

between the two bodies, the D70 is better though, so i'd go with a D70. if you want to manually focus, don't trust your eyes, use the electronic rangefinder--that focusing dot that lights up when something is in focus.

[studor13]

Is the DK-21M good enough for close-up work or is it better to just go for the Katz-eye on a D70? At the moment if I focus manually, and if miss the focus by just a mm or two then the shot is wasted. I need something that is dead accurate.

[photo5]

So I guess a better viewfinder means you'll take a better photo? Not really. I like my F3HP viewfinder much more than the D70s, but it doesn't mean I take much better photos with the F3HP than I do with the D70s.

 

Really, there are so many dozens of posts on this forum saying "The viewfinder on the D70 is too small". It's meaningless. I've used cameras with worse viewfinders and taken excellent photos.

 

Some of you who complain about the viewfinder in the D70 should try shooting 4x5 with a 90mm lens. It's *upside down* and you can't ever see the whole frame without a loupe and dark cloth on your head. I'll take the conveinance D70 viewfinder over than any day, thank you.

 

:-)

 

Dave

[ShunCheung]

Dave Lee: Please stop debating about the viewfinder in the D70/D70s. That issues has already been discussed to no end since the D70's introduction in February, 2004 and is very much an individual preference.

 

As I have mentioned a couple of times, Yaron was kind enough to let me use his Zeiss 50mm/f1.4 ZF. I tried it on my D2X and simply could not foucs that lens. The focus confirmation dot is on for a fairly wide range and therefore useless. The D2X is an AF body and, at least for me, not suitable for manual focusing. I ended up with a bunch of out-of-focus images from the 50mm ZF. Yaron himself had the same problem with his D200 until he put on a KatzEye screen.

 

Meanwhile, I have had a D100 since the summer of 2002. For over a year nobody ever mentioned that its viewfinder was an issue, and that certainly never crossed my mind as I use AF exclusively. But then when the D70 was introduced in early 2004, the viewfinder suddenly became THE issue.

 

If you wonder whether the quality of a viewfinder and screen can affect the quality of your final image, the answer is definitely.

[david_h._hartman]

David Hay,<br>

<br>

My advice is sit tight with the D70 unless you can afford the D200.

If at all possible try out the D200 in person.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>So I guess a better viewfinder means you'll take a

better photo? Not really. --Dave Lee<br>

</em><br>

Dave you must be an f/8 and be there photographer. There is

nothing wrong with that but sometimes critical focus is required.<br>

<br>

When shooting fast primes wide open, macro or super telephotos a

better viewfinder can make a critical difference. Also seeing the

expression on a persons face is most important to candid

photography of people. You have to anticipate the coming

expression. If you cant see the persons face clearly

due to a small and less than crisp viewfinder how do you do that?<br>

<br>

Rather than making statements that are not true why not qualify

what you say by saying a better viewfinder is not important to me.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Contrary to statements Ive made in the past the D100

viewfinder has a 0.8x magnification and an Optical fixed

pentaprism. The D70 & D70s has a 0.75x viewfinder and a

Fixed-eyelevel penta-Dach-mirror. These difference

have to make some difference. It was not until I was able to

download a manual that I found the D100 had a 0.8x viewfinder

rather than a 0.75x viewfinder.<br>

<br>

I would have to compare a D100 and D70(s) side by side to make a

call. The D200 with its 0.95x viewfinder would be a no brainer

for me. I might prefer a KatzEye viewing screen or similar. Like

the D100 the D200 has an, Optical fixed eye-level

pentaprism.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

My vision is so, so uncorrected but its 20/15 though my

latest glasses. Im very careful in stetting up my cameras

diopter adjustment. For me the object is to have the eyepiece set

so my shooting eye need not make any focus adjustments to see the

focus screen clearly at the apparent 1 meter distance. I want to

raise the camera to my eye and see clearly instantly.<br>

<br>

I do notice that the D2H viewfinder is not quite up to par with

the F5 and F3 for macro photography. This is mostly under low

ambient light such as table top photography using modeling lamps.

I sorely miss the availability of the 6x, high magnification

viewfinders. Otherwise the D2H viewfinder was a pleasant surprise

as I expected that it would be less useful compared to the F100s

viewfinder. The D2H viewfinder seems a bit crisper though smaller

than the F100 and so its pretty much a wash.<br>

<br>

Nikons premium AF models have very good viewfinders but the

smooth texture of focus screens can cause focus problems for very

fast lenses. Bjorn Rorslett notes that he uses his F2 Titan for

super speed lenses. This is a physical property of the focus

screen.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

When the D100 was first released a friend ordered one. When it

became evident that it would not be delivered for some time he

canceled the order and order a Fuji S2 which he received shortly.

The first thing I noticed was the very small viewfinder. This was

not totally unexpected but also something of a rude surprise in

practice. It was fun to shoot and see the image instantly on the

LDC. However this let me know Id have to wait a while

longer to buy my first DSLR.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

There is a strong tendency for folks to defend the camera they

own. Some will note that I defend the D2H and even its 4.1MP

but I know at times its a problem. With a 35mm camera and

Tri-X there is a limit to the cropping one can do. Put the same

Tri-X in a 6x6 or 6x7 camera and there is considerable freedom to

crop. I dont own a D2X but I figure if technique is tight Id

find a comparison between the D2H and D2X to be similar to 35mm v.

6x6.<br>

<br>

Being objective, the reason I own a D2H and not a D2X is the D2H

cost $3,000.00 dollars less at the time I bought. For most of my

photography Id be better off with a D2X. There are times where I wish I had a 100 ISO setting like the D2X or even 50 ISO. With the D2H im stuck with 200.

[photo5]

Shun Cheung, don't tell me what I can and can't debate on this forum please. I have as

much a right as you do to post here.

 

I make excellent photos with the D70s. I've got good enough eyesight to see critical focus

through that viewfinder. Some people on this forum may not. That's OK, get a Katz Eye

magnifier or spend your extra thousand dollars and get the D200.

 

It's a dead and buried discussion and it's boring. People seem to think, gee, if I spend

more I'll be a better photographer. It isn't necessarily true.

 

If you want to see bad viewfinders, look at any and all of the EVF digital SLR cameras out

there. There are some very popular models selling for $1,000. These viewfinders for the

most part are inferior to the D70s and D50 viewfinders. I used a Canon Pro1 with one of

these for a long time. Believe me, the D70s is a real relief to use compared to that EVF.

The only thing I miss from the EVF is the ability to see an instant review through the

viewfinder of the image you just captured. No big loss though for me.

 

Dave

[ShunCheung]

Dave and Dave (Lee and Hartman), the D70 viewfinder issue has been beaten to death in the last 2+ years. Both of you already have multiple opportunities to express your opinions. If the two of you would like to continue debating it, please take it to private e-mail. Since I moderatet this forum, I will make this kind of suggestions occasionally.

[photo5]

Shun,

 

This is what I was saying in my post, it's a dead issue. I'm glad to see you agree. Let's

hope it is never brought up again on this forum.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[david_h._hartman]

I can recommend the Nikon FE2 if you use flash and the FM2n if

not. The FE2 is about 90% of the FM3a (unless your batteries go

dead). Actually the FM3a is miss named for marketing reason as it

is based directly on the FE2.<br>

<br>

I dont care for the meter display on the F3 but the F3 (DE-2

Prism) is my favorite Nikon viewfinder. The FE2 and FM2n are

easier to focus on the matte surface but over all viewfinder

comfort favors the F3. If you have trouble seeing the whole focus

screen there is always the F3HP with a 25mm of eye relief. The F3

is not the best choice if you use flash much as attaching the

flash is clumsy and the flash sync speed is just 1/80th. Like the

FM2n I favor this camera when using fast primes rather than zooms

and flash. I tend to use a Pentax Digital Spotmeter or aperture

preferred auto exposure with the F3.<br>

<br>

If you are sensitive to weight the F3 weighs just 746g with a 1"

nylon strap and batteries. The FM2n weighs just 571g. Both of

these are lighter than an F100 loaded with lithium batteries. The

F3HP weighs in at 790g with strap and batteries. I prefer the

weight of the F3 to that of the FE2 and FM2n. The camera is

better balanced with most lenses. If I want to go very small and

light I'll select the FM2n without a two or three primes or two

primes and one zoom .<br>

<br>

The FE2 and FM2n have a better weight and balance with the MD-12

but I've been totally spoiled by the F3 with MD-4. The MD-4 is a

little quieter than and F5 or F100 and so much quieter than an MD-12.

I'm now tempted to wear ear plugs with the MD-12. I think the FE2

with MD-12 puts out about 80 dB (Im not checking). The F3

with MD-4 is something like 64 dB as I recall. Anyway its

quite noticeable with the camera to ones face.<br>

<br>

It's a buyer market on film bodies so go crazy!<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Its an expensive and hard to find lens but its hard

to beat a 25~50/4.0 AI or AIS Zoom-Nikkor. Surprisingly this lens

performs very well on digital cameras. Bjorn Rorslett rates this

lens 4.5 on the F4 & F5 and 4.5~5.0 on the D2X.<br>

<br>

A crisp rendition extends into the depth-of-field zone to

make this an excellent choice for landscape photography. In fact,

this was my preferred lens against modern zooms for this very

application. --BR<br>

<br>

Compared to most zooms, the 25-50 is very resistant to

flare and ghosting is kept to low levels whenever the front

element is carefully cleaned. --BR<br>

<br>

A great lens that is sold cheap on the second-hand market.

My F2 Titan would be naked without this zoom lens. --BR<br>

<br>

Im afraid the internet has pushed the price up but perhaps

this lens still sell cheap on eBay.<br>

<br>

The last version of the 80~200/4.5 AI and the 80~200/4.0 AIS are

great performing zooms. Do note that the focus ring turns about

270 degrees on the 80~200/4.0 AIS making it easy to focus

accurately but more difficult to focus on a subject that is

moving towards you. The 75~150/3.5 Series-E is often recommended

and is an excellent performer. The zoom is usually loose but you

deal with it for the optics.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[allen_lee5]

For split focusing screen, KE is not the only option, there are few other vendors around, you may try other split focusing screen vendor who based on Singapore but much cheaper.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=203351