DSLR Viewfinders

[jack_belen]

Is there a significant difference in viewfinders among the entry-

level DSLRs?

I am asking about things such as, brightness, eyepoint (for eyeglass

wearers), clarity, accuracy, grids, etc.........

Thanks in advance.

[anupam]

I believe the Minolta 7D and the Pentax are better than Canon and Nikon. I expect the Minolta 5D is better too, but am not sure.

[cideway]

pentax *ist DS has a similar view finder to film SLRS, it also has diopter adjustments from +2 to -1 (i think), i wear specs, myself and have had no probs with pentax view finders

[peter_phan]

You can get interchangeable viewfinders for Canon's entry-level DSLR's (Digital Rebel, Digital Rebel XT, as well as 10D, 20D). I have a split-prism focusing screen for my 20D. It's fantastic! Now I can easily manually focus any of my lenses, and it doesn't interfere with autofocus. I got mine here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/screen4DSLR/. Clarity and brightness are very good, but the key is the split-prism and micro-prism circle.

[mark_chappell]

<I>You can get interchangeable viewfinders or Canon's entry-level DSLR's</i><P>

 

Nope. You can -- with some effort -- change focusing screens. WAAAaaay different from

changing the viewfinder itself.

[godfrey]

Regards interchangeable focusing screens, Pentax offers three focusing screens for the

*ist D/DS/DL cameras. Canon does not offer any for their 10D, 20D, 300D or 350XT

models.

 

The Pentax viewfinder is both brighter and higher magnification than the Nikon D70,

Canon 350XT and Olympus E-300. It's about on par in brightness with the Canon 10D

viewfinder, but I find the Pentax focusing screen is easier to use for manual focus. It's also

about on par with the Konica Minolta 7D viewfinder, but I don't have enough experience

with that one to know how well it works for focusing manually.

 

By my measurements with the *ist DS and a 50mm f/1.7 lens, at 20" focusing distance the

framing is approximately 88-90% coverage, where the 10D with a 50mm f/1.4 lens at this

distance nets me 83-85% coverage. (Coverage will be greater at infinity focus, Pentax

quotes 95% coverage with a 28mm lens at infinity.)

 

The eye relief and magnification reminds me most of the Nikon F3hp viewfinder: easy to

see the entire field of view and surrounding readouts with my glasses on, without having

to move my eye around, just filling the field of view. Pentax quotes .95x magnification, I

believe.

 

Godfrey

[40mm]

<i>Pentax offers three focusing screens for the *ist D/DS/DL cameras.</i>

<br><br>

In theory. Trying to find somewhere that actually has them available for sale is another matter entirely.

[dmitriyk]

<i>You can get interchangeable viewfinders for Canon's entry-level DSLR's (Digital Rebel,

Digital Rebel XT, as well as 10D, 20D). I have a split-prism focusing screen for my 20D. It's

fantastic! Now I can easily manually focus any of my lenses, and it doesn't interfere with

autofocus.</i><br>

<br>

It won't interfere with autofocus, as the AF sensors are located in the body, but it might

interfere with metering, as those sensors are located behind the focusing screen. Caveat

emptor...

[godfrey]

They're easily obtained, in the US anyway, from the Pentax USA web store, accessed through

<a href="http://www.pentaximaging.com" target=new>

http://www.pentaximaging.com</a>.

<br><br>

Retailers rarely carry them although they can

order them easily if you prefer to deal with a brick and mortar store.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[peter_phan]

<i>It won't interfere with autofocus, as the AF sensors are located in the body, but it might interfere with metering, as those sensors are located behind the focusing screen. Caveat emptor...</i>

<p>

I haven't noticed much of any effect on metering with the split-prism focusing screen in my 20D. It works great. I highly recommend it. Lots of people have installed split-prism focusing screens in their Canon consumer/prosumer bodies.

[godfrey]

Peter,

 

I'm glad you're enjoying your split image focusing aid in the Canon. I find it quite a

turnabout, however: for nearly forty years, every time I've bought an SLR with one of those

darn microprism or split image rangefinders in it, I had to pay for the pleasure of

removing it and installing a simple, matte-fresnel focusing screen instead.

 

Now that that's what they put in as standard, I'm delighted.

 

Godfrey

[jcuknz]

I suppose you have considered using a rubber eyepiece to shield your glasses from side light?

[peter_phan]

Godfrey, a "simple, matte-fresnel focusing screen" is perfectly fine for autofocus, but it's very poor for manually focusing, especially if you are manually focusing at wide open aperture where the depth of field range is extremely narrow. A split prism screen makes manual focus much faster and more precise. And simple, matte focusing screens are "put in as standard" now because autofocus SLR cameras are standard now.

[godfrey]

<i>.. " a "simple, matte-fresnel focusing screen" is perfectly fine for autofocus, but it's

very poor for manually focusing, especially if you are manually focusing at wide open

aperture where the depth of field range is extremely narrow. A split prism screen makes

manual focus much faster and more precise. And simple, matte focusing screens are "put

in as standard" now because autofocus SLR cameras are standard now." ...</i>

<br><br>

Peter,

<br><br>

Just because an image <b>appears</b> to be focused critically with a split image

rangefinder

doesn't mean it is...

<br><br>

Nikon used to make about 20-30 focusing screens for the F SLR cameras, which were

100% manual focus cameras. These screens had many variations of optical focusing aids ...

split image rangefinders optimized for focal length range and maximum aperture,

microprism aids optimized in similar ways, combinations of the two, as well as more

specialized focusing aids (like clear center with doubled-crosshairs for photomicroscopy

and astrophotography). But they always sold ground glass, fine-ground glass, matte-

ground fresnel and matte ground fresnel with reference grid screens as well.

<br><br>

In the Nikon Handbook, they made a very significant point of saying that focusing aids like

the split prism and microprism were designed to allow rapid, quick focusing with various

lenses and for various purposes, but for *critical* focus the recommendation was always

to use a ground glass or matte-ground fresnel focusing screens, or use the corresponding

matte area outside the focusing aid on screens so equipped.

<br><br>

Focusing aids can make approximate manual focus speedy and "good enough",

particularly if you're stopped down at exposure time, but they are not accurate enough for

true critical focus. Since AF generally provides at least as good performance as a focusing

aid for average focusing needs, and a plain matte field is brighter, has fewer obstructions

to see around when composing, and is better for critical focus, AF SLR bodies normally

have a plain matte focusing screen surface.

<br><br>

I have nearly always changed to a matte-fresnel with reference grid type in virtually

all my SLR cameras since 1968. I find it easier to focus with manually compared to a

screen equipped

with a focusing aid as there is nothing in the way of my seeing the focus transition clearly.

AF suffices for most average picture taking so I usually use manual focus for when I want

to either shoot 'loose' or 'tight'. Technique is important: when I'm in a manual focus mood

and shooting 'loose' with wide

lenses I set focus by scale and use the aperture ring to adjust the sharp zone, when I'm

shooting 'tight' with wide lenses I use a 2x-4x eyepiece magnifier to aid in critical

focusing.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[peter_phan]

Godfrey, I can tell you unequivocably that the split prism focusing screen I have in my 20D makes manually focusing MUCH faster and more accurate than not having it!!! It's no contest. For anyone who wants to do manual focusing with a Canon DSLR, I highly recommend getting a split prism focusing screen. It doesn't interfere with autofocus or metering, and is a pleasure to use. It even makes checking autofocus accuracy much easier.

[peter_phan]

And by the way, I used to use a Canon

<a href="http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2003/07/06-1.html">Magnfier S</a>

 

 

 

on my Canon bodies for critical manual focus accuracy, and I still don't think it's as effective as having a split prism focusing screen.

[godfrey]

<i>... " can tell you unequivocably that the split prism focusing screen I have in my 20D

makes manually focusing MUCH faster and more accurate than not having it!!! It's no

contest. For anyone who wants to do manual focusing with a Canon DSLR, I highly

recommend getting a split prism focusing screen. It doesn't interfere with autofocus or

metering, and is a pleasure to use. It even makes checking autofocus accuracy much

easier." ... </i>

<br><br>

Your insistence and enthusiasm about this convinces me that the Canon 20D focusing

screen is

deficient for manual focusing, that's all. I've no direct experience with it: I have a 10D and

a Pentax *ist DS, both of which I find perfectly satisfactory for manual focusing. The

Pentax screen and viewfinder optics are a bit better, giving a brighter and more contrasty

image.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[p_l_jensen]

"I have a split-prism focusing screen for my 20D. It's fantastic!"

 

It will only be fantastic if the finder is lousy to start with. On a reasonably good viewfinder split prism isn't necessary. In fact, in the manual focus days every single pro (or amateur for that matter) replaced the split image screen with a much more useful matte screen (perhaps with grid).

[peter_phan]

<i>Your insistence and enthusiasm about this convinces me that the Canon 20D focusing screen is deficient for manual focusing, that's all.</i>

<p>

Well, Godfrey, if you find that autofocus matte screens are better for manual focus than a split prism screen, then good for you. But for everyone else who has some difficulty manually focusing on an autofocus screen (which is most people), then the split prism screen is definitely worth looking into. It isn't for nothing that every manual focus 35mm SLR on the market comes with a split prism focusing screen. I'm not sure why you are so dead set against it. It's not like anyone is forcing you to get one. I'm merely pointing out that it's a great option, and solves what many have considered to be the major downside of today's otherwise excellent autofocus SLR cameras-- difficulty of manual focus.

[godfrey]

I changed screens to a matte screen long before there were AF SLRs, Peter. Its my, and

many others', personal preference.

 

SLRs were fitted with screens including optical focusing aids by default due to popular

demand for easier focusing, not more accurate focusing. I have always been more

interested in more accurate focusing, and do not like the distraction that focusing aids

present when I am trying to compose.

 

(On the *ist DS, I also turn off the focus point selection indicator when I'm using a manual

focus lens, as the little red light in the middle of the screen is distracting, gets in the way

of what I'm trying to see.)

 

Godfrey

[joseph_albert]

There are some subjects for which a split-image screen is nice, and others for which it just doesn't work at all. For instance, the split-image focusing aid depends on finding a straight line or edge that you can position in the viewfinder so it runs across the split-image prism. It is not uncommon for this to be impossible. Try to focus on a leaf in dense foliage, or try to focus on a rough-textured plaster wall and you'll see that a split-image focusing aid is totally useless for this purpose. But it gets in the way of trying to focus by assessing the ground glass image.

<p>

And I've never figured out how microprism focusing aids are supposed to help. Half the time, the subject focal plane is in sharp focus in the ground glass when the microprism says it is out of focus. I don't know why this is, but I observe it regularly.

<p>

Split-image focusing aids are also questionable for macro work because lightl-loss to bellows factor often puts the effective aperture at a point where half of the split-image aid goes dark.

<p>

Try to focus on the eyes of a portrait subject and you need the camera to be vertical so the split-image assesses horizontal lines, but then if you plan to shoot a horizontal format image you have to re-rotate the camera and it may end up a different distance from the subject if you are shooting handheld, not to mention you'll miss candid shots rotating the camera back and forth.

<p>

a plain matte screen makes the most sense for an AF SLR because in the cases where split-image focusing aid is useful, AF works fine. In situations where AF is problematic, a split-image focusing screen often fails to work as well.