D 200 viewfinder :is this just marketing hype ?

[herve_laurent]

Hello there,

I have read and there the reviews about the Nikon d200 and there is something I read here

and there that does not seem to make any sense. That camera is getting big praise about

the size of its viewfinder. Some of the reviews even state that this viewfinder equals that of

the best 35mm SLR's making therefore full frame less of a likelihood. Depending on the

reviews, the D200 is credited with a 94% or 95% magnification and a 95% coverage.

I pass on the fact that such numbers do not even make the D200 with the largest

viewfinder of Digital DSLR's since cameras released two years ago such as the Pentax ist D

and Ds reach the same numbers

More importantly, I have this question ; with 95% magnification and 95% coverage on a APS

size camera , how could the viewfinder not be significantly smaller than one of a 35mm

camera. In other words, if There is a 35 mm camera with the same magnification and field

coverage ratios, I would expect the viewfinder to be 1.5 time the size of a DSLR with a 1.5

crop factor.

I am missing something. This question is important to me since in my mind this is one of

the reasons why I have not made the move to digital. I think in camera reviews , people

tend to forget that the viewing experience influence the composition in a big way that

makes for better pictures

please I would like your feedback

[godfrey]

The D200's viewfinder spec is indeed virtually identical to that of the Pentax *ist D/DS

models. Comparing them side by side, they are both excellent. I find the magnification,

brightness, eye relief and focusing tooth for manual focus to be spot on.

 

Reading about wanting "bigger bigger brighter" etc is yet another bit of nonsensical

windmill tilting from people who don't understand that these are not 35mm cameras. They

are a smaller format camera than a 35mm camera. In similar comparison, a 6x6cm SLR

viewfinder is stunningly larger and brighter than that of a 35mm film SLR. Comparing SLR

viewfinder optics across formats is always going to be this way. Don't expect the laws of

physics to change.

 

It's certainly true that the D200 and *ist DS viewfinders are a healthy step above the

DRebel and D70s. That's a fair comparison since you're comparing like format optical

systems. They're likely as good as you're going to get given the size of the format, unless

someone builds a 16x24mm format SLR with a 100% coverage viewfinder setup.

 

Godfrey

[andrew robertson]

I think the whining about viewfinder size is hilarious. I wear glasses and hardly notice the

difference between my EOS 1n's finder and my 10D's finder.

 

It's really not such a big deal, especially if you remove the rubber eyecup to get closer to the

finder. However, there are always people who will find a way to bitch and moan about small

niggling details, which they foolishly let get in the way of their photography.

[anupam]

Well, having tried to focus at near 1:1 with the D70, I don't think it's a small detail at all. I am not saying I need 35mm viewfinder, but certainly something that lets me get the work done.

[godfrey]

Buy yourself a viewfinder magnification accessory for macro work. I use both the Olympus

VariMagni with 1.2x and 2.4x magnification options and the Pentax Magnifier FB 2x

magnifier which work very well to improve critical focusing when doing high magnification

work.

 

Godfrey

[chris_leck]

If possible, I'd suggest that you go down to your local camera store and look through a D200 to see if you like it or not. That's what I think you are missing.

[andrew robertson]

An angle finger is a hell of a lot cheaper than a new DSLR, if you need one. I like it, but it's

not necessary even at 1:1.

[alan_chan4]

To put it simple, 0.95x viewfinder on DSLR is the same as 0.95x viewfinder on film SLR. What I mean is, if you mount a 24mm lens on both cameras, the magnification of the viewing images are identical. The only difference is that with DSLR, the edges are being masked/cropped so the viewing image appears smaller. And it's true that Nikon were just making a big fuss on magnification as Pentax D/DS/DS2 have 0.95x viewfinders much earlier, just like Nikkor 'D' which was released years after Pentax lenses.

[jcuknz]

Surely if there is a 1.6 crop then to get 95% viewing the image will be smaller than a full frame ... ie 95% of 22x19mm [or whatever] vis 95% of 36x24. Or does the 95% refer to how big the image is to the eye when the same image is viewed without a camera in front of the face? I once had an R/F camera with an optical finder which was 1:1 and I could work with both eyes open. Is that what FF DSLRs have?

[ilkka_nissila]

The D200 viewfinder is very good, one of the best for small-sensor DSLRs. It's nowhere near as good as that of FF or film cameras. I really mean it, I've got the F100 and F5 and have used F3HP and the D200 viewfinder is good, but not that good.

[ellis_vener_photography]

The viewfinder in the D200 is definitely better than the one in the Canon 20D (and similar 1.6 Canon cameras) or in the the D70/D100/D1X cameras. I have very little problem with the viewfinder in any of these cameras composing and framing accurately.

 

" I have this question ; with 95% magnification and 95% coverage on a APS size camera, how could the viewfinder not be significantly smaller than one of a 35mm camera."

 

The optics in the pentaprism and the lens exit pupil lens make the difference.

 

"This question is important to me since in my mind this is one of the reasons why I have not made the move to digital. I think in camera reviews , people tend to forget that the viewing experience influence the composition in a big way that makes for better pictures please I would like your feedback."

 

You need to stop reading reviews and go and rent (if possible) the D200 and see how you like it. You can compare it to other cameras if you like but I don't see much sense in doing that if your purpose is only to say it isn't a Nikon F6 viewfinder. That's like saying an F6 viewfinder isn't the same as a Mamiya 645 viewfinder, a Mamiya 645 isn't the same as a Mamiya RZ67 and the view through a Mamiya RZ67 view finder isn't the same as a Fuji 680 which isn't the same as the view on the groundglass of a 4x5 Arca-Swiss view camera. Your body is smarter than you think it is: your eyes and your brain quickly adjust to the view through the finder.

[alan_chan4]

Magnification and coverage are two different issues. They are independent from each other. What magnification means is how big the viewing image is compared to the actual sensor size. If the magnification is 1x, the viewing image will be as big as the image sensor. 0.95x will be smaller, and 0.9x is even smaller again, and so to 0.85x or 0.8x.

 

Coverage means how much of the edges are not shown through the viewfinder. 100% means you could see exactly what the image sensor sees. With 95%, it means the viewfinder is not showing the very edges of the actual image being taken. A 0.95x viewfinder can be 100%, 95% or 90%, but the viewing images of all 3 viewfinders will be identical in size. Reason for viewfinders with less than 100% is the difficulties involved during manufacturing.

[mark u]

This Sunday Morning Photographer column from Mike Johnston discusses the ins and outs of 35mm viewfinders:

 

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column6/index.html

 

One penalty of increased viewfinder coverage not mentioned is that the weight of the pentaprism increases as the cube of the linear coverage.

 

Bear in mind that the magnification should be divided by the crop factor to get the comparative apparent size of an image of the same angle of view on full frame. Therefore, the D200 viewfinder effectively has a magnification of 0.63 when compared alongside a 35mm viewfinder. I've yet to look through a D200, but every Canon 1.6 crop viewfinder I've tried seems wholly inadequate to me, such that I would never buy such a camera for anything more serious than snapshots.

[KenPapai]

You'd have to have pretty poor eyes to not notice *immediately* the difference between the 10D's viewfinder and an EOS film camera like the 10S or EOS 3. I know and like to separate fact from fiction.

 

That's why full frame sensors are wanted at the pro level (or top amateur/semi-pro level), while Uncle Joe, mom & dad, etc. couldn't care less about a small viewfinder in their APS-sized or 1.5 Nikon DSLR sensor cams.

 

All things being equal larger sensors are always better now and forever. One obvious reason why? Just read the above. Why does this have to be repeated so often?

[david_bedell]

Basically, some people have fully accepted the regression in viewfinder quality for the

average $500-$1,500 SLR you can buy today (an APS sensor digital) versus what $500-

$1,500 would get you in the 35mm film days.

 

It's not whining; it's a fact. Line them up side by side, and the worst $500 35mm film SLR

viewfinder is better than the best $1,500 APS digital viewfinder. Noone actually making

this comparison would ever, ever chose the APS viewfinder. It's not arguable, like the fact

that your Digital Rebel at ISO1600 has much, much less noise/grain than any 35mm

ISO1600 film.

 

Consider the viewfinder as part of the complete camera system and likely you'll take the

digital. That's progress. Some steps forward, some back.

 

"I think in camera reviews , people tend to forget that the viewing experience influence the

composition in a big way that makes for better pictures please I would like your feedback."

 

Absolutely 100% correct -- at least for me, for you, and for a lot of other people. For Mr.

Robertson, it seems it's not the case. :-)

[james_lai]

The numbers are nice to know, but as others have said, go try it for yourself to see if you like it. Not just the finder, but everything about the camera. You're buying a whole camera so don't get too hung up on the specs for just one part. Sure, a camera with a bigger pentaprism may weigh more than one with a smaller prism, all other things being equal, but all other things are never equal -- my Olympus OM-2n has a big beautiful finder with 97% coverage, but was one of the smallest and lightest cameras of its time. Even a feature that seems like it can't be wrong, such as a brighter screen, may turn out to be something you don't want (brighter screen may make it more difficult to focus).

 

Yes, a DSLR finder will be smaller than the best 35mm finders, but that doesn't mean it will be less usable. On the D200 you've got a higher magnification than most other cameras and if the finder size is your only reservation I think you should go try it (assuming you can find one) because I think you'll have no problem with it. I have a D1H, which has 96% coverage and only 0.8x magnification. No problems for me to focus manually even in dim light.

 

And if it really doesn't work for you, then just stay with your film SLR. Nothing wrong with that.

[always_wanderlust]

I bought the camera mainly for it's lowlight capabilities. I shoot twilight often enough and my Kodak 14n wasn't up to the task. The bright (I should say brighter) viewfinder of the D200 certainly helps in the composition. Compared to a 20D it's a step up but I've compared it to a Canon Elan's viewfinder and it's not even close. It's good enough and maybe with a DK-21m might come close, but doubtful.

[godfrey]

David Bedell:<br>

<i>... Basically, some people have fully accepted the regression in viewfinder quality for

the average $500-$1,500 SLR you can buy today (an APS sensor digital) versus what

$500- $1,500 would get you in the 35mm film days. ...</i>

<br><br>

Repeat after me: <br>

"A Digital SLR is not a 35mm camera."

<br><br>

Get it? Verstehen Sie jetzt? If you must have a 35mm format camera, you must buy a

Canon 5D or 1Ds II or any other 24x36mm sensor camera that comes out, and pay that

price premium.

<br><br>

There are a lot of people for whom a 24x36mm format camera isn't a "necessity" at all.

<br><br>

G

[ilkka_nissila]

Godfrey, for those people who don't need a 35 mm camera, the market already supplies what they need. It is those of us who need a good viewfinder and as large as possible sensor area (given existing investment in lenses and available funds) who only have a couple of options which is about as good as no options at all if other constraints must be fulfilled also.

 

I see no reason why any part of a digital SLR should be worse than that of a 35 mm film camera. What the camera manufacturers have been doing is re-introducing 1950s quality viewfinders and 1980s quality autofocus, so that the upgrade cycle is all reset and they "begin development" from scratch. And we are expected to buy. Even though the technology is deliberately inferior to that in film cameras.

[andrew robertson]

I know there's a difference in VF size between crop cameras and 35mm / full frame, I just

don't let it get in the way of my photography.

[vivek iyer]

If any of you have not used/tried the Pentax 110 SLR, I strongly recommend that you do.

 

Really terrific viewfinder with a real glass penta prism.

[rjacksonphoto]

Gotta agree with those who said try it. If it's that important to you, you need to lay your hands on one and see for yourself. I realize that may be hard to do right now, but asking the opinion of more people in addition to the reviews you've read really isn't going to help.

 

I find the D200 viewfinder to be very good, a clear improvement over the D70. It's not quite as big as my F5, but it's closer to the F5 than it is to the D70.

 

Take the camera you're using now into the shop and compare them side-by-side. Out of curiosity, what camera are you using now?

[saikat.pathak]

"That's why full frame sensors are wanted at the pro level (or top amateur/semi-pro level), while Uncle Joe, mom & dad, etc. couldn't care less about a small viewfinder in their APS-sized or 1.5 Nikon DSLR sensor cams." - Ken Papai

 

LOL! Well said.

 

Herve, this post might help you...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F12R

 

What matters is whether the viewfinder is good enough for the kind of work one does.

 

The only way to find it, is to compare with the camera in hand. Not everybody gets that opportunity, hence, I had asked very specifically. Indeed, I was also quite vexed at the casual comments..."D200's viewfinder is bright and big and bla and bla."

[Mike_R1664876643]

I compared the D50, D70S, and D200 models last weekend, and have to say I didn't think the D200 finder was all that great. Maybe I just expected more from all the rave reviews. For all the criticism of the D50 & D70S, they were a lot better than I expected. In terms of brightness, all three seemed close to me, but the D200 finder is clearly larger. None of them can touch the F100's finder however.

[herve_laurent]

First,

I wanted to thank you all. I was impressed by the number of people who contributed to this

thread. Mark U, thank you for the link, the article was indeed interesting, even funny at times.

I think that Ilkka and David Bedell are right, there are no reasons to expect less from a

$2,000-$3,000 DSLR versus a $1,000 (or less) film camera.

And to answer R. jackson question, I use several cameras but mostly my Rolleiflexes TLR's. I

also have a mamiya 6, which is poorly built but has great lenses in a compact format. for

back up on travel I have a pentax me-super and a leica M6