Viewfinder Quality [Why]

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Zack, if you bought an F3 when it first came out, it has as good an image quality as a brand new F6 at the same exposure with the same film.</p>

<p>If you bought a D1 in 1999, you can NOT get the same quality as a D3 today.</p>

<p>If there's anybody still shooting with a D1 in 2020, I totally pity them.</p>

<p>That, Zach, is why a DSLR has a "short lifespan".</p>

<p>Shun, I agree that my D50 viewfinder is totally yukky, and yet I got a lot of pleasure out of it for four years (as an amateur, of course... the person it was designed for.)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Oops, I meant to say "it has as good an image quality as a brand new F6" I edited it.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

 

 

<p >My original question was strictly and only for the quality of viewfinders found in most Nikon DSLR’s, I hope that we do not get dragged into the hopeless digital vs film debate.</p>

<p >I apologize for not being very clear about the topic of this discussion.</p>

<p >I am an old timer and perfectly happy with film while it is still available, but I am also perfectly happy with digital, my problem is that I am spoiled with the viewfinders that Nikon provided in their older film cameras and when I switch to a DSLR the first thing that I notice is the viewfinder quality.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Vahe</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I think Shun want the IQ/life span topic to stop. And on that note, my F2AS VF kicks butt. Only if I knew where in the closet I wrapped and packed it...</p>

[laur1]

<p>I don't really find the film SLR viewfinders that much more helpful than DSLR viewfinders. I usually focus off-center and I prefer the clearer view that DSLR viewfinders provide. On film DSLRs I find it harder to focus when the point I'm trying to focus on doesn't fall within the center split-prism area.<br>

I do find pentamirror viewfinders to be worse than pentaprisms. They usually have less coverage and magnification too, so I'm not sure if it's their build or these characteristics.<br>

Also, with DSLRs, I can check my focusing accuracy much better than I can with film cameras, by examining the images at 100% - I'm wondering now whether the preference for film SLR viewfinders isn't also fueled because focusing issues can be masked more easily if you're not making large prints.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Leslie,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And on that note, my F2AS VF kicks butt. Only if I knew where in the closet I wrapped and packed it...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Find that camera and use it, or send it to me. I'll trade you one of my Feisol tripods for it. ;-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>My original question was strictly and only for the quality of viewfinders found in most Nikon DSLR’s, I hope that we do not get dragged into the hopeless digital vs film debate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vahe, it is not your fault.</p>

<p>photo.net already has countless threads on film vs. digital. Typically it is the same few individulas that recycles the same arguments over and over. Most of those individulas do not usually participate in this forum. However, whenver there is such topic, it attracts them over here in no time. Those endless arguments will not help anybody but instead will only ruin thread after thread.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Vahe,</p>

<p>I apologize as I feel responsible for the the misdirection of this thread. Hopefully, in between all the above wayward posts we have actually answered your question.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I suspect it is because the digital camera view finders are never used for focusing the camera. The advent of auto-focus and the incredible dependency on it that almost all digital camera users have has resulted in no pressure on the camera manufacturers for a "really good" view finder. My F2 has a great view finder - for focusing the picture, my F4 has a merely acceptable view finder, my D200 is almost next to useless in comparison and the D700 is better than the D200 but not as good as the F4. The thing I find most disappointing is the lack of good replaceable focusing screens.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Lorne,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The thing I find most disappointing is the lack of good replaceable focusing screens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have never tried one, but there is the after-market <a href="http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/page--Custom-Focusing-Screens--store.html">KatzEye</a> product.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would recommend that you get a D700 and a Katz Eye screen and carefully check the split image using a focusing target and if necessary, adjust the manual focus calibration (it's easy to do, and Katz Eye will help with this) and then you will be able to focus manually using either the split image or the matte area - they both work extremely well for manual focusing with fast lenses. For slow lenses like f/4 you may still prefer the Nikon screen. For the D3, I use a modified Canon 1 series focusing screen that is ever so slightly more crisp with fast glass than the Nikon original.</p>

<p>The viewfinders of FX cameras will of course show a larger image and you can see the subject more clearly than on DX cameras. It's just because of the sensor size. Personally I am reasonably happy with the current situation with 3rd party screens, but would prefer Nikon to make different screens optimized for different lens types like they did for the F3 etc. Canon makes a special screen for fast glass for the 5D series. This would be very useful for fast lens users. There's no technical reason not to do it, but perhaps Nikon simply wants to force people into autofocus rather than letting their customers choose. More money to be made by selling new lenses, of course. This is unfortunate as there are many situations where autofocus doesn't work that well. And manual focus lenses can be made to tighter tolerances and with non-IF optics to reduce fringing.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I don`t think DSLR screens are bad. I don`t think AF SLRs screens are bad. Of course, they are not perfect, and there isn`t almost any option to choose. That`s the real fault, IMHO. And...<br /> <br /> 1. Cannot be compared two different formats. The smaller the screen the less impressive. Someone could say <em>Why my 100+ years old 8x10" folding camera screen looks like a TV and my $7000 DSLR camera screen looks like a small sink in comparison?</em><br /> 2. Cannot be compared consumer and pro screens. F2 screens are great, Nikkormat screens not as great. <em>Have you tried a D3 screen?</em><br /> 3. Cannot be compared different purposes. Screens made to be used with MF lenses vs screens designed for AF systems. <em>Have you compared a F2 to a F6 screen?</em></p>

[pictureted]

<p>I've shot extensively with Nikon F2A, F3HP, Nikormat EL, FM3 and now a D90. I never found one camera's screen to be that much different than the other. I use my D90 (approx. 14,000 exposures to date) on MF much of the time since I do a lot of macro work. I've never had any difficulty.</p>

<p>I've also got a Contax G2 which Leica followers consistently trashed for it's viewfinder, but for my use it was the best 35mm film camera made.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Cannot be compared different purposes. Screens made to be used with MF lenses vs screens designed for AF systems. </em></p>

<p>No AF camera is always used with autofocus. For example, when using a fast wide angle, often the subject in focus is outside of the area of the image covered with AF points. Recomposing with a wide angle requires a lot of movement and causes erroneous results. Also, often with a wide angle you may want to position the focus between two subjects so that they're both optimally covered by the depth of field. Can't do that easily with AF. For telephoto applications I almost always do use autofocus because the focus shift due to recomposing is minimal, but still when photographing runners I may want to position the head outside of the available focus area but just within the frame (when doing a close-up of an approaching runner). This cannot be done with FX using autofocus. Manual focus it is possible with the right equipment and practice. The Katz Eye screen for the D700 and a 200/2 works quite well for this thanks to the excellent manual focus ring of this lens. Of course, a DX camera does have autofocus sensors to the edge but there are other reasons why I don't use such cameras, and it doesn't solve my main need for manual focus which is in the application of fast wide angles. Now I use the D700+Katz Eye screen for most wide angle work in available light when I'm not using the 24-70. Focusing is extremely reliable with the D700+28 ZF combination.</p>

<p>The focusing screen isn't used in the autofocus function nor does it affect it (AF sensors reside below the main mirror) so IMHO there isn't really a good reason why the (manual) focusing screen of an AF camera should be any different from that of a MF camera. In practice the screens in AF cameras are made so that they cannot be used for manual focusing with fast lenses (i.e. f/1.4, f/2 etc.) at wide apertures with any reliability. Nor can you double check AF accuracy using them. I believe this is a deliberate compromise to make the screens brighter for use with slow lenses which are commonly used with consumer DSLRs. However, the user of a high end AF camera is more likely to use fast lenses than slow lenses as a rule, so in my opinion this design is harmful to most users of these cameras. Only the 500-600mm supertele users benefit, basically. I would prefer options. Katz Eye and others have shown that MF with an AF FX/DX camera with a glass prism viewfinder works great but there are some tradeoffs e.g. the spot meter is affected with slow lenses in screens with a split image. I never use the split image; what I want is a good contrast between in and out of focus areas. The Nikon screens are poor in this respect, and there is no good reason why they did this to us. A bright image doesn't equal a useful image. I understand someone using a 500mm lens with teleconverter will want a different screen than what is optimal for someone using a 28mm f/2 wide open. Nikon's screens can be easily swapped so the capability exists but Nikon's support in terms of screen options is nearly nonexistent.</p>

<p>I do not loudly complain about this often since so much progress in DSLR viewfinders has taken place since the difficult times of the D70. Things are indeed much better than they were then. But still, my F5 viewfinder shows better detail contrast than my D3 using any screen I have available for it. This is quite a stunning difference when e.g. doing macro; with DSLRs I basically do all focusing now with live view for macro shots; with the F5 I can pinpoint the focus the way I want it much faster thanks to the better viewfinder optics. Live view eats battery charge in the D700 very quickly; one to one and a half hours of not so intense macro work I have to replace the battery. This is unacceptable when I'm traveling, which is why I have started to use the D3 more often on trips although the extra weight is unnecessary for me. A single charge on the D3 battery can last up to approximately 4000 exposures in normal shooting and for macro work with live view focusing, I can work a full day without problems, even in cold weather. So both cameras are needed, for different situations. I'm hoping to modify some other screens and try them on the D3 to see if I could get it right in that camera too.<em><br /></em></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Try a pro-level D-series Nikon: D1/D2/D3-series. My D2H finder with stock screen is equal to my F3HP finder with E screen (minus the grid).</p>

<p>Other than the format differences there are no differences - both are equally bright, crisp and clear, plenty good enough for manual focusing and composition in low light. That's why I got the D2H. I use a lot of manual focus lenses and am very demanding about viewfinders.</p>

<p>Years ago I passed on the D100, D70, Canon 20D and Olympus E-series for that reason. All were good enough for autofocus use in most lighting, certainly better than my P&S 35mm and digicam optical finders. But not good enough for reliable, consistent results with manual focus.</p>

<p>Anyone who has trouble getting consistent results manually focusing with the pro D-series Nikons may want to consider a custom eyeglass prescription, contacts or custom diopter for the finder. That's what I did a few years ago when my vision began to deteriorate (no surprise, I'm over 50 now). For critical focus such as with macro I wear no-line bifocals and adjust the built in diopter on the D2H. That actually provides a better view for manual focus than I get with my F3HP for macro because I don't have a viewfinder diopter for the F3 - the HP finder eyepiece ring was buggered up years ago when an attachment got knocked off. I'd need to replace the HP finder completely to use a custom diopter, but I'm not going to bother with this old camera.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>It is interesting to note that Zeiss offer direct links from their site to the main third party manual focusing screen makers... just because many current standard AF screens aren`t visually reliable enough to use with their fastest lenses, as Ilkka mentioned above.</p>

[jtk]

<p>You might want to compare Nikon to Pentax K7.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>In my opinion, the best viewfinders are the ones that use a condenser optic - that way the viewfinder has a flat field without added distortions.</p>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>Have to second what some people have said. You cannot say all DSLRs viewfinders are crap. You need to compare levels, ie the proffessional versions such as D700, D3 etc will equate with the proffessional versions of the film cameras, and the lower range DSLRS will equate with the lower range film cameras. Thats the way it goes. My F4 viewfinder was great, when I looked through a D200 I thought "yuks", then when I got the D700 I thought "Wow, thats more like it". If you want an equivalant to your F2, you have to spend money and go for a D700 upwards and you should be happy with the viewfinder (and everything else about the camera because there a lot more than just the viewfinder on a camera). And will everyone please stop saying that DSLR's are disposable. Thats a load of nonsense. I have no plans to throw my D700 in the rubbish bin when I've finished taking photos.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>I have no plans to throw my D700 in the rubbish bin</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody throws a D1, D2, D3 or even D700 into the garbage (unless they are really broken and cost too much to fix) but there is an urge to get rid of the D1 to upgrade to D2, then "upgrade" to D700, then upgrade to D3, then upgrade to ... D4. In the used market, these DSLRs are being sold at a lot lower price than the purchased price mainly for this "upgrading" need and they are still working. Everyone talks about them being <em>replaced</em> so fast, not about throwing them into garbage. Another way to look at it is that many people prefer to get a D700 instead of a higher rank D2x which was the best of Nikon just a few years ago</p>

[michaelmiller]

<p>Well, on the other hand it's nice that people like to upgrade their DSLR that fast. This gives 'less fortunate' people an opportunity to buy a decent camera for a 'reasonable' price.</p>

<p>I have used the Nikon FM, FM2, D100, D70s, D80, D5000, D90, D7000 and D700. I think the viewfinder of the Nikon D700 is very nice in comparison to all the others. It's large and bright. Not much worse then the viewfinder of a FM2. Very usable if you ask me. I really think you should try it out sometime.</p>