Terrible viewfinders

[Troll]

<p>Almost universally, from long before the first Leicas until Nikon came out with the "hi-eyepoint" prism, camera viewfinders were terrible! Tiny little holes to look through which could not possibly be seen through eyeglasses, and really vague edges to what was supposed to be the field of view. Better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.<br>

Why in the heck did "they" put up with it?</p>

[Two23]

<p>Because the alternative was to use a wire frame viewfinder? Or the Brownie "peep holes?"</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[SCL]

<p>Just try an early 1900s box camera with its frosted glass viewfinder and you'll appreciate the advances in viewfinders.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Here is the worst viewfinder that I can find in my random collection of old cameras, an early Bell and Howell Filmo movie camera. The viewfinder objective measures approximately 1/4" diameter and the eyepiece measures approximately 1/8" diameter! The objective of the Galilean design optics is separated from the eyepiece by about 4". You might s well be looking through a straw. On the other hand, the embossed scroll-work on the leather covering is quite lovely.</p>

<p>This brings to mind the obvious follow-up question; what was the earliest decent viewfinder on a camera? (I am thinking of the single-lens Graflex, but that probably does not have what is strictly defined as a viewfinder.)</p><div></div>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>And here is the viewfinder eyepiece.</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>I have a fair number of old cameras, enough that I don't have them all out at one time so my wife can't count them. I'm familiar with quite a few more, of course. My vote for best viewfinder on an early camera is the Rolleiflex. It was revolutionary at the time and still works very well. Even the little 4x4 127 model is way ahead of the usual Leicas and Bessa RF etc. of the time.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The worst SLR viewfinder I can remember was the one on the Leicaflex SL.

[dave_s]

<p>Pacemaker Speed/Crown/Century Graphics. Squinty, cheap plastic optics, but hey, it was the 1950s. The wire sportsfinder is better.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>One of the best viewfinders I've always found, surprisingly, is that in the old Kodak twin lens reflexes like the Duaflex. It makes you wonder why so many others were so poor.</p>

<p>I always thought Voigtlander rangefinder viewfinders were pretty good too. </p>

<p>Not wearing glasses to shoot, I would disagree with the original poster about when Nikon got good. Without glasses, the F and its ilk were superb.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I have a Zeiss Nettar 6X6 with a pop up viewfinder that is easy to use and that camera is from about 1947. So some early post war cameras were getting useable viewfinders.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>The Agimatic had a terrible squinty dim viewfinder, even worse when you slid across the mask to cater for the 85mm lens. Perhaps people had lower expectations in those days. Some of the best were those "pseudo TLR's" like the Ensign Full Vue, with large brilliant waist level finders.</p><div></div>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Agreed on the pseudo TLRs having nice VVs- My Voigtländer Brillant seems pre WW2.<br>

Whats wrong about using a wireframe sports finder if you have no wide lens(es) at all?</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Good point you raise, Bill. Many of those 1950s 35mm cams especially, had shockingly miniscule VF's. John S. has mentioned a good example in the Agimatic, but early Diax models were shockers too. The problem appear to be even worse with these, when fitted with a Voss-made accessory rangefinder from the same Ulm factory - because the viewfinder window in those is slightly bigger than the one on the Diax camera! Thankfully later Diax cameras such as the 1a, 11a, 1b and 11b, went overboard with VF profusion. It was almost as if the Diaxwerk was trying to apologise for those earlier tiny VFs. (Pete In Perth)</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>One of the reasons for tiny eyepieces on early viewfinders was that the field of view changes as you move your eye across the eyepiece. So the diameter of the eyepiece was reduced as much as possible and the field of view does not change too much as you move your eye. <br>

This changed drastically with the introduction of bright-frame viewfinders. The bright frame appears at the same (infinity) position as the viewfinder image and therefore does not change its position when you move your eye across the viewfinder eyepiece. This allows for much bigger eyepieces. <br>

BTW, many viewfinders of old cameras can be improved drastically by a thorough cleaning of the lens elements. Usually it is not sufficient just to clean the outer surfaces. You should dismantle the viewfinder and clean all surfaces (except, in case of a superimposed bright frame viewfinder, the mirrored - coated - side of the half-transparent mirror). Although the viewfinders seem to be well protected against dust and smudge, a lot of these accumulates inside during the decades.</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>Also, the viewfinder of many old TLRs can be improved by cleaning the mirror, or, in case of a corroded silvered mirror (until the early 60s or so), by replacing it. Most older TLRs had a plain ground glass screen. There are much brighter screens available today, but even the old ones can be upgraded by adding a fresnel lens. I successfully improved several TLRs with fresnel lenses cannibalized from used Hasselblad screens. At least the older ones are two-part and you can pry off the fresnel lens and attach it to the screen - however, in most cases you have to modify the screen frame, too, so sometimes this is quite a bit of work but usually pays. </p>

[charles_stobbs3]

The smallest (worst) viewfinder I ever owned was on a Zeiss Ikonta 35. I think even smaller than on my

Retinas or Solinettes. But in those days most customers were more interested in recording 4X6

memories than in producing art.

[steve_levine]

<p>In 1972 at Photokina in Cologne Germany the Olympus camera company unveiled their "M1" (later renamed at Leica's insistence the OM1). The design team that built compact RF cameras like the "Pen" and "Pen F" put their attention to a small SLR. To say they hit it out of the park would be an understatement. The team first and foremost wanted a small camera with a superb easy to see viewfinder. These VF's were a revelation too. The eye could see the entire frame all right were it needed to be. In my humble opinion SLR VF perfection had been attained.<br>

Meanwhile back at Nikon (who controlled much of the pro and amateur SLR markets) this didn't sit well with them. The competitors were all moving away from heavy bulky SLRs towards small,light bodies. In 1977 Nikon released it's own compact SLR in the FM/FE series. Great cameras with terrible viewfinders! The eye has to wander about to see both the VF information and the frame. This wasn't resolved until c1980 when the F3 HP VF was offered.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"The worst SLR viewfinder I can remember was the one on the <strong>Leicaflex SL</strong>" <br /> <em><strong>Ellis V.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You misunderstood the basic point of this thread. <br /> It's "terrible" or the "worst", not <strong>the best</strong> viewfinder ever...</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The worst I've used was a FED 3 Rangefinder. Not only was it a standard Leica-type squinter but it distinguished itself by having a metal knurled knob around the eye piece, finished in fine Russian style, that ground wonderfully deep scratches into my eye glasses. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>My <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00cFEQ">Zenit-S</a> viewfinder actually works surprisingly well for a stop-down SLR; but the whole thing, either from manufacture or subsequent damage, is decidedly "right-deviationist".</p><div></div>

[Richard Williams]

<p>We seem to have come full circle. Almost any non-SLR digital camera that bothers with a built-in viewfinder at all has a tiny peephole that is vastly inferior to typical P&S cameras from the 80s or 90s. The only exceptions I can think of are the Fuji X series and, of course, the Leica M cameras, which have finders that haven't evolved much since the 1954 M3 (arguably the first 35mm camera to have a really good finder).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, the optical viewfinder on my PowerShot A1400 (it's one reason I bought this model) is quite decent.</p>

<p>A lot of generalizations about pre- or non-Leica M3 viewfinders seem to be based on lack of acquaintance with the better rangefinder 35mm cameras of the post-WWII era.<br /> Contax IIa, FED, Canon LTM, Nikon -- all had good to excellent viewfinders, for example, if you could keep your pinkie off the RF window. <br /> Lots of the little RF cameras of the beginning of the SLR era are also superb - e.g., Canonet, Yashica, etc. if not earlier than the Leicas.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<blockquote>

<p>. . . a metal knurled knob around the eye piece, finished in fine Russian style, that ground wonderfully deep scratches into my eye glasses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same for the Nikon S—you could use that knurled ring as a cutting tool. I now need to replace a lens in my spectacles.</p>

[dxin]

<p>My favorite, picked it up at a camera show for $10.<br /> Amazing, very high eye point.</p>

[dxin]

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3875/14458260248_f3575636e5_o.jpg" alt="" /><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5565/14621876736_25c0498b3b_o.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="864" /></p>