Reason Canon DSLRs lack manual focusing aids?

In article e8pmf.610347$x96.367812@attbi_s72,
223rem wrote:
My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which
is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not
include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense.

The interesting thing is that Nikon makes split image screens for the F5
but doesn't make them for the F100. You can use F100 screens in Nikons D1
series cameras. But for some reason, Nikon doesn't make screens with manual
focus aids for their digital cameras.

My personal preference is E screens, so it doesn't matter much to me.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

If they put a split-image in there, then people like me would bitch
because we like microprisms - and vice versa.

That's the whole point of interchangeable focusing screens.

With autofocus, there's really no need for these things anymore.

Don't be silly.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

That's the whole point of interchangeable focusing screens.

With autofocus, there's really no need for these things anymore.

Don't be silly.

I agree with the OP.

I used the split ring and prismatic aids ALL the time - before the 20D. I
haven't missed them ONCE.


JR

Jim Redelfs wrote:

I agree with the OP.

I used the split ring and prismatic aids ALL the time - before the 20D. I
haven't missed them ONCE.

Now, does that mean you haven't yet been in a situation where autofocus
doesn't work or doesn't work well, or that you don't find manually focusing
any harder without those things? I know there's no issue with using actual
manual-focus lenses on the Canon, since you can't use older Canon lenses on
their new cameras, but Nikon people often use manual focus lenses.

I'm not a big fan of split-image rangefinders, but I'd like to have a
microprism circle. For some obscene reason, the folks at brightscreen.com
don't offer that for the D2x, unfortunately, or I'd buy one.

--
Jeremy |

Måns Rullgård wrote:

Paul Furman writes:


As for the dimming effect, I can't see how the presence of a split
prism in the center could possibly affect the brightness on the rest
of the screen.

You are right, if it's just a dot in the middle that's no loss. I was
thinking of the other type where most of the screen darkens in a
pattern, I only vaguely recall looking through other folks cameras and
seeing that, not sure.


That sounds like it would have been a screen with microprisms over the
entire area. I've never seen one of those, but maybe they exist.

Or maybe just a larger area than the split prism type.

Tony Polson wrote:


But they are generally coarse grained.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Yes there is, it's a MAxwell focus screen! Those things are amazing.

The problem with many AF screens is they lack contrast (in favor of low
cost/brighter finder) since they assume most buyers will never take the
camera off the "P" AF mode anyway. A good focus screen doesn't need focus
aides, but they aren't cheap.


--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:


But they are generally coarse grained.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.


Yes there is, it's a MAxwell focus screen! Those things are amazing.

The problem with many AF screens is they lack contrast (in favor of low
cost/brighter finder) since they assume most buyers will never take the
camera off the "P" AF mode anyway. A good focus screen doesn't need focus
aides, but they aren't cheap.

How is contrast increased?

In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

I used the split ring and prismatic aids ALL the time - before the 20D.
I haven't missed them ONCE.

Now, does that mean you haven't yet been in a situation where autofocus
doesn't work or doesn't work well, or that you don't find manually focusing
any harder without those things?

I choose the former: I have yet to encounter a situation where the
AF doesn't work (properly).

I have done very little MANUAL focusing with the 20D. On those few occasions,
the lack of the focusing aid(s) was not a problem for me.

I agree that focusing aids would be nice, but I wouldn't want them at the cost
of a less-bright viewfinder.


JR

Tony Polson wrote:
|| 223rem wrote:
|||
||| My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D,
||| which
||| is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did
||| Canon choose to not include a manual focusing aid in the
||| viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense.

Likelu because the auto focus works... :-)