A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital SLRs need bigger finders



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 17th 04, 05:15 PM
Michael A. Covington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital SLRs need bigger finders

Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...

Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.

When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70, they
left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.

But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.

So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see what's
in it!

The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which itself
is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a normal
lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the magnification
should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why don't
they do it?


  #2  
Old December 20th 04, 09:10 AM
dj_nme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael A. Covington wrote:
Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...

Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.

When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70, they
left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.

But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.

So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see what's
in it!

The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which itself
is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a normal
lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the magnification
should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why don't
they do it?



The why not is easy.
The dslr manufacturers have a huge investment in production lines that
can produce parts for both film and digital slr cameras.
The fact that they can flog cameras for both formats that use identical
parts in the optical path makes the overall cost of manufacturing both
less than if seperate finders were made for film and digital.
Also, any stockpiles of parts (prisms, mirrors, etc) from previous film
models can be re-tasked for digital bodies with no modification.
Canon, Nikon, Pentax and (even) Sigma all do the same thing in this regard.

Perhaps Sigma, the dslr manufacturer with the least to lose (and most to
gain) in market share, could do the cheapest mod to their next camera
and ditch the "sportsfinder" for a "capture area only" viewfinder.
It would be cheaper than upgrading the sensor to a larger or higher res one.
  #3  
Old December 20th 04, 09:26 AM
Pete D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The new Pentax DS I think is .95 and is very good.

"dj_nme" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Covington wrote:
Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...

Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.

When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70,
they left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.

But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.

So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
what's in it!

The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which
itself is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is
not a normal lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the
magnification should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why
don't they do it?



The why not is easy.
The dslr manufacturers have a huge investment in production lines that can
produce parts for both film and digital slr cameras.
The fact that they can flog cameras for both formats that use identical
parts in the optical path makes the overall cost of manufacturing both
less than if seperate finders were made for film and digital.
Also, any stockpiles of parts (prisms, mirrors, etc) from previous film
models can be re-tasked for digital bodies with no modification.
Canon, Nikon, Pentax and (even) Sigma all do the same thing in this
regard.

Perhaps Sigma, the dslr manufacturer with the least to lose (and most to
gain) in market share, could do the cheapest mod to their next camera and
ditch the "sportsfinder" for a "capture area only" viewfinder.
It would be cheaper than upgrading the sensor to a larger or higher res
one.



  #4  
Old December 20th 04, 09:26 AM
Pete D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The new Pentax DS I think is .95 and is very good.

"dj_nme" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Covington wrote:
Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...

Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.

When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70,
they left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.

But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.

So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
what's in it!

The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which
itself is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is
not a normal lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the
magnification should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why
don't they do it?



The why not is easy.
The dslr manufacturers have a huge investment in production lines that can
produce parts for both film and digital slr cameras.
The fact that they can flog cameras for both formats that use identical
parts in the optical path makes the overall cost of manufacturing both
less than if seperate finders were made for film and digital.
Also, any stockpiles of parts (prisms, mirrors, etc) from previous film
models can be re-tasked for digital bodies with no modification.
Canon, Nikon, Pentax and (even) Sigma all do the same thing in this
regard.

Perhaps Sigma, the dslr manufacturer with the least to lose (and most to
gain) in market share, could do the cheapest mod to their next camera and
ditch the "sportsfinder" for a "capture area only" viewfinder.
It would be cheaper than upgrading the sensor to a larger or higher res
one.



  #5  
Old December 20th 04, 11:12 AM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael A. Covington wrote:
Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...

Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.

When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and

D70, they
left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.

But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.

So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see

what's
in it!

The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which

itself
is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a

normal
lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the

magnification
should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why

don't
they do it?


My crib is more to do with the fundamental design of the
cameras/lenses. In the last, say 10 years, what advances have been made
to make faster, brighter and cheaper lenses? Any zoom or telephoto lens
that says F2.8 or less gets priced at $1000 or above.

Then, how much has AF and metering electronics improved? What
improvements are there in the pipeline in terms of technology?
- Siddhartha

  #6  
Old December 20th 04, 12:30 PM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
Siddhartha Jain wrote:


My crib is more to do with the fundamental design of the
cameras/lenses. In the last, say 10 years, what advances have been made
to make faster, brighter and cheaper lenses? Any zoom or telephoto lens
that says F2.8 or less gets priced at $1000 or above.


ISTM that Canon in particular seem to be concentrating very much on two
areas with their optics - consumer zooms for digital SLRs, and extreme
telephotos for their lucrative photojournalism market. They seem to have all
but abandoned developing new wide-angle and short-telephoto primes,
attractive to amateur landscape/street/portrait photographers.

I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for DSLRs,
and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon are
chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so great
if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and taking
your time over your hobby.
  #7  
Old December 20th 04, 12:58 PM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris Brown wrote:
ISTM that Canon in particular seem to be concentrating very much on

two
areas with their optics - consumer zooms for digital SLRs, and

extreme
telephotos for their lucrative photojournalism market. They seem to

have all
but abandoned developing new wide-angle and short-telephoto primes,
attractive to amateur landscape/street/portrait photographers.

My concern is when can I get camera/lens systems that do not blow a
hole in my pocket, do not hunt for AF in low-light or low-contrast
subjects, and meter perfectly almost everytime without switching to
centre-weighed or spot.

I mean if you consider AF and metering as the basic minimum functions
of a modern SLR/dSLR then don't you think they should be rock solid in
these two departments without you selling your limbs for getting that
mega-$$$$ lens.


I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for

DSLRs,
and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon

are
chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so

great
if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and

taking
your time over your hobby.


Despair not, my friend

Buy a M42-to-EOS adapter and get Pentax screw mount lenses. Read a bit
about these and you might get excited:
Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (~$100)
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 (~$200)
Pentax 50mm f/1.4 (~$50)

Not perfect but still interesting for the price. And don't forget the
MF and stop-down metering hassle or fun, as I put it.

- Siddhartha

  #8  
Old December 20th 04, 12:58 PM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris Brown wrote:
ISTM that Canon in particular seem to be concentrating very much on

two
areas with their optics - consumer zooms for digital SLRs, and

extreme
telephotos for their lucrative photojournalism market. They seem to

have all
but abandoned developing new wide-angle and short-telephoto primes,
attractive to amateur landscape/street/portrait photographers.

My concern is when can I get camera/lens systems that do not blow a
hole in my pocket, do not hunt for AF in low-light or low-contrast
subjects, and meter perfectly almost everytime without switching to
centre-weighed or spot.

I mean if you consider AF and metering as the basic minimum functions
of a modern SLR/dSLR then don't you think they should be rock solid in
these two departments without you selling your limbs for getting that
mega-$$$$ lens.


I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for

DSLRs,
and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon

are
chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so

great
if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and

taking
your time over your hobby.


Despair not, my friend

Buy a M42-to-EOS adapter and get Pentax screw mount lenses. Read a bit
about these and you might get excited:
Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (~$100)
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 (~$200)
Pentax 50mm f/1.4 (~$50)

Not perfect but still interesting for the price. And don't forget the
MF and stop-down metering hassle or fun, as I put it.

- Siddhartha

  #9  
Old December 20th 04, 01:22 PM
dj_nme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pete D wrote:
The new Pentax DS I think is .95 and is very good.


Okay, I stand corrected on the Pentax DSLR cameras.
Pentax seems to have asked some actual users what they want.
  #10  
Old December 20th 04, 02:30 PM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com,
Siddhartha Jain wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for

DSLRs,
and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon

are
chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so

great
if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and

taking
your time over your hobby.


Despair not, my friend

Buy a M42-to-EOS adapter and get Pentax screw mount lenses. Read a bit
about these and you might get excited:


Now that does sound interesting - looking it up, M42 seems to have a
slightly longer registration distance than EF, so there should be no reflex
mirror problems. Very tempting.

Having said that, my wonderful wife has just bought me a splendid Christmas
pressie in the shape of a Mamiya 7 plus Mamiya 43mm f/4.5 ultrawide lens,
which seems to be widely regarded as one of the best lenses in the world, so
I suspect the digital stuff might be getting a rest for a while. Hmm,
luuverly 6*7 slides...

Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (~$100)
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 (~$200)
Pentax 50mm f/1.4 (~$50)

Not perfect but still interesting for the price. And don't forget the
MF and stop-down metering hassle or fun, as I put it.


I'll go with the "fun" interpretation, methinks. Some of my favourite shots
recently were shot on a 1938 Zeiss Ikoflex TLR - manual focusing via a
loupe, and no metering of any kind. Modern cameras turn us all into spoilt
brats. ;-
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New website for digital SLR's JT Digital Photography 0 November 21st 04 09:41 AM
Why digital is not photographic Tom Phillips In The Darkroom 35 October 16th 04 08:16 PM
Top photographers condemn digital age DM In The Darkroom 111 October 10th 04 04:08 AM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.