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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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-$$$$ lens. I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for DSLRs, and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon are chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so great if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and taking your time over your hobby. Despair not, my friend Buy a M42-to-EOS adapter and get Pentax screw mount lenses. Read a bit about these and you might get excited: Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (~$100) Peleng 8mm f/3.5 (~$200) Pentax 50mm f/1.4 (~$50) Not perfect but still interesting for the price. And don't forget the MF and stop-down metering hassle or fun, as I put it. - Siddhartha |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Brown wrote:
ISTM that Canon in particular seem to be concentrating very much on two areas with their optics - consumer zooms for digital SLRs, and extreme telephotos for their lucrative photojournalism market. They seem to have all but abandoned developing new wide-angle and short-telephoto primes, attractive to amateur landscape/street/portrait photographers. My concern is when can I get camera/lens systems that do not blow a hole in my pocket, do not hunt for AF in low-light or low-contrast subjects, and meter perfectly almost everytime without switching to centre-weighed or spot. I mean if you consider AF and metering as the basic minimum functions of a modern SLR/dSLR then don't you think they should be rock solid in these two departments without you selling your limbs for getting that mega-$$$$ 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |