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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
The Canon 5D view finder is supposed to be very good, however some of this
is probably due to is having a full frame 35mm sensor. "Alan Smithee" wrote in message news:Zf0Jg.481393$Mn5.2003@pd7tw3no... OK. So I'm shopping for a digital camera for colour work. I'm still with film for Black And White work. How disappointing is all I can say. I compare the finders of my film cameras Konicas (T3, FT-1) and Leicas (M3 and Rs) to the "best" D-SLRs. They're all (ie. Canon 30D, Olympus E-, Lumix, Nikon) about 60% smaller than the film cameras. I'm squinting. I feel like I'm looking through a keyhole. I've totally written off any digital camera with a through the lens LCD finder. Impossible to focus. What gives? Does anybody make a decent finder (D-SLR or D-Rangefinder/Point and Shoot) anymore?! (Thanks for letting me vent.) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
Jack wrote:
The Canon 5D view finder is supposed to be very good, however some of this is probably due to is having a full frame 35mm sensor. I had the chance (briefly) to look through one recently, and it was much darker than I remember my Nikon F3. Of course, I had Nikon f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses - the Canon probably had some f/5.6 zoom. Probably where most of the difference lies. David |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
Granted, a 1.4 would be brighter, however the OP was referring to size.
"David J Taylor" wrote in message . uk... Jack wrote: The Canon 5D view finder is supposed to be very good, however some of this is probably due to is having a full frame 35mm sensor. I had the chance (briefly) to look through one recently, and it was much darker than I remember my Nikon F3. Of course, I had Nikon f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses - the Canon probably had some f/5.6 zoom. Probably where most of the difference lies. David |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
Jack wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message . uk... Jack wrote: The Canon 5D view finder is supposed to be very good, however some of this is probably due to is having a full frame 35mm sensor. I had the chance (briefly) to look through one recently, and it was much darker than I remember my Nikon F3. Of course, I had Nikon f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses - the Canon probably had some f/5.6 zoom. Probably where most of the difference lies. David Granted, a 1.4 would be brighter, however the OP was referring to size. The size on the 5D was fine, but the lack of brightness should also be of concern to the OP. David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
Maybe you old-uns need to compensate for your eyesight, however to be honest
I never notice much difference whether I am shooting using a 1.4 prime or an f4 zoom. I am too engrossed in the photo to worry about that. What I would really prefer is a 100% view finder. "David J Taylor" wrote in message .uk... The size on the 5D was fine, but the lack of brightness should also be of concern to the OP. David |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
Jack wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message .uk... The size on the 5D was fine, but the lack of brightness should also be of concern to the OP. David Maybe you old-uns need to compensate for your eyesight, however to be honest I never notice much difference whether I am shooting using a 1.4 prime or an f4 zoom. I am too engrossed in the photo to worry about that. What I would really prefer is a 100% view finder. The test I mentioned was under rather low light shooting conditions. The lens aperture would have made a significant difference. Framing was much easier with the EVF on my Nikon 8400 than with the dim image on the 5D. Of course, precision focussing was easier on the 5D. Diopter adjustment is important, at least to me. In fact I would regard it as an essential feature of a camera, and would not buy a camera without. Why do you put up with cameras which do not provide 100% view? David |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
You lost me with the electronic viewfinder. No thanks.
"David J Taylor" wrote in message . uk... The test I mentioned was under rather low light shooting conditions. The lens aperture would have made a significant difference. Framing was much easier with the EVF on my Nikon 8400 than with the dim image on the 5D. Of course, precision focussing was easier on the 5D. Diopter adjustment is important, at least to me. In fact I would regard it as an essential feature of a camera, and would not buy a camera without. Why do you put up with cameras which do not provide 100% view? David |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
"David J Taylor"
wrote: Jack wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote in message . uk... Jack wrote: The Canon 5D view finder is supposed to be very good, however some of this is probably due to is having a full frame 35mm sensor. I had the chance (briefly) to look through one recently, and it was much darker than I remember my Nikon F3. Of course, I had Nikon f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses - the Canon probably had some f/5.6 zoom. Probably where most of the difference lies. Granted, a 1.4 would be brighter, however the OP was referring to size. The size on the 5D was fine, but the lack of brightness should also be of concern to the OP. Most people find the 5D viewfinder way better than any of the cropped cameras _other than the Nikon pro cameras_. I find that it's OK, but (1) I'd like a "higher eyepoint" so I don't have to scrunch my nose so hard against the camera, and (2) the viewfinder readout is too small and too dim. The 300D had the "tunnel vision" problem that most people hate, but I found it OK for composing images (and less nose scrunch), and the readout was bigger and brighter. Sigh. FWIW, my opinion here (as a glasses wearer who has difficulty with a lot of SLR viewfinders) is that more than the format (cropped, FF, or medium format) or the construction (mirrors or prism), it's the basic design of the optical system. Professional cameras such as the F3 and Canon 1-series have _much_ better viewfinders than non-professional cameras (e.g. Olympus OM-1, Nikon FM3, Canon 20D/30D, and yes, Canon 5D). And in non-pro cameras, I really don't see a significant difference between mirrors and prisms. The parameter that seems to be the most significant in making a viewfinder wonderful (pro cameras) or horrible (just about everything else) is the size of the lens and opening at the back of the viewfinder system, the part closest to your eye. Personally, I think it's a capitalist plot by the camera industry to abuse people too cheap to buy a professional camera. (The only exception I know of is the Nikon F100; not a top-of-the-line pro camera, but way better than anything Canon has ever made outside their 1-series cameras.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
Jack wrote:
You lost me with the electronic viewfinder. No thanks. Today's EVFs are obviously nothing like as good as the optical view provided by a proper SLR, I agree. You didn't comment on my question: "Why do you put up with cameras which do not provide 100% view?" David |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Finders, Why So Small?
David J Taylor wrote:
Jack wrote: You lost me with the electronic viewfinder. No thanks. Today's EVFs are obviously nothing like as good as the optical view provided by a proper SLR, I agree. You didn't comment on my question: "Why do you put up with cameras which do not provide 100% view?" The obvious reason is that only the absolute top range, most expensive DSLR cameras have a 100% view finder. To make a 100% viewfinder, the pentaprism (or pentamirror box) has to be slightly bigger and the eyepiece optics must also be larger. I must admit that for the few cents worth of more glass (raw material cost), it is a steep jump from 95% to 100% view. My first guess is that is a way that the manufacturers can further differentiate the consumer/prosumer models from their intended professional models, apart from other added features (such as prism finders, extra controls and alloy bodies). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Small Aperture Ranges in Digital Cameras--Is This Why They're Not | Jules Vide | Digital Photography | 31 | July 25th 06 08:10 PM |
Digital Trend Challenging Camera Makers (Newspaper Article) | Jeremy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 25 | April 12th 06 08:49 PM |
Digital Stock /Footage & Clips CDs, updated 24/Jan/2006 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | February 3rd 06 03:00 AM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |