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.)

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.


"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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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).