Digital Finders, Why So Small?

Alan Smithee <alansmithee RemoveThis @anon.anon.com> wrote:
> 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.)
>

I assume you already understand "why" they are smaller. And I suppose that
you also understand that you can get a decent viewfinder on a digital SLR with
a full frame sensor, such as the 1Ds or probably even the 5D.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4u0Jg.1381$Yy1.877@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> Alan Smithee <alansmithee RemoveThis @anon.anon.com> wrote:
> > 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.)
> >
>
> I assume you already understand "why" they are smaller. And I suppose
that
> you also understand that you can get a decent viewfinder on a digital SLR
with
> a full frame sensor, such as the 1Ds or probably even the 5D.
>
Honestly, I don't fully understand the "why" question. Is it because of the
smaller image footprint? Looking though the Canon 30D and Nikon D70 reminded
me of an older economy Pentax Z- series film camera. I never understood why
that finder was so small and it was film.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

"Adrian Boliston" <adrian.TakeThisOut@boliston.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4lji8eF27hmmU1@individual.net...
> "Alan Smithee" <alansmithee.TakeThisOut@anon.anon.com> 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.
>
> For some reason Nikon did not use a pentaprism in the D70s and just used
> mirrors instead, resulting in a very poor viewfinder. I'm not sure why
> they decided to skimp on such an important part of the camera- are
> pentaprisms very costly?.
Yes, pentaprisms are heavier and more expensive than mirrors. Pentaprisms
are brighter than mirrors.
Every device has a target price point. The D70 was intended to sell at a
lower price point, and this decision results in the viewfinder that you see
as well as the inability to use
MF lenses.

I suppose I could mount the lens from the D70 on one of the film cameras
just for comparison. However,
the viewfinder on the D70 displays the scene about like I thought it would.
Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

In article <nF0Jg.483783$iF6.466608@pd7tw2no>, Alan Smithee
<alansmithee.DeleteThis@anon.anon.com> wrote:

> Honestly, I don't fully understand the "why" question. Is it because of the
> smaller image footprint? Looking though the Canon 30D and Nikon D70 reminded
> me of an older economy Pentax Z- series film camera. I never understood why
> that finder was so small and it was film.

There's an excellent article in this months Popular Photography on just
this topic. Old timer Herb Keppler explains it much better than I
could.

Basically, it comes down to money. The electronic guts of DSLRs are
expensive, and they "had" to meet a price point, so they skimped
somewhere else. Plus, the small format of current sensors and the
demand for lots of goodies in the finder reduce the view still further.

The Nikon D200 has an excellent finder (as digitals go) and the new,
much cheaper D80 is similar. Both are far better than the D70, which I
wanted desperately until I looked through the finder.

Herb Keppler's pick for best viewfinder? A 1959 Nikon "F."
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

> 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?!

There is a top-end point and shoot that fits the bill - The Ricoh GR
Digital with the optional optical viewfinder attached to the hot-shoe.
I've only ever played with one in a shop but you could tell that this
was one serious camera (goodness - it even has a fixed 28mm lens!). The
optical viewfinder was amazing - VERY bright and nowhere near as clunky
as it might first appear (similar to a wide-angle viewfinder fitted to
an M series Leica) . By all accounts a fantastic camera - but not cheap
though...

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/ricoh/gr/digital_camera_EN1.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgrd/
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

Alan Smithee wrote:
> 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.)
>
>
>
No. In fact, most of the new P&S cameras don't have viewfinders at all.
SAD.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

Adrian Boliston wrote:
>
> For some reason Nikon did not use a pentaprism in the D70s and just used
> mirrors instead, resulting in a very poor viewfinder. I'm not sure why they
> decided to skimp on such an important part of the camera- are pentaprisms
> very costly?.

Have you compared the "skimped on" D70 viewfinder with say a Canon 30d
costing about twice as much? Put the same maximum aperture lens on
both, and the viewfinder brightness as well as size seem identical. If
there was a cost/performance trade-off, then the cost to performance
wasn't very high.
For a big difference, look at a D200 - much better than either of the
above. For an even bigger difference, the Canon 5d.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

Alan Smithee wrote:
> 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.)

What every one seems to be missing here is that an APS sensor (most
DSLRs) is half the size of a 35mm film. You are just looking through a
smaller area. granted on Nikon D70 and D50 as well as the Canon Rebels
the companies made it worse by using mirror based viewfinders. Pentax
has made an inexpensive DSLR with a prism that is still light weight,
sometimes you just can't figure. What makes it worse too is that most
lenses shown on these cameras are the f3.5 - f5.6 variety. Old style
cameras generally had a single focal length f2 lens that 6X - 32X the
light in the finder. I imagine the excuse is that most lenses are
autofocus so all the photographer has to do is see the scene.
Any as another post said you have to get into the Nikon D200 to get an
acceptable viewfinder. Another camera with a good finder is the Olympus
E1, but the chip size is smaller than APS. Of course the 35mm frame
digitals, and most professional level digitals have a good finder.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: 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" <alansmithee.RemoveThis@anon.anon.com> 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.)
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: 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
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

Granted, a 1.4 would be brighter, however the OP was referring to size.


"David J Taylor" <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:LrkJg.11236$r61.4816@text.news.blueyonder.co.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
>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small? 

Jack wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> message news:LrkJg.11236$r61.4816@text.news.blueyonder.co.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
 >> Stay informed about: 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" <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:S%kJg.11257$r61.10867@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> The size on the 5D was fine, but the lack of brightness should also be of
> concern to the OP.
>
> David
>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Finders, Why So Small?