We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!

Started Sep 25, 2004 | Discussions
monte12345
Senior MemberPosts: 2,671
Like?
We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
Sep 25, 2004

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a "consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10", the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the 8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me completely.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on 35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

Dioni
Senior MemberPosts: 2,754
Like?
Re: We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 25, 2004

monte12345 wrote:

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

Have you actually looked through the 1Ds viewfinder??? If you had, you would not be saying what you're saying. It's true DSLRs viewfinders are not the best usually (mostly DX format DSLRs), but I think the 1Ds is a exception for that. D2H, if I remember ok was not that good, but it's not ugly either. Same for 1D MkII. S2, which I own, is the worst for sure. I do not know about the rest.

Best,
Dioni
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tony field
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,730
Like?
Re: We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

I fully agree. Better viewfinders would make it easier to handle less than ideal shooting condition.

However, I wonder what tradeoff should be made between the apparent image size and the amount of technical information is viewable in the periphery of the finder. I do like all of the information provided by the Nikon D2h.

tony
http://members.shaw.ca/eclat

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
monte12345
Senior MemberPosts: 2,671
Like?
Dioni, you obviously have never used an F, or F2.
In reply to Dioni, Sep 26, 2004

Dioni, try picking up an F2 at a local camera shop and mount a 50mm lens on it. Once you see what a truly excellent viewfinder image looks like you will see why I think the FF Canon is pretty poor. You have probably never used one of these older film cameras and just don't know how poor the projected image of the more recent cameras have gotten. I have been shooting for close to 30 years and have seen this degradation first hand, over the years. My F5 features a magnification of 0.86x, which is large compared to 0.70x, and I still think it's NOT as good as my old F2.

Basically, viewfinder magnification has gotten smaller with each generation of camera. A smaller image is cheaper to produce and the manufacturers have cut costs where they can. The problem is that it keeps creaping down and they are just getting too darn small. I would consider the .70x of the FF Canon camera as being the LOW LIMIT. Sure it's better than any other camera made, that is just a consequence of being a FF DSLR. What bothers me is that it is an 8000 DOLLAR plus camera!!!!!! At that kind of cost, couldn't Canon have spent the money on a decent .86x to 1.0x viewfinder? They could have, no one would have complained about an extra 50 dollars. Instead, they just took the viewfinder assembly from the 300 dollar Rebel and put it in an 8000 DOLLAR camera. I think that it's a rip off, a camera this expensive should really feature a better viewfinder.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
monte12345
Senior MemberPosts: 2,671
Like?
No real sacrifice, just a bit more cost and size.
In reply to tony field, Sep 26, 2004

Tony, the camera mounted flash would have to go, it does take up space for a larger prism. Since the high end models don't have one of these peanut flashes, that's not really a loss.

As for the display image, that is simply a product of optical design. All of those info panels could still be incorporated. The viewfinder would probably have to be a bit deeper (1/4 inch?), which would put the eyepice further back on the camera. That is probably a plus because we would gain a bit of "nose room" at the rear of the camera. It would also add a bit of cost to the camera, considering what these cameras cost, I think we can afford an extra 30 or 50 dollars.

tony field wrote:

I fully agree. Better viewfinders would make it easier to handle
less than ideal shooting condition.

However, I wonder what tradeoff should be made between the apparent
image size and the amount of technical information is viewable in
the periphery of the finder. I do like all of the information
provided by the Nikon D2h.

tony
http://members.shaw.ca/eclat

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mikeber
Forum MemberPosts: 84Gear list
Like?
Re: We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

monte12345 wrote:

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

My guess is that manufacturers rely on the LCD as a back-up viewfinder. This was not the case with 35mm SLRs.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x
magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the
viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This
focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows
Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct
lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal
length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on
35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was
mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my
complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be
interesting to see if I get a reply.

The people to ask are marketing and product management and not engineering. Engineering just follows marketing requirements.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny
viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the
testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or
downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they
were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent
viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

Complaining is not enough. Stop ordering new DSLRs even before they are officially released and you will see an immediate and dramatic response!

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

I second that.

 mikeber's gear list:mikeber's gear list
Nikon D4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dioni
Senior MemberPosts: 2,754
Like?
You're right, I never used an F2
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

And it's been quite some time sine I used an F5 (only one day I borrowed one), and also long time since I do not shoot anything but my S2 (which VF is worse than anything you can find on the face of earth).

From time to time, though, I look through the VF of a friend's 1Ds and I can tell you I hope my next camera has something similar. I find it big enough to be useful and very clear. I'm not sure if it's the same as in a Rebel $300 camera, but I do not think there has been a lot of complaints about it to Canon.

Anyway, I did not try to tell you that the current VF are better than the F2 (I've heard the same thing you're saying about VFs going worse and worse from others). What I'm saying is that in the pro level cameras they're not soooo bad, mostly considering all the info. these new cameras are showing now on the sides.

Best,
Dioni
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
monte12345
Senior MemberPosts: 2,671
Like?
Good points, it's why I am passing on the D2x.
In reply to mikeber, Sep 26, 2004

You make some excellent points, these designs are market driven. The problem is that Marketing doesn't post their email address. Perhaps if Tech Support gets enough complaints they will walk down the hall to Marketing and lean on them.

I would have "bit" on the D2x if it had a decent viewfinder because the one on my D70 is just too darn small. Don't need more pixels, for my needs 6mp is fine. What I need is a better viewfinder and that hasn't happend yet.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
debequem
Regular MemberPosts: 446
Like?
I agree...
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

I looked at the D70 and I thought it was poor. I settled for the D2H because it was so much better, but even larger would be better yet for my eyes.

Marv

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x
magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the
viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This
focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows
Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct
lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal
length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on
35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was
mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my
complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be
interesting to see if I get a reply.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny
viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the
testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or
downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they
were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent
viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Isaac Crawford
Contributing MemberPosts: 525
Like?
Re: We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

Check out the Oly E-1 and the Pentax istd. Both of them have better finders than anything else close in price. I'm waiting for a camera that has as good a viewfinder as the old Pentax MX and about the same size...

Isaac

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x
magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the
viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This
focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows
Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct
lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal
length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on
35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was
mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my
complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be
interesting to see if I get a reply.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny
viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the
testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or
downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they
were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent
viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pantanal1
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Re: We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

Agree, viewfinders are getting worse, my FE is better than F100 or D1X, and then there is Leica R8, a rel joy, even old Leicaflex was suprior to what is available now. Maybe with autofocus, the camera manufacturers thought that photographers don't need good viewfinders.

Cheers,
Wes

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x
magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the
viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This
focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows
Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct
lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal
length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on
35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was
mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my
complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be
interesting to see if I get a reply.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny
viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the
testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or
downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they
were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent
viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2EF
2EF
Regular MemberPosts: 188
Like?
Re: We need better viewfinders, and NOBODY tests for them !!!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x

Finally someone has realised that the emporer has no clothes.
I have bitched & complained on numerous forums on this subjet;to no avail.

The responses vary from;well you don't have film cost so you can make lots of exposures to obtain a good photo!! Others say;well it's not so bad;is it??

As an owner of a F2,FE2 & F100 I cringe when I look through the D70 viewfinder it is not only bad but,to me,unusable for critical focusing.

The D70 & D Rebel are guesstimate! viewfinders & whilst both these cameras can make very good images I doubt they can be "visualised" at the point of pressing the shutter! I really could rub salt into this wound by adding;try a Bronica 6X6 with a WLF!!

I will purchase a DSLR but I am waiting to try out a Olympus E1 which I am told has a "above average" finder!

With my present film equipment I know(most of the time) when I have taken a good image which usually results in a "gotcha" when I pull my finger from the shutter release; can DSLR users say the same??

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Thomas Karlmann
Senior MemberPosts: 2,679Gear list
Like?
Another voice: Minolta D7D
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

Monte:

I don't know if this helps, but the new, as yet unseen, Konika/Minolta D7D lists viewfinder as:

Magnification approx. x0.9

Again, Minolta is new to this game, and no one has seen the camera yet, but Minolta is known for going their own way in many positive ways.

Thom

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x
magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the
viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This
focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows
Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct
lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal
length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on
35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was
mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my
complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be
interesting to see if I get a reply.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny
viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the
testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or
downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they
were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent
viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

-- hide signature --

Thom--

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sven Hedlund
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711
Like?
You are SO right!
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

The small viewfinder is one of my very few complaints about my D100.

Sven

monte12345 wrote:

About the only thing that any of the test venues do is show the
layout of the viewfinder, none of them mention how useable the
viewfinder image actually is.

My major complaint with the DLSR's is that they ALL feature a
"consumer" grade, or worse, viewfinder. If you consider the Nikon
F2 with .95x magnification with a 50mm FOV lens mounted as a "10",
the D70 with .49x is a "5", the D2x with 0.60x is a "6", and the
8000 dollar plus FF Canon with 0.70x is a pretty pitiful "7". Why
Canon can get away with selling a camera this hugely expensive
equipped with a viewfinder from a $300 Rebel film camera baffles me
completely.

It's about time somebody started complaining about the poor size of
the viewfinder projected image and I have put in my complaint with
Nikon Tech Support. My D70 was advertised as having 0.70x
magnification. I didn't know it at the time, but Nikon rates the
viewfinder magnification using a 50mm focal length lens. This
focal length is equivalent to a 75mm Field of View and it allows
Nikon to "pump up" the number by the lens multiplier. The correct
lens to use for this specification on the DX format is a 35mm focal
length, that combination has the same FOV as a 50mm focal length on
35mm film. I have complained to Nikon Tech Support about how I was
mislead by their specification and they have emailed me that my
complaint has been forwarded to Nikon Engineering. It will be
interesting to see if I get a reply.

I would suggest that anyone who is having problems with the tiny
viewfinder images in their DSLR's follow my lead. None of the
testers are rating the usability of the viewfinder image, or
downrating the camera because of a tiny viewfinder. I wish they
were, but they are not. This means we won't see a decent
viewfinder unless a lot of us start complaining.

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ger Bee
Forum ProPosts: 11,470
Like?
Have you looked through the cameras?
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

..... have you?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ger Bee
Forum ProPosts: 11,470
Like?
I cannot agree with that at all ...
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

... the F2 had a poor fresnel screen it was dark but it was full view. It was only usable in good lighting as it became impossible to focus especially using longer lenses why do you think we all loved the wide and fast wide-angle lenses, because we could see through the darn thing!!!

No sirreee, viewfinders have come a long way and remember that Nikon were more or less forced into making the beatta brite (or whatever it was called) as STANDARD item in the F4 and beyond, all due to the outrage over the dull focussing screens.

Olympus, if I am not mistaken were the FIRST to introduce bright screens with their OM series.

Recently with the advent of the digital 1.5x factor we have a new problem and a smaller viewfinder aperture with magnification, the D2h also has a booster to make the thing brighter, Olympus used this technique too.

In any even you should know your history of metering and electronics and maximum metre placement within the F body, the old F had nothing like this to contend with. If we gave you what you are asking for we’d need to through out TTL metering and AF no trade as far as I am concerned.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ger Bee
Forum ProPosts: 11,470
Like?
We'd need to throw out metering and AF ... nt
In reply to Ger Bee, Sep 26, 2004

If we gave you what you

are asking for we’d need to through out TTL metering and AF no
trade as far as I am concerned.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Foxie
Contributing MemberPosts: 935
Like?
I agree too...
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

...theres moments when I shoot my F90x with slides and use my D100 for digital and the switching between the cameras makes it painfully clear how small that D100 VF is. It's like working inside a tunnel
--
CHEERS!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ger Bee
Forum ProPosts: 11,470
Like?
Interestingly ... I can see all those things ...
In reply to monte12345, Sep 26, 2004

... on my MKII its a 1.3x factor and it's brilliant, the 1DS is even better again.

Demand FF from Nikon ... you won't rid the world of nasty VFs until we all are using FF.......

PS, for those who are totally satisfied with the viewfinder on
their D2h, D1, D100, or D70. Try borrowing an F2 with a 50mm lens
and spend a day shooting with it. You will find out that you can
actually see if someone’s eyes are closed in a group portrait, the
hand sneaking an "antenna" behind someone’s head, lots of little
details that can "make or break" an image. The kind of small
details you can't see very well in the "postage stamp" sized
viewfinder image that we are currently being stuck with.

-- hide signature --

Canon make it even easier .... '))

http://www.bonuspix.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Boris
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,254Gear list
Like?
Re: You are SO right!
In reply to Sven Hedlund, Sep 26, 2004

Sven Hedlund wrote:

The small viewfinder is one of my very few complaints about my D100.

Sven

The small vievinder on the N80 type body is horrible, try to MF a lens with this junk....like looking through a pipe. I went back to a D1, at least I can see what I'm taking a picture of.
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II +40 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads