Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

Started Jan 14, 2007 | Discussions
careytilden Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

Stujoe wrote:

One thing...I am not sure I would describe current production
lenses by a number of different manufacturer's as 'legacy' lenses
but that is a quibble. Now, if Nikon eliminates motors in the rest
of their dSLR line, I reserve the right to change my mind on that
terminology;)

I have to agree here. This terminology has been bothering me lately. There is a definite pejorative -- or if nothing else, condescending -- implication in the use of that term. Considering the number of high quality lenses that -- as you said -- are still in wide production, calling this a legacy product serves no purpose in my mind other than to denigrate.

TorqueDesign New Member • Posts: 10
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

Would you say that add on makes the viewfinder as good..i cant
imagine it would end up being as bright. All other things aside,
just curious about that attachment

I'd say it at least seems brighter because it's larger, there's hardly any black around the actual square where you see through (if that makes any sense). I noticed a difference for sure. I haven't taken a side-by-side comparison with the magnifying adapter on the D50 vs the stock VF on the D40, though. I did look extensively at both the D40 and D50 at the local Ritz Camera before buying though and I think this brings the D50 VF pretty close to the D40 VF. The adapter was around $15 bucks I think.

Rick Sterling Contributing Member • Posts: 918
Re: Brighter to do what?

You appear to be trapped in your own prejudices. A brighter viewfinder has more positive attributes than just easier manual focusing. For one the camera will be much easier to use when attached to a telescope. Not just for focusing but also for composition. (things can get pretty dim with an f/6.0 to F/10.0 scope) Contrast (shadow detail) and color will be much easier to assess in low light levels or with lenses that are not that fast. A brighter viewfinder helps keep my eye's iris stopped down so I am less likely to have to use my glasses. Depending on the design, even auto-focus and auto-exposure may benefit greatly from a fast VF system.

Ask yourself this question. If there were two identical cameras that differed only in the brightness of the VF which one would you more likely want to use, even if you never had to use manual focus.

cheers,
Rick

gmosc wrote:

What can you do with that brigher VF. That's my point. I will
continue to read your posts in the hope that you post something
useful.

Guy Moscoso

larsbc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,828
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

scott ian k wrote:

Those who say the D40 viewfinder is not
sufficiently better to assist with manual focus just are being
silly. Anything that lets you see better will increase manual focus
potential.Its not rocket science

A larger viewfinder makes manual focusing easier, for sure. But how_much easier? And how much easier is manual focusing when the viewfinder is .05x larger? There's nothing wrong with applying a quantitative value to a feature.

If I had to choose between a D40 and D50, and someone is telling me to choose the D40 because, although you're limited to MF with some lenses, it has a bigger VF to make make MF easier, knowing just HOW MUCH larger the D40's VF is definitely something that should be considered. Only a foolish buyer would accept any increase as increase enough.

So, while I agree with your 2nd sentence (quoted), I don't agree with the first. "Sufficiently" varies depending on the user's eyes and photographic environment.

larsbc

JoeyJoJoJuniorShabbaDoo Regular Member • Posts: 166
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

D50, D40, whatever, both viewfinders suck, the D40 just slightly less so. Even the D200 viewfinder is just barely adequate for manual focus and I'm being generous. I own the D50 and have played with the D40 a few times and the viewfinder magnification is nothing to write home about.

And as far as a brighter viewfinder being easier to focus manually, actually it can make it worse. What you don't realize is that in most cases, it's not the viewfinder itself that's getting brighter, (unless they switch from using a pentamirror to a true prism) but the focusing screen. The only way they can make the focusing screen brighter, is to make it clearer (less frosted). This in turn reduces the ability of your eye to focus on the image appearing on the ground glass. An almost clear screen presents a brighter image, however that image is almost an aerial image in the viewfinder and you have little or no ability to judge DOF or focus accurately.

Simple test: if you have a 50mm f/1.8, shoot something fairly close to the camera wide open (use a tripod) and then bring up the image on screen. Observe the zone of sharp focus. Now look through the viewfinder and observe the zone of sharp focus. You'll see that the viewfinder image appears to show a much wider zone of focus (DOF) than what appears in the actual image. What does this mean? It means that trying to focus that lens manually will be a hit or miss affair as your viewfinder is not showing you where the true zone of sharp focus actually falls.

David Chin Forum Pro • Posts: 11,670
Thanks for this info, Jim ...

... that the D40's VF is brighter than the D50's isn't obvious from various reviews on the Net, and brief reports from owners like yourself are really useful --- collectively, these brief notes contribute to a better understanding and appreciation of the camera being researched.

Anyway, I've linked up your thread and some of the responses in a few spots at:
http://www.dpnotes.com/nikon-d40-vs-nikon-d50/

Thanks again!

-- hide signature --
Sarajean Senior Member • Posts: 2,988
You noticed .05% difference huh....hmmm.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page4.asp

Brighter maybe - but thats about it.

scott ian k Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: d40 better for me, not you

These threads are quite informative most of the time, but when someone (as i did) states their personal preference is such and such (eg. i find the viewfinder in the d40 superior to the d50, better at viewing and thus manual focusing) and someone argues with it, its kind of a waste of time, isnt it??If the veiwfinder were not in fact better than the d50 i suppose one could support it with statistical evidence, but why argue when someone essentially states their personal preferences? This is an observation, not really needing a reply!

-- hide signature --

Equipment: Sony DSC-S75

007peter
007peter Forum Pro • Posts: 12,358
Well Said - too many d40 haters here

Guy, I am disappointed in your incorrect assumptions based upon absolutely nothing. I will not respond anymore to your accusations that are totally baseless, useless, uncalled for, and in a way, quite a sad commentery.

Guy, I'd suggest your not reading any of my posts in the future to avoid raising your blood pressure.

-- hide signature --

FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

JinE Regular Member • Posts: 281
Finally... a voice of reason in this thread.

Finally someone said something that made sence in this thread

Saying the D40 viewfinder is better then the D50 viewfinder is like saying one turd doesn't stink as much as another turd. In the end they both stink. I beleive the original "voice of opposition" was trying to find out in a not so eloquent way if the D40's increase in maginification or brightness is of any actual use, and no it's not. It's still hampered by the same limitations that the D50 viewfinder has. It's a little brighter so those of you with bad eyes may have an easier time with composition in the dark. Of course if it's dark enough to need to rely on the crappy VF's in the D40/50/70/80 then you'd probably want to use a bright fast prime lens, something the D40 isn't capable of using. A good viewfinder sure would make macro work a lot easier.

-- hide signature --
 JinE's gear list:JinE's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +4 more
David Chin Forum Pro • Posts: 11,670
Jin, why do you say this? ...

You probably weren't thinking of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as being an example of a fast, bright prime lens for use on the D40?

JinE wrote:

eyes may have an easier time with composition in the dark. Of
course if it's dark enough to need to rely on the crappy VF's in
the D40/50/70/80 then you'd probably want to use a bright fast
prime lens, something the D40 isn't capable of using. A good
viewfinder sure would make macro work a lot easier.

-- hide signature --

Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)

Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)

Nikon D40 Links:
http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikon_d40_links
http://nikond40.dpnotes.com

Kananga Forum Member • Posts: 74
Re: Finally... a voice of reason in this thread.

JinE wrote:

Finally someone said something that made sence in this thread

Saying the D40 viewfinder is better then the D50 viewfinder is like
saying one turd doesn't stink as much as another turd. In the end
they both stink. I beleive the original "voice of opposition" was
trying to find out in a not so eloquent way if the D40's increase
in maginification or brightness is of any actual use, and no it's
not. It's still hampered by the same limitations that the D50
viewfinder has. It's a little brighter so those of you with bad
eyes may have an easier time with composition in the dark. Of
course if it's dark enough to need to rely on the crappy VF's in
the D40/50/70/80 then you'd probably want to use a bright fast
prime lens, something the D40 isn't capable of using. A good
viewfinder sure would make macro work a lot easier.

The 30 Sigma is a bright, fast prime lens and works perfectly well on the D40.

It seems to me the only people who can't see the benefit (wont admit more like) of a brighter better viewfinder are D50 owners. You have a 2 year old camera. Things improve, get over it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/kananga

JinE Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: Finally... a voice of reason in this thread.

Kananga wrote:

The 30 Sigma is a bright, fast prime lens and works perfectly well
on the D40.

It seems to me the only people who can't see the benefit (wont
admit more like) of a brighter better viewfinder are D50 owners.
You have a 2 year old camera. Things improve, get over it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/kananga

You missed the point entirely. The viewfinder is still not very good as far as viewfinders go.

With as much as people mention the Sigma 30mm 1.4f you would think it was the only fast prime available for the D40...

-- hide signature --
 JinE's gear list:JinE's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +4 more
JinE Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

Yes I am fully aware there is one fast bright prime available for the D40.

David Chin wrote:
You probably weren't thinking of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as being an
example of a fast, bright prime lens for use on the D40?

JinE wrote:

eyes may have an easier time with composition in the dark. Of
course if it's dark enough to need to rely on the crappy VF's in
the D40/50/70/80 then you'd probably want to use a bright fast
prime lens, something the D40 isn't capable of using. A good
viewfinder sure would make macro work a lot easier.

-- hide signature --
 JinE's gear list:JinE's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +4 more
TheronFamily Forum Pro • Posts: 19,983
Rick

Rick Sterling wrote:
hi.

Depending on the design,
even auto-focus and auto-exposure may benefit greatly from a fast
VF system.

not so.

The D50 has dedicated AF and metering sensors. The light thru the lens is thrown via the secondary mirror to the AF sensors. Granted, this light is taken away from the total light reaching the VF. The 420 seg meter gets light from the focusing screen.
So there is no benefit besides framing for the VF.
You can focus and meter succesfully without even having a VF.

Light is reflected towards the VF and not away from it for the internals of the camera.
Hope this helps.

 TheronFamily's gear list:TheronFamily's gear list
Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM
Kananga Forum Member • Posts: 74
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

JinE wrote:

Yes I am fully aware there is one fast bright prime available for
the D40.

apart from.....(and I kept the larger list edited at max 2.8 to keep it fast)

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC (the one you know about)
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

etc etc

Marwood Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

Sorry for sounding rude, but my true opinion is that the OP is not
helping anyone. And either the OP is lazy or trying to cover up a
limitaion of the cam. I want more detail than the OP is willing to
give. But By bieng rude I've closed the door for The OP to do any
serious tests. Oh well, other people will do them. No loss.

Sorry, Guy, I think you're the one being unhelpful, as well as fairly rude.

Someone with a new camera turns up and makes a comment about it. That happens several times a day on this forum, but you just had to use it, yet again, to attack a camera you don't even own.

Move on.

OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: Finally... a voice of reason in this thread.

JinE wrote:

Finally someone said something that made sence in this thread

course if it's dark enough to need to rely on the crappy VF's in
the D40/50/70/80 then you'd probably want to use a bright fast
prime lens, something the D40 isn't capable of using.

I did not know that the D40 is not capable of using the Sigma 30 mm F1.4 HSM. Nor are the owners of the D40 that use that (FULLY functional lens on the D40) lens.That is not a prime??? F1.4 is not fast???

Of course the D40 is not capable of using the Nikon 50mm F1.8 at all (I suppose the need to manual focus means that a lens "isn't capable of using" as you say. Well ALL of the lenses that I ever used on my Minolta SRT 101 must never have worked and I must never have any images made by that combination. I am sure that you have actually looked throught the VF of the D40 :).

A good
viewfinder sure would make macro work a lot easier.

-- hide signature --
OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: Thanks for this info, Jim ...

That's why I was so surpised!
Thank you David!

David Chin wrote:

... that the D40's VF is brighter than the D50's isn't obvious from
various reviews on the Net, and brief reports from owners like
yourself are really useful --- collectively, these brief notes
contribute to a better understanding and appreciation of the camera
being researched.

Anyway, I've linked up your thread and some of the responses in a
few spots at:
http://www.dpnotes.com/nikon-d40-vs-nikon-d50/

Thanks again!

OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: You noticed .05% difference huh....hmmm.

Huh? I did not say anything about the magnification in my OP. Check. I only talked about the brightness difference which is very significant and for some people noteworthy. Where did you see me say anything about .05%? Again stop putting words in my mouth that I never ever said and then responding to your own fiction.

Sarajean wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page4.asp

Brighter maybe - but thats about it.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads