Viewfinders DX vs FX

[dwa1]

I hesitated jumping in here, but not one poster (including the op) mentioned anything about eyeglasses vs. contact lenses vs. none.

For people who DON’T have to wear eyeglasses when they shoot, the size difference of the viewfinder between a D300 and a D700 may not be that important. Why? Because their eye is right up against the viewfinder and therefore it’s much easier to manual focus and read the various info on the display. A simple diopter adjustment can fine tune the viewfinder for the shooter.

For people who DO wear eyeglasses, it’s a whole different ballgame. The eye is much farther from the eyepiece and there is also much more “extraneous” light which significantly interferes with the ability to read the viewfinder. Therefore, the eyeglass wearer will want and appreciate the FX body eyepiece.

When I started shooting I wore contacts. The viewfinder was not so much of an issue. The past 2 years I haven’t been able to wear my contacts and have been trying different eyepiece accessories on my D300 and D90. Like DRode, one of my main reasons for wanting a D700 / D800 is for its’ larger (and therefore “better-for-eyeglass-wearers”) viewfinder.

Things that I’ve tried and what I now use on my D300…

I tried the eyepiece magnifier for the D90 / D300 bodies, but I didn’t like it. I’ve tried the original size Hoodman eyecup, but I didn’t like it either. Note - Hoodman just introduced an oversized eyecup made specifically for eyeglass wearers , but for me, it looks like it obscures too much of the LCD on the BACK of the body.

On the D300 I am currently using the Nikon DK-22 Eyepiece Adapter and the Nikon 2925 Finder Eyepiece . I really like this combo and it will do until I can get a D700 / D800 and / or start wearing contacts again. Is it better than the standard D300 / D90 eyepiece? For this eyeglass wearer it is. The climb is worth the view. I can get my eyeglasses closer to the viewfinder and therefore it is a little easier to read the info and use manual focus. The Nikon 2925 is round and has a rubber edge to prevent eyeglass scratching. It screws into the DK-22. For about $25 (less shpg), it’s well worth it to me.

Nikon 2925…

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37450-REG/Nikon_2925_Finder_Eyepiece_for_FM.html

Nikon DK-22…

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37445-REG/Nikon_2370_DK_22_Eyepiece_Adapter_for.html

Richieg, good luck in your quest for improved viewfinder reading. btw… Do you wear eyeglasses?

Hope this helps you and others,

Wayne

 

[Nescollector]

Jeez the op just made an observation that the viewfinder in the d700 is much larger that of a dx camera, and he gets thrown to the wolves 95 per or 100 per the viewfinder is huge on a fullframe.

 

[Juergen]

The difference between 100% and 95% is huge. It means that you have no control over 5% of the image. It can mean that there are elements in the image which you don't want there and must PP out or crop the image. Cropping is not always possible if you want or need maximum print size and PP can be difficult and time consuming. I for one certainly disagree and say that 100% VF is very important. ...but yes, for the majority of photographers 95% is good enough and in fact, the majority can manage even without a DSLR, for them a P&S or a phone camera is all what's needed.

On a D700 with 2832 x 4256 pixels 95 percent mean a loss of circa 72 pixels on the short side and circa 108 pixels on the long side - so you can see 2760 x 4148 pixels.

 

[Juergen]

We're not talking about taking 5% off one side, we're talking just over 1% of each side. Its a tiny amount, and although it can make a difference I bet there are ever so few instances when it actually amounts to being noticeable, let along significant.

Right, as said above e.g. on a D700 you lose 72 pixels on the short side and 108 pixels on the long side.

 

[Turbguy1]

Things would be a whole lot easier for us if..

Manufactures provided BOTH:

percent coverage (typically they do)

Horizontal Angle of View (which I've never seen). The larger the angle, the larger the view....

Wayne

 

[Richieg]

Thanks for the reply. I do wear glasses but I am trying to get in the habit of not wearing them when I shoot.

I might look into these 2 mods to see if they work

 

[olyflyer]

For people who DO wear eyeglasses, it’s a whole different ballgame. The eye is much farther from the eyepiece and there is also much more “extraneous” light which significantly interferes with the ability to read the viewfinder. Therefore, the eyeglass wearer will want and appreciate the FX body eyepiece.

I think that's very personal and depends also on what kind of glasses you wear. I don't want an FX view finder and I wear glasses all the time. I can not see the edges of an FF VF unless I force my eye to look around and scan the VF image, so I am not very keen on anything larger. Don't forget that there are different type of eye glasses and different correction needs, so you can't speak for every eyeglass wearer. In fact, I think it is the opposite, people without eye glasses appreciate the large VF more than those with because of the fact that their eye can get closer to the eye piece. What I think is very important for anyone and is often ignored is the diopter adjustment, but that is important for everyone.

 

[olyflyer]

Jeez the op just made an observation that the viewfinder in the d700 is much larger that of a dx camera, and he gets thrown to the wolves

I fail to see where this happened. I mean, this is a discussion forum isn't it? The OP made an observation and not everyone agree with his observation. What is it you expect? 100% agreement? What would be to point to be here if that was the case and we all would agree in everything?

95 per or 100 per the viewfinder is huge on a fullframe.

The 95% vs. 100% has nothing to do with how large the VF is. Yes, the FF VF is larger because it has an FF sensor which is larger than the DX, not because it is a 100% or 95% but because 72% of the FF frame is still larger than 94% of the DX sensor area. 95% is the crop factor of the VF image and has nothing to do with the size.

…but no one has thrown the OP to the wolves. That’s a ridiculous statement or at least a bit of overreaction from your side.

 

[olyflyer]

Thanks for the reply. I do wear glasses but I am trying to get in the habit of not wearing them when I shoot.

I don't think that's a good idea but I know several people who are doing that. I keep both my eyes open when I shoot, but I know most people close the "unused" one. It is very tiring to keep one closed for a longer period. What I use is an Olympus EP-6 eyecup instead of that crap which came with the D300s. It works perfectly because it fits to my right eye glass and locks all the stray light out, allowing me to keep the screen protector on as well.

 

[olyflyer]

The difference between 100% and 95% is huge. It means that you have no control over 5% of the image. It can mean that there are elements in the image which you don't want there and must PP out or crop the image. Cropping is not always possible if you want or need maximum print size and PP can be difficult and time consuming. I for one certainly disagree and say that 100% VF is very important. ...but yes, for the majority of photographers 95% is good enough and in fact, the majority can manage even without a DSLR, for them a P&S or a phone camera is all what's needed.

On a D700 with 2832 x 4256 pixels 95 percent mean a loss of circa 72 pixels on the short side and circa 108 pixels on the long side - so you can see 2760 x 4148 pixels.

Like I said...

"I for one certainly disagree and say that 100% VF is very important. ...but yes, for the majority of photographers 95% is good enough and in fact, the majority can manage even without a DSLR, for them a P&S or a phone camera is all what's needed."

...but sure, 100 pixel does not matter in every image, never the less, if there is a disturbing element which 100 pixel wide (and even if it is smaller) it is still a disturbing element which must be cloned out or taken care of in some way. Of course, many people don't care about this, I am only talking about myself and how I'd do.

 

[olyflyer]

Things would be a whole lot easier for us if..

Manufactures provided BOTH:

percent coverage (typically they do)

Horizontal Angle of View (which I've never seen). The larger the angle, the larger the view....

Normally they provide the VF magnification factor, the percentage of the visible image and the lens which it is measured with, which is normally the 50/1.4 at infinity. This lens has 47 degree angle of view on FX and 31.5 degrees on DX. Too bad they don't use the 35 on DX, which would be more similar to the FX normal but they indeed provide the horizontal angle of view.

 

[Juergen]

Juergen wrote:

On a D700 with 2832 x 4256 pixels 95 percent mean a loss of circa 72 pixels on the short side and circa 108 pixels on the long side - so you can see 2760 x 4148 pixels.

Like I said...

"I for one certainly disagree and say that 100% VF is very important. ...but yes, for the majority of photographers 95% is good enough and in fact, the majority can manage even without a DSLR, for them a P&S or a phone camera is all what's needed."

...but sure, 100 pixel does not matter in every image, never the less, if there is a disturbing element which 100 pixel wide (and even if it is smaller) it is still a disturbing element which must be cloned out or taken care of in some way. Of course, many people don't care about this, I am only talking about myself and how I'd do.

... as we have two long sides and two short sides each long side "loses" 54 pixels and each short side 36 pixels - if that's important to you, then be it so.

But claims like your "The difference between 100% and 95% is huge." simply are exaggerations.

 

[Turbguy1]

I meant the Horizontal angle of view of the SCREEN image as viewed through the finder. This doesn't change no matter what lens (or NO lens) you use.

Wayne

 

[calson]

I have a D3 and a D300 and I much prefer the viewfinder of the D300 simply because the AF sensors cover a lot more of the viewfinder. With the D3 the bottom third of the viewfinder is without any AF sensors so I end up focusing, locking focus, and reframing a lot more than is the case with the D300.

This is an area where I hope Nikon fixes its mistakes with both the D300 and D3 cameras and provides more than 20% coverage of the viewfinder with its cross type AF sensors and more than 33% of the viewfinder with all AF sensors. This is one area where the Canon 1D cameras are much better.

 

[le_alain]

Coming from D300 to D700, and every one speakking of size of the VF related to size of the sensor,
Iwas surprised buy tis so small size of the image in the FF D700 !!

Nothing to compare with the size and brightness of my thirty years old reflex,

even smal SLR with with very smal prisme, as Pentax MX or ME and having so great VF !

i don't understand ...

 

[toddchaney]

dwa1 wrote:

I hesitated jumping in here, but not one poster (including the op) mentioned anything about eyeglasses vs. contact lenses vs. none.

For people who DON’T have to wear eyeglasses when they shoot, the size difference of the viewfinder between a D300 and a D700 may not be that important. Why? Because their eye is right up against the viewfinder and therefore it’s much easier to manual focus and read the various info on the display. A simple diopter adjustment can fine tune the viewfinder for the shooter.

For people who DO wear eyeglasses, it’s a whole different ballgame. The eye is much farther from the eyepiece and there is also much more “extraneous” light which significantly interferes with the ability to read the viewfinder. Therefore, the eyeglass wearer will want and appreciate the FX body eyepiece.

When I started shooting I wore contacts. The viewfinder was not so much of an issue. The past 2 years I haven’t been able to wear my contacts and have been trying different eyepiece accessories on my D300 and D90. Like DRode, one of my main reasons for wanting a D700 / D800 is for its’ larger (and therefore “better-for-eyeglass-wearers”) viewfinder.

Things that I’ve tried and what I now use on my D300…

I tried the eyepiece magnifier for the D90 / D300 bodies, but I didn’t like it. I’ve tried the original size Hoodman eyecup, but I didn’t like it either. Note - Hoodman just introduced an oversized eyecup made specifically for eyeglass wearers , but for me, it looks like it obscures too much of the LCD on the BACK of the body.

On the D300 I am currently using the Nikon DK-22 Eyepiece Adapter and the Nikon 2925 Finder Eyepiece . I really like this combo and it will do until I can get a D700 / D800 and / or start wearing contacts again. Is it better than the standard D300 / D90 eyepiece? For this eyeglass wearer it is. The climb is worth the view. I can get my eyeglasses closer to the viewfinder and therefore it is a little easier to read the info and use manual focus. The Nikon 2925 is round and has a rubber edge to prevent eyeglass scratching. It screws into the DK-22. For about $25 (less shpg), it’s well worth it to me.

Nikon 2925…

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37450-REG/Nikon_2925_Finder_Eyepiece_for_FM.html


Nikon DK-22…

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37445-REG/Nikon_2370_DK_22_Eyepiece_Adapter_for.html


Richieg, good luck in your quest for improved viewfinder reading. btw… Do you wear eyeglasses?

Hope this helps you and others,

Wayne

hi...I think an eye doctor can help you the best in your problem. Why don't you consult a local optometrist in your area. Or leave a query on their website? My doctor at Killeen Vision Source helps me out in all eye related problems.

 

[BobSC]

olyflyer wrote:

The difference between 100% and 95% is huge. It means that you have no control over 5% of the image. It can mean that there are elements in the image which you don't want there and must PP out or crop the image. Cropping is not always possible if you want or need maximum print size and PP can be difficult and time consuming. I for one certainly disagree and say that 100% VF is very important. ...but yes, for the majority of photographers 95% is good enough and in fact, the majority can manage even without a DSLR, for them a P&S or a phone camera is all what's needed.

Well, that's one approach. The other is to learn to see with your mind instead of your eye and compose for the sensor. All you have to do is learn how much border there is around the viewfinder and shoot with both eyes open. The border is not necessarily uniform. I did have a 100% finder on my F2, and it was really nice, but it's not the only way to use 100% of the sensor.

 

[JimPearce]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50421688

 

[_sem_]

olyflyer wrote:

win39 wrote:

I got one for my D300 a long time ago. 1.2x. Not really enough to dim noticeably and a real pleasure to use.

...but will not let me see the edges and it introduces visible distortion. It's not working for everyone.

Which one did you use? The DK-17M is better than the DK-21M optically, but a hack is required to attach it to cameras with rectangular OVFs. But both of them require you to squeeze the eye close to see the edges, not so good with glasses.