Viewfinder Coverage - anyone find it slightly annoying?

[mrkgoo]

I have a 350D, and though I have learnt to compensate for the95% coverage (that is, the actual image is slightly larger than what you seen in the viewfinder) in terms of composition, every now and again, I find that I'm slightly off.

Yeah, it's no big deal, but sometimes you want to fit a subject in, and crop off any distracting object, and I'm required to take a couple shots to get it right. Sure, I can crop in post processing, but I would really like to get it right first time (training my eye etc).

Is the 30D viewfinder full coverage? what about the 5D? I would like to see this fixed up in future iterations of Canon's Dslrs.

[Madweasel]

Among current Canon DSLRs, only the 1-series have 100% coverage.

[Wilt]

Is the 30D viewfinder full coverage? what about the 5D? I would like to see this fixed up in future iterations of Canon's Dslrs.

Fat chance! In history, few SLR screens viewed 100% of the frame area. In the days of film, that was little problem because either the slide mount or the negative carrier prevented 100% of the frame from being shown anyway!

Nowadays, the problem is the amount of information we cram into the viewfinder also puts pressure on the coverage percentage, and that is compounded additionally by the reduction of viewfinder mangnification! People get so 'excited' over the 'increase in size of the 5D viewfinder, compared to the APS-C camera bodies...

For example:
1DsII is 0.7x mag on 100% of 24x36 frame = 25.2mm long apparent
5D is 0.71x on 96% of 24x36 frame = 24.5mm long apparent
20D is 0.9x on 95% of 15x22.5 frame = 19.2mm apparent

1DsII and 5D have puny 0.7x magnification...about 24% smaller than I had in my OM-1 viewfinder with (if I remember right) about 33mm apparent size! Is this progress?!?!?!

[StewartR]

Yeah, it's no big deal.You said it. You're post-processing anyway, so cropping off a few pixels at the same time is hardly a lot of work.I would really like to get it right first timeAnd what is the probability of the aspect ratio of the "perfect" shot being exactly 1.5000?

[kram]

Crop off to the same 95% on the comp......

[mrkgoo]

Crop off to the same 95% on the comp......


Haha, that's actually not a bad idea :).

And ofr the record, I'm not really doing any PP. Just wondering how difficult it is to make a 100% viewfinder (or atleast 98% or so). I typically just check my picture on teh LCD, and reshoot if I need another one.

[kram]

Haha, that's actually not a bad idea :).

And ofr the record, I'm not really doing any PP. Just wondering how difficult it is to make a 100% viewfinder (or atleast 98% or so). I typically just check my picture on teh LCD, and reshoot if I need another one.

I think the 95% is maintained for the same reason that when you print, it allows for some part to be cropped. Your final output is likely to be closer to what you wanted to capture this way.

Of course, 99.99% of the snaps never get printed (atleast in my case). But then, my composition is never so good that I get irritated with the 95%. Lots bigger issues to get upset about the picture ;)

[StewartR]

If you ever print, you're going to be cropping no matter what, at least if you want to fill the paper or have an even border.

4x6, 5x7, 8x10. None of those equals 3:2.Well, 4x6 is quite close to 3:2, if you look at it the right way... :)

[mwillberg]

4x6, 5x7, 8x10. None of those equals 3:2

Actually, not to be picky, but according to my math 4x6 equals 3:2 (or 2:3 to be precise)... :)

[Lightstream]

Fat chance! In history, few SLR screens viewed 100% of the frame area. In the days of film, that was little problem because either the slide mount or the negative carrier prevented 100% of the frame from being shown anyway!

Nowadays, the problem is the amount of information we cram into the viewfinder also puts pressure on the coverage percentage, and that is compounded additionally by the reduction of viewfinder mangnification! People get so 'excited' over the 'increase in size of the 5D viewfinder, compared to the APS-C camera bodies...

For example:
1DsII is 0.7x mag on 100% of 24x36 frame = 25.2mm long apparent
5D is 0.71x on 96% of 24x36 frame = 24.5mm long apparent
20D is 0.9x on 95% of 15x22.5 frame = 19.2mm apparent

1DsII and 5D have puny 0.7x magnification...about 24% smaller than I had in my OM-1 viewfinder with (if I remember right) about 33mm apparent size! Is this progress?!?!?!
To us deprived APS-C folks, it's a lot ;)

Worse, I had a 350D. 0.8x on 95% of the APS-C frame would be 17.1mm. Thanks for showing me the calculations, now I can understand why the 5D is so $#(*!@ing awesome :)

Never shot an OM-1 so I wouldn't know what I'm missing. But I would dearly love 0.9x mag on my 5D!

[DocFrankenstein]

1DsII and 5D have puny 0.7x magnification...about 24% smaller than I had in my OM-1 viewfinder with (if I remember right) about 33mm apparent size! Is this progress?!?!?!
I'm just as annoyed as you are at the whole lineup. Too bad their sensors are so good.

I want big and clear finder. Maybe I'll vandalize my rebel and put a minolta finder on it... lose metering and have a box of extra components hanging off it... just to get a good magnification. (not sarcasm)

[Wilt]

I'm just as annoyed as you are at the whole lineup. Too bad their sensors are so good.

I want big and clear finder. Maybe I'll vandalize my rebel and put a minolta finder on it... lose metering and have a box of extra components hanging off it... just to get a good magnification. (not sarcasm)

After posting about the pathetic viewfinders of today, I started to wonder if there is some inherent problem (other than cost of production!) that prevents manufacturers from using higher magnification eyepieces -- even true >1 mag factor!
After the OM-1, even Olympus started shrinking FF viewfinders when it launched the OM-4, rather than retaining the luxurious viewfinder of the OM-1 (I still have both, when I want to depress myself, I look thru the OM-1, then the OM-4, then the 20d! :p Then if a want to really depress myself, I pick up my Bronica 645 and peek thru that, then the 20D!)

[PacAce]

I'm just as annoyed as you are at the whole lineup. Too bad their sensors are so good.

I want big and clear finder. Maybe I'll vandalize my rebel and put a minolta finder on it... lose metering and have a box of extra components hanging off it... just to get a good magnification. (not sarcasm)
I could be wrong but I think the magnification is a function of the eyepiece glass that they use. Up to the point just before that, the image on the ground glass should be the same no matter what camera it's on. So, you should, if I'm right, be able to just replace the eyepiece itself. There's a reason the diopter adjustment is there, too.

[Jon]

It's a factor of everything between the matte surface on the focussing screen and the eyepiece. Focussing screens typically have a condenser lens on the top surface. The less powerful this lens is, the larger the pentaprism/pentamirror needs to be to cover the whole finder area, and the larger the apparent image can be. For those who remember the Olympus OM screens, they were very small, and the camera had a comparatively huge pentaprism; that's why they had such a large finder. For those who are about to bring up the Nikon Photomic - a lot of that size was the metering mechanism!

[René Damkot]

So I guess this one doesn't count either? :lol:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/f3afbasic/images/Nikon_F3AF.jpg

[Jon]

Ah, yes. The old Nikon design philosophy - when in doubt, put it in the finder. Actually that approach has a lot to recommend it. If you didn't mind huge finder assemblies. I wish at least some of the EOS line had a counterpart of the Canon Speedfinder for the original F-1.

[Wilt]

It's a factor of everything between the matte surface on the focussing screen and the eyepiece. Focussing screens typically have a condenser lens on the top surface. The less powerful this lens is, the larger the pentaprism/pentamirror needs to be to cover the whole finder area, and the larger the apparent image can be. !

This description seems to simply point to "it is more expensive to make a larger finder and so we won't" as the reason for the diminutive finders of today! Same reason the manufacturers started de-featuring bodies even in the film SLR days...cost

For those who remember the Olympus OM screens, they were very small, and the camera had a comparatively huge pentaprism; that's why they had such a large finder. For those who are about to bring up the Nikon Photomic - a lot of that size was the metering mechanism!

Olympus focusing screens for OM-1 and OM-4 (same screens!) will be no larger and no smaller than any other 24x36 frame size camera! And the pentaprisms on them are not big at all! Large finder is simply a reflection of the much higher viewfinder magnifications possible when you put very little data in the viewfinder, like the OM-1. Start cramming more info (OM-4) and the mag factor has to shrink in order to keep the pentaprism and body size down. Cram even more info into the viewfinder, and the result is the dSLR postage stamp!

[René Damkot]

I wish Canon had something that came even close to a Nikon HP viewfinder...

[Jon]

Olympus focusing screens for OM-1 and OM-4 (same screens!) will be no larger and no smaller than any other 24x36 frame size camera! And the pentaprisms on them are not big at all! Large finder is simply a reflection of the much higher viewfinder magnifications possible when you put very little data in the viewfinder, like the OM-1. Start cramming more info (OM-4) and the mag factor has to shrink in order to keep the pentaprism and body size down. Cram even more info into the viewfinder, and the result is the dSLR postage stamp!Sorry -not the screen area - the thickness, which reflects the condenser lens on the top. And Olympus made a point of advertising how much bigger their pentaprism was than that on comparable cameras when the OM-1 first came out.

[Wilt]

And Olympus made a point of advertising how much bigger their pentaprism was than that on comparable cameras when the OM-1 first came out.

Hmmm, I had purchased the original OM-1, then later bought an OM-1n when the OM-1 jammed during a trip. I just don't recall any hay being made about pentaprism size, and judging from the body size it wasn't obvious! :confused: I guess I'll have to see if I can find my original OM-1 brochure later this weekend.

[Jon]

Ex-in-laws got, and pushed us to try using, the OM-1 when it first came out. It certainly showed up in some of the camera mag. ads.

[Wilt]

The wonders of modern technology...the OM-1 brochure from 1976 is on the web! It make no effort to highlight the pentaprism size, merely calling it 'optimum' and later mentions the pentaprism housing being smaller! It does talk about a bigger mirror (which I remember) for long focal length lenses.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/OM1.jpg

[Wilt]

And I just found another bit of history preserved on the web at the Olympus historical information pages http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/corc/history/camera/om.cfm?ote=1:

"OM-1 (1973)
Introduced in 1973, the OM-1 was the first product in the OM Series. It earned wide acclaim as the world's smallest and lightest 35mm single-lens reflex camera. The ribbons in the cloth curtain shutter were replaced with strings, and the camera was equipped with an air damper to absorb the shock of mirror movement. The condenser was eliminated, and a pentaprism with a curved lower surface was used " (emphasis mine)

Still no evidence of the big pentaprism claims, though, Jon

[PacAce]

It's a factor of everything between the matte surface on the focussing screen and the eyepiece. Focussing screens typically have a condenser lens on the top surface. The less powerful this lens is, the larger the pentaprism/pentamirror needs to be to cover the whole finder area, and the larger the apparent image can be. For those who remember the Olympus OM screens, they were very small, and the camera had a comparatively huge pentaprism; that's why they had such a large finder. For those who are about to bring up the Nikon Photomic - a lot of that size was the metering mechanism!
Thanks for the info, Jon. I didn't realize there was anything other than the pentaprism between the focusing screen and the eyepiece lens.

[PacAce]

And I just found another bit of history preserved on the web at the Olympus historical information pages http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/corc/history/camera/om.cfm?ote=1:

"OM-1 (1973)
Introduced in 1973, the OM-1 was the first product in the OM Series. It earned wide acclaim as the world's smallest and lightest 35mm single-lens reflex camera. The ribbons in the cloth curtain shutter were replaced with strings, and the camera was equipped with an air damper to absorb the shock of mirror movement. The condenser was eliminated, and a pentaprism with a curved lower surface was used " (emphasis mine)

Still no evidence of the big pentaprism claims, though, Jon

I guess they managed that by incorporating the condenser lens and the pentaprism into one unit, i.e. the pentaprism with the curved lower surface which serves as the condenser lens.

[Tom W]

Consider this aspect in terms of the less-than-1.0X-magnification - On the more recent Canon SLR and DSLR the main mirror is not 100% reflective, but passes somewhere between 30 and 40% of the light through to the secondary mirror which in turn passes the information to the AF sensor in the bottom of the mirror box. What that means is that only 60-70% of your light is getting to the pentaprism & viewfinder right off the bat. Also consider that if you lose 50% of your light, you've lost 1 stop.

Now, since a sizeable portion of brightness is lost at the mirror, there are two choices - 1X magnification with a less-bright viewfinder, or less than 1X (say, .71X) light magnification and something closer to full brightness in the viewfinder. So the 1Ds loses about 1/2 stops of light in the mirror, but regains it by condensing the 24X36 mm image to dimensions around .71X that (if the concept of relating negative magnification with brightness seems odd, think of how an ordinary magnifying glass can be held to concentrate sunlight to the point that the infrared portion of the spectrum can burn a hole in a leaf).

For the viewfinder coverage, it's a matter of cost. The 1-series has a 100% viewfinder coverage, but that requires excellent alignment of the entire viewfinder path. A camera with 95-96% has a little slack so that alignment isn't quite as critical up and down or side-to-side. Of course, the focus screen and optical depth alignment must be precise for focusing purposes.

[Wilt]

Tom, Good explanantion for why 0.7x mangification. So the 'evil AF' is ultimately responsible for creating the need for half-silvered mirror, which creates the need for 0.7x which causes viewfinders to be tiny and bright!

[DocFrankenstein]

I started to wonder if there is some inherent problem (other than cost of production!) that prevents manufacturers from using higher magnification eyepieces -- even true >1 mag factor!
When you need to fit the controls of a space shutte in the viewfinder: EC, FEC, shutter speed, aperture and everything else... that might play a role.

Noink had it right with the pro models up to F5 where you can swap the finders.

The other variable is that the mirror sends about 40% of the light to the AF system, reflecting little more than half... When in manual focus bodies you get more light coming to the finder.

[DocFrankenstein]

Consider this aspect in terms of the less-than-1.0X-magnification - On the more recent Canon SLR and DSLR the main mirror is not 100% reflective, but passes somewhere between 30 and 40% of the light through to the secondary mirror which in turn passes the information to the AF sensor in the bottom of the mirror box. What that means is that only 60-70% of your light is getting to the pentaprism & viewfinder right off the bat. Also consider that if you lose 50% of your light, you've lost 1 stop.

Now, since a sizeable portion of brightness is lost at the mirror, there are two choices - 1X magnification with a less-bright viewfinder, or less than 1X (say, .71X) light magnification and something closer to full brightness in the viewfinder. So the 1Ds loses about 1/2 stops of light in the mirror, but regains it by condensing the 24X36 mm image to dimensions around .71X that (if the concept of relating negative magnification with brightness seems odd, think of how an ordinary magnifying glass can be held to concentrate sunlight to the point that the infrared portion of the spectrum can burn a hole in a leaf).
That's a bad explanation. With this logic it's better to make smaller viewfinders because they're supposedly would be brighter.

With this logic olympus should've made a .7x viewfinder to make sure that it's even brighter than the previous.

The reason why larger finders are better is because the image is spread over a larger area of your retina, allowing you to actually discern more detail... incrsearing effective sharpness.

[DocFrankenstein]

The bottom line is that canon is a cheapskate who caters to the masses. To the lowest common denominator.

Good finders and prisms don't cost THAT much.

[Wilt]

Noink had it right with the pro models up to F5 where you can swap the finders.

I wonder why there are no interchangeable finders or interchangeable backs...the interchangeable back would be a great way to convert many highly desirable film cameras into digitals! The Noinks, the Olympuses, others had removable backs to allows 250-shot film longrolls to be outfitted, so why not a digital back, like you can on Med and Large Format cameras?!?!

[DocFrankenstein]

I guess they managed that by incorporating the condenser lens and the pentaprism into one unit, i.e. the pentaprism with the curved lower surface which serves as the condenser lens.
Technically there's no need for the condenser lens if you're willing to sacrifice some (or quite a bit of) brighness.

Maybe they designed a focus screen which err... "channels the light rays into the prism". :lol:

A-la ultra bright katz eye equivalent.

[DocFrankenstein]

I wonder why there are no interchangeable finders or interchangeable backs...the interchangeable back would be a great way to convert many highly desirable film cameras into digitals! The Noinks, the Olympuses, others had removable backs to allows 250-shot film longrolls to be outfitted, so why not a digital back, like you can on Med and Large Format cameras?!?!
I think the final camera would just be too bulky. With film cameras you have the motors or winders for the film, the two spools... too much redundancy.

The MF cameras have interchangeable film backs already and are coupled to these backs. So it would be harder to design an MF camera which functions as a body AND the back together.

[Tom W]

That's a bad explanation. With this logic it's better to make smaller viewfinders because they're supposedly would be brighter.

With this logic olympus should've made a .7x viewfinder to make sure that it's even brighter than the previous.

Old Olympus manual focus cameras didn't deal with partial mirrors and the resultant loss of light to the AF system. Nor did older Canons which, while not quite as good as some highly-regarded viewfinders, were larger prior to autofocus. The Canon FX, FP, and FT-QL all boasted .9X magnification, though the coverage was in the low 90% range. Compare to AF cameras like the Elan (.75X, 90%), 1N HS (.72X, 100%), and the EOS 3 (.72X, 97%). Losing 1/3 to 2/3 stops of viewfinder light might not seem significant with an f/2.8 lens in reasonable light, but in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, or with a slow lens, the viewfinder loses its usefulness.

The reason why larger finders are better is because the image is spread over a larger area of your retina, allowing you to actually discern more detail... incrsearing effective sharpness.

Although my retina cannot take in an entire 24X36 mm viewfinder at one time, I can see the benefit of the larger image. I doubt that Canon can't see the benefit also. But that has to be weighed against light-loss - the viewfinder has to provide enough brilliance to be able to use the camera in poor conditions as well as better conditions. Obviously, cost plays a role as well, which is why the XT has a very small viewfinder and uses a pentamirror assembly instead of a pentaprism.

[DocFrankenstein]

Although my retina cannot take in an entire 24X36 mm viewfinder at one time, I can see the benefit of the larger image. I doubt that Canon can't see the benefit also. But that has to be weighed against light-loss - the viewfinder has to provide enough brilliance to be able to use the camera in poor conditions as well as better conditions. Obviously, cost plays a role as well, which is why the XT has a very small viewfinder and uses a pentamirror assembly instead of a pentaprism.
You missed my point.

Given a certain light level, you'll still be able to see better if the magnification is larger. Yes, it's dimmer, but your eye sees better.

[Tom W]

You missed my point.

Given a certain light level, you'll still be able to see better if the magnification is larger. Yes, it's dimmer, but your eye sees better.


I agree, if the light level is acceptable.

But unfortunately, light isn't always acceptable.

[Wilt]

You missed my point.

Given a certain light level, you'll still be able to see better if the magnification is larger. Yes, it's dimmer, but your eye sees better.

Right...if the Circles of Confusion are seen larger, it is easier to discern an out-of-focus status (as exemplified by the flip down magnifiers of medium format waistlevel finders). A higher magnification is better, even under dim viewfinder circumstances (as proven with using loupes with large format ground glass).

[PacAce]

You missed my point.

Given a certain light level, you'll still be able to see better if the magnification is larger. Yes, it's dimmer, but your eye sees better.
Ever project a slide onto a screen and adjust the size of the image using a zoom lens? Which was brighter, the smaller image or the larger one?

[PacAce]

That's a bad explanation. With this logic it's better to make smaller viewfinders because they're supposedly would be brighter.

With this logic olympus should've made a .7x viewfinder to make sure that it's even brighter than the previous.

The reason why larger finders are better is because the image is spread over a larger area of your retina, allowing you to actually discern more detail... incrsearing effective sharpness.
Why does an image on my 30D LCD look so tack sharp even when the focusing was off a tad but when I view it on my computer monitor at home, it looks so blurry? :confused:

[JMHPhotography]

Why does an image on my 30D LCD look so tack sharp even when the focusing was off a tad but when I view it on my computer monitor at home, it looks so blurry? :confused:

Ever click on a thumbnail that looked razor sharp, only to find out the full image is blurry and OOF? You're taking a full size image and showing it on a 2.5" screen. Only if you zoom in will you really see if you nailed the focus. As for the original poster.... Coming from the EOS film SLR's where the viewfinder accounts for only 90%/92% of the actual image... I thought 95% was awesome! I got bit a few times forgetting that when I first got my 20D though. I accounted for the additional space and when I tried to do borderless prints... I'd lose some of the image, so I had to print with borders to get all the stuff I wanted.

[Choderboy]

I wonder why there are no interchangeable finders or interchangeable backs...the interchangeable back would be a great way to convert many highly desirable film cameras into digitals! The Noinks, the Olympuses, others had removable backs to allows 250-shot film longrolls to be outfitted, so why not a digital back, like you can on Med and Large Format cameras?!?!

Tolerances.
Engineers predicted Leica would fail with their Digital backs due to manufacturing tolerances - too hard to mass produce backs that would fit on any body. They were wrong , Leica seems to have succeeded , although they are not cheap.

[Wilt]

Tolerances.
Engineers predicted Leica would fail with their Digital backs due to manufacturing tolerances - too hard to mass produce backs that would fit on any body. They were wrong , Leica seems to have succeeded , although they are not cheap.

I don't buy the 'tolerances' argument, either! Film cameras were made with guides at the film plane and pressure plates...that has worked for decades and still works! So if you can remove the back cover from an SLR (Nikon, Olympus, others) you can fit a digital sensor-equipped back in place and the sensor will be as precisely fitted as film was.

I think the final camera would just be too bulky. With film cameras you have the motors or winders for the film, the two spools... too much redundancy.

I don't agree about too much bulk. While the camera might become somewhat thicker in the body section, it wouldn't need to be by much...some of the space in a film back is merely the spring and the pressure plate and some clearance for the film can! And electronics could certainly fit into the space beneath the camera, no different that the bulkiness of the 1DsII and no different than adding BG-E2 to a 20D.

[Choderboy]

[quote=Wilt]I don't buy the 'tolerances' argument, either! Film cameras were made with guides at the film plane and pressure plates...that has worked for decades and still works! So if you can remove the back cover from an SLR (Nikon, Olympus, others) you can fit a digital sensor-equipped back in place and the sensor will be as precisely fitted as film was.

Just quoting a common engineering opinion.

[Wilt]

[quote=Wilt]I don't buy the 'tolerances' argument, either! Film cameras were made with guides at the film plane and pressure plates...that has worked for decades and still works! So if you can remove the back cover from an SLR (Nikon, Olympus, others) you can fit a digital sensor-equipped back in place and the sensor will be as precisely fitted as film was.

Just quoting a common engineering opinion.

Hmm, engineers have also brought us the unpredictablity of ETTL, too! :rolleyes:

[PacAce]

[quote=Choderboy]

Hmm, engineers have also brought us the unpredictablity of ETTL, too! :rolleyes:
Come on, Wilt. Don't be shy. Tell us how you really feel about ETTL.


:lol: ;)

[Wilt]

[quote=Wilt]
Come on, Wilt. Don't be shy. Tell us how you really feel about ETTL.


:lol: ;)

No, don't want to stir up the natives! I don't go broadcasting the problems, I only reply to those who ask "Why does it....?"

Tens of thousands of other photographers can't be totally wrong in their suppositions about the behavior vs. how every other flash system has worked, do you think? ;)

[Tom W]

I don't buy the 'tolerances' argument, either! Film cameras were made with guides at the film plane and pressure plates...that has worked for decades and still works! So if you can remove the back cover from an SLR (Nikon, Olympus, others) you can fit a digital sensor-equipped back in place and the sensor will be as precisely fitted as film was.

I think that many film users would be unpleasantly surprised if they could easily view their film images at a size equivalent to today's 100% crops. I'm not saying that digital backs on an SLR won't ever happen, but the required tolerance might well be tighter, if only to satisfy the requirements of the proverbial pixel peeper.

I also don't think we're at the point that a suitable sensor module with supporting circuitry will fit on a reasonably-sized back. These DSLRs are packed with circuit boards as it is. And I don't think it's reasonable to consider just replacing the sensor while maintaining the same circuitry. Each processing family (i.e., Digic II) has its limits, and once those aren't adequate, the entire body will have to be replaced anyway. More maturity is needed.

I don't agree about too much bulk. While the camera might become somewhat thicker in the body section, it wouldn't need to be by much...some of the space in a film back is merely the spring and the pressure plate and some clearance for the film can! And electronics could certainly fit into the space beneath the camera, no different that the bulkiness of the 1DsII and no different than adding BG-E2 to a 20D.

If only the sensor were attached to the "digital back", then the size issue would be no issue at all. But as I noted above, we're not at the point where the supporting circuitry is developed enough to stay with the body with much longetivity, nor can all that circuitry be yet condensed into a small back unit.

As for the future, maybe....

[drparker]

Fat chance! In history, few SLR screens viewed 100% of the frame area. In the days of film, that was little problem because either the slide mount or the negative carrier prevented 100% of the frame from being shown anyway!

Nowadays, the problem is the amount of information we cram into the viewfinder also puts pressure on the coverage percentage, and that is compounded additionally by the reduction of viewfinder mangnification! People get so 'excited' over the 'increase in size of the 5D viewfinder, compared to the APS-C camera bodies...

For example:
1DsII is 0.7x mag on 100% of 24x36 frame = 25.2mm long apparent
5D is 0.71x on 96% of 24x36 frame = 24.5mm long apparent
20D is 0.9x on 95% of 15x22.5 frame = 19.2mm apparent

1DsII and 5D have puny 0.7x magnification...about 24% smaller than I had in my OM-1 viewfinder with (if I remember right) about 33mm apparent size! Is this progress?!?!?!

Thanks Wilt, this just answered a question that was bugging me. Why does it seem so hard to manually focus my 5D compared to what I remember on the OM-1 I used 25 years ago? Thought it might be that I wear glasses now. I'm going to try the precision screen but these calculations tell me not to expect what I was used to. :confused:

[Tom W]

Thanks Wilt, this just answered a question that was bugging me. Why does it seem so hard to manually focus my 5D compared to what I remember on the OM-1 I used 25 years ago? Thought it might be that I wear glasses now. I'm going to try the precision screen but these calculations tell me not to expect what I was used to. :confused:


It could also be that there's no focus-aid split prism or other tool in the center of the frame. But you're right, the bigger viewfinder, providing brightness is adequate, should be better.

My eyes are older as well. Still, I find my 5D easier to manually focus than my old FT-QL which boasts a .9X viewfinder magnification. Perhaps focus-screen surfaces are better, though a nice split-prism center would be useful at times.

[Wilt]

If only the sensor were attached to the "digital back", then the size issue would be no issue at all. But as I noted above, we're not at the point where the supporting circuitry is developed enough to stay with the body with much longetivity, nor can all that circuitry be yet condensed into a small back unit

But my whole point is the back of the camera with pressure plate comes off, new back with integrated sensor attaches in its place, and there is an integrated lower assembly, not unlike the BG-E2 battery unit, which attaches to the bottom plate of the camera. Support electronics could be housed within it, and it could be powered with a high density lithium ion battery instead of bulkier and less efficient AA which are normally in the BG-E2. Smaller battery would be needed, as the normal battery in the body controls all the body functions; the battery in the back has only to deal with the digital imaging electronics. If you look at the bulk total the height on the 1Ds (vs. the 20D/30D) you get an idea of just how much space there is as an appendage on SLR (if you look at the bulk of a 250 shot film magazine, that makes digital electronics look dinky!). Digital back could send ISO value to the same contacts that are there to sense the film canister ISO code. The back has only to control its ISO, becoming 'electronic film' in the division of functionality between body and back. Camera body's own shutter and lens aperture controls display in the viewfinder like normal. No different than Med Format cameras and the digital backs that exist for them!

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/digiback.jpg

[Tom W]

That looks a little bigger than my 5D! ;)

[mfunnell]

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/digiback.jpgThat looks quite similar to the approach Leica took to adding their DMR back to their R8/R9 SLRs.

...Mike

[Wilt]

If only the sensor were attached to the "digital back", then the size issue would be no issue at all. But as I noted above, we're not at the point where the supporting circuitry is developed enough to stay with the body with much longetivity, nor can all that circuitry be yet condensed into a small back unit.

As for the future, maybe....

You guys should see the now-withdrawn Kodak professional dSLR which is based upon an expanded Nikon body (somewhat similar to 1DsII body shape and size) for an example of the dSLR electronics integrated into a 35mm body. (The only difference is that my digital back is removable, so the camera could revert to film use.) The size factor CAN be (and has been) done!

That looks a little bigger than my 5D! ;)

Generally most people suffer from the dillusion that a 1DsII is larger than a 5D, too! ;)

[Tom W]

Generally most people suffer from the dillusion that a 1DsII is larger than a 5D, too! ;)

Yes, and most people don't care to have a 1DsII lurking in their bag either (present forum members generally excluded). One of the reasons that I sold my 1-series for the 5D is the size.

I'd say that if you adhere to the mandatory battery-grip design, then maybe the digital back is doable, but it certainly looks like an overly bulky addition. I don't see it as a reasonable in that form either, but others may feel differently. If it were really just a "back" and not a bottom as well, I would see it as a more welcome addition.

I also wonder if there'd be any real cost savings over trading bodies every few years, especially given that other factors besides the sensor and related electronics tend to advance from time to time.

Probably doesn't matter. I don't see this type of camera setup coming out for a while yet. Things are changing too fast IMHO.

[Wilt]

Why does it seem so hard to manually focus my 5D compared to what I remember on the OM-1 I used 25 years ago? Thought it might be that I wear glasses now. I'm going to try the precision screen but these calculations tell me not to expect what I was used to. :confused:


Factors include:
Finer focusing screen than manual focus cameras, because people want to see bright finders; Finer screens are inherently harder to focus.

Lower magnification viewfinder (OM-1 was 0.92x, 5D is 0.71x) and larger is easier to focus.

[Wilt]

I also wonder if there'd be any real cost savings over trading bodies every few years, especially given that other factors besides the sensor and related electronics tend to advance from time to time.

If you have experience the SLR evolution, it seems to have quit evolving (significantly) about 10-15 years ago! If the body itself has evolved fully, all that is left is the pixel wars and the firmware in the electronics to process the pixels! It matters not to me about Evaluative metering, for example, I am perfectly happy with the OM-4 spot metering and its 8-spot averaging capability. Yes averaging 8 spots is slower than Evaluative mode, but at least I know where in the scene the meter it taking its points of importance from because I control that!

A retrofit of a 12Mpixel back onto my OM-4 I could easily justify spending even $2000 for (compared to a $2500-2800 5D body), especially when you also factor in the large inventory of lenses I already own for my OM-4.