Who cares about viewfinder size?

https://photography-on-the.net …highlight=om-1+viewfinder

gravy graffix wrote in post #8655389
look thru a Olympus OM-1 you want big... thats big. it is like you not even looking thru ANYTNING at all, turn you cam upside down, put it up to your eye... yeah. hot.

5d2 is a pleasant change form the 40-20d view finder.

Oooooh yeah.. A colleague only shot OM1s and OM2s while I shot Nikons and the OM1 and OM2 viewfinders were to kill for..

Maybe that's why i feel let down. I LOVE my OM-10!

The viewfinder in my 5D was a little too big to use well with my glasses and often when grabbing a quick shot, I'd not see one of the edges. The MKIII seems a little better this way and brighter or sharper or both, anyways it works better for me.

Has never really mattered to me.

kasey wrote in post #8654143
I mean, does it really matter to you if it's that slightly larger? I don't notice much of a difference between cameras of the same sensor size anyway. It's not like it will affect image quality or my composition, why such a big deal over it?

If you do any manual focusing at all viewfinder size matters. Every little bit helps when you're manually focusing an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens in relative darkness because your camera's AF has given up and gone home.

I like big, bright viewfinders.

Unfortunately, there haven't been any to speak of for ages in the canon lineup. Nice viewfinders became extinct when phase detection autofocus, popup flash, and digital bodies came into existence. I really don't find the 1Ds mark III viewfinder to be THAT much better than my 40D viewfinder. They are all rather small and dim in comparison to old manual focus 35mm film cameras.

gravy graffix wrote in post #8655389
look thru a Olympus OM-1 you want big... thats big. it is like you not even looking thru ANYTNING at all, turn you cam upside down, put it up to your eye... yeah. hot.

5d2 is a pleasant change form the 40-20d view finder.

Getting my om-2 soon.. Cant wait to use f/1.2 and a huge viewfinder

When I first got my XSi, it seemed the viewfinder was smaller than my old 35mm cameras, but I hadn't shot one of those in years, so I thought the rose-colored filter of nostalgia was fooling me.

Then I got the 5D. Huge difference. I'd like the viewfinder to be 100%, but it's not really that big of a deal for my shooting.

Before I sold the XSi, which was not being used at all anymore, I snapped a few "last shots" with it, and couldn't believe how tiny the VF was. It's like looking down a long, dimly lit hallway compared to the 5D, which is nowhere near as good as old film cameras.

gravy graffix wrote in post #8655389
look thru a Olympus OM-1 you want big... thats big. it is like you not even looking thru ANYTNING at all, turn you cam upside down, put it up to your eye... yeah. hot.

5d2 is a pleasant change form the 40-20d view finder.

The viewfinder of the OM1's really are something. I cringe after I have been shooting with my OM1 then going back to the 40D.

I personally would pay a premium for a DSLR with the same sized / bright viewfinder of the OM1.

100% bright viewfinders are just one of the things that Canon tossed away when they moved to digital. My old manual Nikon and my Eos-3 are both better than my 30D.

So I'm pleased to see 100% viewfinders back on Canons radar. Just wish they would wake up to a number of other things that have been discarded.

Cyrix_2k wrote in post #8655090
I agree, the entry level models are horrible. What I still don't get is why my film body has a MUCH better viewfinder than my 5D (larger/brighter... hard to compare coverage with most shots).

my 5D, and D700 aren't that much different than my A2 is?

Lowner wrote in post #8656938
100% bright viewfinders are just one of the things that Canon tossed away when they moved to digital. My old manual Nikon and my Eos-3 are both better than my 30D.

not all canon's had 100% finders though, just the 3 and the 1 series. The elans and 7s and A2 were all a 9x% finder. It's similar now, you're just paying more than a 3 cost then for a DSLR with a worse viewfinder so it hurts more.

i value a larger and brighter viewfinder.... but maybe it's because i have bad eyesight

Before my Mark III, I had an Olympus E-300. I was pretty happy with it. Then in the park one day, I saw someone using a Mark III and he was willing to let me try it. I had done a LOT of research on the camera, and knew I already wanted it.

The thing that blew my mind was in fact the viewfinder size and brightness. That one thing right there sold me, everything else came secondary, interestingly. It makes a VERY large difference.

Cyrix_2k wrote in post #8655090
I agree, the entry level models are horrible. What I still don't get is why my film body has a MUCH better viewfinder than my 5D (larger/brighter... hard to compare coverage with most shots).

Film SLRs largely did not divert half of the light to the AF sensor in the base of the camera, so it all went to the focusing screen...brighter SLR.

Film SLRs, especially those from 1950-1980, did not rob real estate within the viewfinder to display all the status displays that are crammed into the viewfinder now. Olympus OM-1 (c. 1973) at 0.92x vs OM-4 (c.1983) 0.84x magnification showed the start of the trend...larger SLR

And to offset the brightness issues, the dSLR put the available photons into a smaller viewfinder to keep it brighter (still not as good as the SLR!)...smaller dSLR

[edit: corrected chart]