Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 16 Sep 2009 (Wednesday) 07:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Who cares about viewfinder size?

 
gotak
Senior Member
949 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Sep 16, 2009 20:14 |  #46

reng2009 wrote in post #8657572 (external link)
For me, too. When I was shopping for my first DSLR back in February, I was looking for a basic camera on a budget. My criteria were: 1) superb IQ; 2) durability; and 3) comfortable handling. Nothing else mattered.

(My eyesight is failing, so I need big viewfinder and big LCD.)

I tried the XSi, D60 and D90, and I found them very uncomfortable to hold and operate. I also didn't like the plastic construction.

But when I tried the 40D, I instantly fell in love with it! Perfect grip, fantastic ergonomics. All-magnesium body. Large and bright viewfinder. And at CAD$1180, it was easily the best photographic bargain on the market. Well worth the price difference. And this is for a basic DSLR camera.

(I'm still on a budget.)

Yes, the viewfinder definitely matters.

Similar story for me. I was going to get a T1i didn't like the tiny grip on it. Picked up the 50D and looked into the viewfinder. Done deal I was getting a 50D over the T1i.


http://bubble-trees.com/ (external link)
7D x2,, 50 f1.8, 11-16 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 100 2.8L, 430EX, 580EX, Di866, pixel king wireless TTL trigger.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,567 posts
Likes: 160
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Sep 16, 2009 20:17 |  #47

For me, it' s a big deal. It's not that I can't shoot well with a small viewfinder (I took tons of great shots with my old 300D), but the big viewfinder of my 1Ds II is just SO much nicer for composition, DOF preview, and especially manual focus, over the relatively small size of my 30D viewfinder. And, every time I put a roll through my old Minolta X-370, which has a viewfinder about 20% larger than my 1Ds II, I am jealous of that VF.


Jordan Steele - http://www.jsteelephot​os.com (external link) | https://www.admiringli​ght.com (external link)
---------------
Canon EOS R5 | R6 | TTArtisan 11mm Fisheye | Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 | RF 24-105mm f/4L IS | Tamron 35mm f/1.4 | RF 35mm f/1.8 | RF 50mm f/1.8 | RF 85mm f/2 | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 135mm f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
"in stockings and suspenders"
Avatar
6,444 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
     
Sep 16, 2009 20:23 as a reply to  @ Jman13's post |  #48

If what you see through the viewfinder is EXACTLY what you'll see on your computer when you open your files, you're able to develop better technique using all the image, fully-framed before you push the button.

Any other viewfinder means you probably HAVE TO CROP to get the best from each file.

"100% viewfinder" is the way to go.


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cyrix_2k
Senior Member
299 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Westminster, MD
     
Sep 16, 2009 21:23 |  #49

Wilt wrote in post #8657329 (external link)
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



Progress?!

Ahh, that makes sense.

BTW, I looked up the OM-10 and it is .92x with 93% coverage.


Olympus OM-10 35mm SLR | Canon EOS 5D | Canon EOS 5D Mk III

Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX | Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 | Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 | Zuiko 50mm f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,323 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 536
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Sep 16, 2009 21:56 |  #50

dcad10 wrote in post #8657914 (external link)
+1 ... try manually focusing on a 5d then try and do it on an xti bigger is definitely better!

i MF like once every three years. the last time i did it it felt like i was taking a shower with my socks on :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Foggy
Senior Member
397 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Sep 16, 2009 22:03 |  #51

ed rader wrote in post #8658704 (external link)
i MF like once every three years. the last time i did it it felt like i was taking a shower with my socks on :D.

ed rader

lol that's nasty!

Gotta have more viewfinder!


Gear/Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 16, 2009 23:07 as a reply to  @ Foggy's post |  #52

I did not think much of viewfinder size at first, but when I went from Rebel XT to 40D as my primary camera, the difference felt enormous to me. The viewfinder was larger and brighter, and I felt like composing my shots was a lot easier. I still use my XT as a secondary camera (especially at weddings and such), but whenever I put my eye to the XT, I kind of cringe looking through the tiny (it's not tiny, but feels like it) viewfinder.

I'm excited about the 7D's 100% viewfinder and 1.0x magnification. I can't wait to see what it will be like to look through it.


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kitacanon
Goldmember
4,706 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 36
Joined Sep 2006
Location: West Palm Beach
     
Sep 17, 2009 16:09 |  #53

The difference in viewpoints may be based on whether one came to DSLRs from 35mm SLR or from PnS cams...


My Canon kit 450D/s90; Canon lenses 18-55 IS, 70-210/3.5-4.5....Nikon kit: D610; 28-105/3.5-4.5, 75-300/4.5-5.6 AF, 50/1.8D Nikkors, Tamron 80-210; MF Nikkors: 50/2K, 50/1.4 AI-S, 50/1.8 SeriesE, 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor (AF locked), 85mm/1.8K-AI, 105/2.5 AIS/P.C, 135/2.8K/Q.C, 180/2.8 ED, 200/4Q/AIS, 300/4.5H-AI, ++ Tamron 70-210/3.8-4, Vivitar/Kiron 28/2, ser.1 70-210/3.5, ser.1 28-90; Vivitar/Komine and Samyang 28/2.8; 35mm Nikon F/FM/FE2, Rebel 2K...HTC RE UWA camera

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oaktree
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Sep 17, 2009 16:23 |  #54

kitacanon wrote in post #8661495 (external link)
The difference in viewpoints may be based on whether one came to DSLRs from 35mm SLR or from PnS cams...

OR: In my case, I went from looking through mainly a XTi and 17-55/2.8 combo to a 5D2 and 24-105/4 combo. Both viewfinders looked the same to me. I'm sure if I used the 24-105 on the XTi most of the time, switching to the 5D2 would have seemed awesome.


Too much stuff, not enough shooting time.

Canon T4i (2 lenses), Fuji X100s, Olympus OM-D EM-1 (3 lenses)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EagleRock
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Finland
     
Sep 17, 2009 17:04 |  #55

When you shoot marco you will understand how important is the viewfinder size :P




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lani ­ Kai
"blissfully unaware"
Avatar
2,132 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Connecticut
     
Sep 17, 2009 19:40 |  #56

I find brightness and crispness to be more important than just size, although larger viewfinders are definitely a plus. My Pentax 67 has a detachable pentaprism the size of Jupiter, but it's not the best in terms of brightness or overall ease-of-focus.


SmugMug (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Equipment list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 37
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Sep 17, 2009 20:06 |  #57

Lani Kai wrote in post #8662641 (external link)
I find brightness and crispness to be more important than just size, although larger viewfinders are definitely a plus. My Pentax 67 has a detachable pentaprism the size of Jupiter, but it's not the best in terms of brightness or overall ease-of-focus.

I agree..It's nearly as bad as my old Nikon F..


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jorkata
Member
213 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Sep 17, 2009 20:42 as a reply to  @ yogestee's post |  #58

To me, the VF is a defining feature of a DSLR. The bigger, the better.
One of the reasons I might consider switching to FF is the bigger VF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
merp
Senior Member
490 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
     
Sep 18, 2009 02:30 |  #59
bannedPermanently

I love it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,412 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 73
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Sep 18, 2009 03:26 |  #60

Surely the object of a viewfinder is to compose your subject and in some circumstances focus. The size is limited by the physical construction of the camera, it would be nice to have a 6"x 4" viewfinder enabling easy focus on the leaf of a tree 800 yards away but how would you engineer that. The best is surely a viewfinder that shows precisley what is going to be in the frame and is bright and as large as the physical dimensions of the camera will allow.


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,628 views & 0 likes for this thread
Who cares about viewfinder size?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Richard_2008
1004 guests, 202 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.