What does Canon have against big viewfinders?

AdamLewis wrote in post #4180917
Ok...so...

Im reading, "Pick up a dinosaur thats never used anymore".

Im talking about relevant technology. If my MkIII and 40D viewfinders suck, Id love to see one thats awesome.

I see your point. They don't make digitals with good viewfinders

It's not the size that matters but how you use it

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #4180972
I see your point. They don't make digitals with good viewfinders

Ive got to give you credit for that one.

In all honesty though, I really love the viewfinder on the MkIII. The 20D seemed small and the 30D didnt seem like there was much difference. It seems to me the 40D is larger than the 30D but I could be making that up. I know the MkIII is larger and I love it!

Only one Id have any real problem with is an XTi. Its like looking through a peephole

AdamLewis wrote in post #4180917
Ok...so...

Im reading, "Pick up a dinosaur thats never used anymore".

Im talking about relevant technology. If my MkIII and 40D viewfinders suck, Id love to see one thats awesome.

So old cameras that aren't "relevant" anymore have better viewfinders than new ones, and that doesn't strike you as just a bit sad? As the rest of technology has progressed, viewfinder size which isn't particularly technology-intensive has regressed. I'm glad you're happy with yours and I don't really have too many complaints about my 1DII viewfinder either, but the world is bigger than the 1DIII and 40D.

Donte wrote in post #4181020
It's not the size that matters but how you use it

That's what they tell people with small viewfinders to make them feel better.

Canon 400D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.8x
Canon 300D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.88x
Canon 30D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.9x
Nikon D80 : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.94x
Nikon D200 : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.94x
Canon 40D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.95x
Nikon D300 : Frame coverage 100% magnification approx. 0.94x

Sad to see that 400D has a much smaller viewfinder then the old 300D. Also Canon is at least one generation behind Nikon at this point (more like 3 generations if Canon continues providing tiny incremental increases every 18months). Wonder how things will evolve if Nikon's new sensors prove to have at least one stop advantage thus stealing Canon's wildcard.

Are there no accessories you can buy to help with the small viewfinder issue?

I've got an eyepiece extender on my 400D. It doesn't do any magnification, but it would seem simple enough to provide something that did.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #4181461
Canon 400D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.8x
Canon 300D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.88x
Canon 30D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.9x
Nikon D80 : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.94x
Nikon D200 : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.94x
Canon 40D : Frame coverage 95% magnification approx. 0.95x
Nikon D300 : Frame coverage 100% magnification approx. 0.94x

Ahh - here is the myth! The 30D has 95% linear coverage (horizontal 95%; vertical 95%), which gives only about 90% frame coverage. The other Canons are probably the same. I've never checked how Nikon does their specification.

As always, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I strongly suspect that I'm not just missing 5% of my view, but twice that. In practice, I find it a very significant loss.

xarqi wrote in post #4180933
My OM2 VF covered 97% of the area, but the 30D, with 95% linear cover, covers only 90% of the area! That means is that I'm throwing away 10% of my pixels simply because they can play no part in my composition if I can't see them.

do you really need to see what you already know is there, come on, really!

i can understand points about viewfinder quality, but size is not as big of an issue. a crappy viewfinder is one that makes it hard to focus or judge the exposure (from experience canon is weak at the former, and nikon is weak on the latter). nikon screens are nice, but i find that the one on the d50 tends to show some unsightly reactions to high contrast points in otherwise low contrast scenes..

Okay, go look through a Four-Thirds viewfinder to make yourselves feel better.

basroil wrote in post #4181495
do you really need to see what you already know is there, come on, really!

No, I can make allowances for what I consider a poor design. In practice, it reduces my 8.3 mpix to about 7.5 once I crop out the stuff that was recorded, but was not as I composed it. I guess if my visual/spatial memory was much better than it is, I could rock the camera around and try to remember exactly where all of the objects are othat are outside the visible area, but on the whole, I'd rather see what I was getting - after all, that is the central reason behind the SLR design, is it not? These days, I guess it's called WYSIWYG.

I'm not especially concerned with size, just coverage. Make it smaller, or dimmer for all I care, but make it 100%. For me, this is a big selling point of liveview.

Very true too - another place where the standard screen on the OM2 excelled, with a high precision matte field, a split prism, and a microprism ring as focus aids. Replaceable screens in some Canon bodies address this, I think. Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if AF was perfect, but at best, it is only very good, and in some situations (e.g. macro, and low light), and given the QC variance in bodies and lenses, it can be frustratingly poor.

Ummm - I'm not following you there, unless you mean the digitally displayed data - I tend to plan any EC by eyeball based on the scene and metering mode, and see if it worked out as planned after the event from histograms and blinkies on the LCD.

Here are the smilies
I'm not getting heated or looking for a fight - just saying my piece the way I see it. If others see it differently, that's all good too.

Lani Kai wrote in post #4181567
Okay, go look through a Four-Thirds viewfinder to make yourselves feel better.

Never have - are they lousy? How's the coverage?

I know I really wanted to stay with Olympus when the time came to change to digital since I'd found their film gear phenomenally well designed and manufactured. The 4/3 system put me off though, and Canon lenses attracted me, so that made me a POTNer!

AdamLewis wrote in post #4180917
Ok...so...

Im reading, "Pick up a dinosaur thats never used anymore".

Im talking about relevant technology. If my MkIII and 40D viewfinders suck, Id love to see one thats awesome.

eh? Irrelevant dinosaurs? Bull****. Many fine images were captured with the F1, Contax etc, and still are being captured. A viewfinder is a viewfinder, whether it's on a film or digital camera is what is irrelevant. I've usually bought Canon's 1 series bodies, and they have nice viewfinders. Their prosumer body viewfinders aren't great.

Again, competitition is good. If Nikon can do this with their prosumer body viewfinders, then why can't Canon? The same is applied to LCD technology, again, Canon lags behind Nikon in this respect, especially with the iminent launch of the D300 and D3.

Like most manufacturers, Canon will sit on its a$$ and bludge and not improve something if it can get away with it. As soon as marketing information shows a nice sales shift to Nikon (or someone else), and the resultant market research shows that it was because of crappy viewfinders, Canon will something, but until then, it'll do nothing.

Whatever happened to making the best product you can, not because you can make a buck, but because you believe you can make the best product? Pride in your product...is missing today imho.

Canon's Mark III AF dilemma is a joke, and in reality shows how much Canon really does care about its customers. This is the problem when you have one marque with a very large monopoly in a certain market - they often think that they can get away with anything, at least until they start getting their butt kicked by a competitor. Go Nikon.

Dave

dpastern wrote in post #4181673
Whatever happened to making the best product you can, not because you can make a buck, but because you believe you can make the best product? Pride in your product...is missing today imho.

Amen to that.

Unfortunately, most of those companies didn't survive: Hewlett-Packard and Digital Equipment are two that come to mind (Thanks for nothing, Compaq). There is more profit to be made from high volume sales of cheaper products, than the converse.

To some extent, the consumer can fight back - that's why when the time comes for a tripod head, it'll be an Acratech. It will outlast me.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #4180778
I don't know why. It's my biggest gripe with canon.

Maybe it's because they send half the light off to the AF system. Maybe Nikon sends less, allowing them to use more magnification.

I want a BW digital with no AF.

Exactly, Canon isn't trying to make their viewfinders darker, but any time you use a semi-silvered mirror you will lose light. It’s a compromise, they could of made it more reflective at the expense of low light AF performance. I’m sure the engineers at Cannon thought this was the best for performance reasons, because it sure doesn’t seem the simplest, with the added mirror and motors needed for this AF system.

That said, I still think my 40D is the best possible camera available for me, not that it's perfect, what's with the picture style and print button, does anyone use these?