Digital SLRs need bigger finders

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...

Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.

When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70, they
left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.

But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.

So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see what's
in it!

The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which itself
is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a normal
lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the magnification
should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why don't
they do it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:
> Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...
>
> Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.
>
> When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and
D70, they
> left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.
>
> But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.
>
> So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
what's
> in it!
>
> The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which
itself
> is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a
normal
> lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the
magnification
> should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."
>
> This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why
don't
> they do it?

My crib is more to do with the fundamental design of the
cameras/lenses. In the last, say 10 years, what advances have been made
to make faster, brighter and cheaper lenses? Any zoom or telephoto lens
that says F2.8 or less gets priced at $1000 or above.

Then, how much has AF and metering electronics improved? What
improvements are there in the pipeline in terms of technology?
- Siddhartha

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
in message news:41c30aae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...
>
> Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.
>
> When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70,
they
> left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.
>
> But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.
>
> So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
what's
> in it!
>
> The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which
itself
> is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a
normal
> lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the magnification
> should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."
>
> This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why
don't
> they do it?
>
Pentax figured that out, I don't know why the others haven't. I still don't
know why Pentax et al don't show 100% of the image though!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1103537552.555801.226260@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>My crib is more to do with the fundamental design of the
>cameras/lenses. In the last, say 10 years, what advances have been made
>to make faster, brighter and cheaper lenses? Any zoom or telephoto lens
>that says F2.8 or less gets priced at $1000 or above.

ISTM that Canon in particular seem to be concentrating very much on two
areas with their optics - consumer zooms for digital SLRs, and extreme
telephotos for their lucrative photojournalism market. They seem to have all
but abandoned developing new wide-angle and short-telephoto primes,
attractive to amateur landscape/street/portrait photographers.

I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for DSLRs,
and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon are
chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so great
if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and taking
your time over your hobby.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1103543936.733854.90230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> I see Pentax come out with cool stuff like their new pancake lens for
>DSLRs,
>> and I start to feel like I bought into the wrong lens system. Canon
>are
>> chasing the mass market, which makes sense for them, but it's not so
>great
>> if you're the sort of hobbyist who values classic style primes and
>taking
>> your time over your hobby.
>
>Despair not, my friend
>
>Buy a M42-to-EOS adapter and get Pentax screw mount lenses. Read a bit
>about these and you might get excited:

Now that does sound interesting - looking it up, M42 seems to have a
slightly longer registration distance than EF, so there should be no reflex
mirror problems. Very tempting.

Having said that, my wonderful wife has just bought me a splendid Christmas
pressie in the shape of a Mamiya 7 plus Mamiya 43mm f/4.5 ultrawide lens,
which seems to be widely regarded as one of the best lenses in the world, so
I suspect the digital stuff might be getting a rest for a while. Hmm,
luuverly 6*7 slides...

>Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (~$100)
>Peleng 8mm f/3.5 (~$200)
>Pentax 50mm f/1.4 (~$50)
>
>Not perfect but still interesting for the price. And don't forget the
>MF and stop-down metering hassle or fun, as I put it.

I'll go with the "fun" interpretation, methinks. Some of my favourite shots
recently were shot on a 1938 Zeiss Ikoflex TLR - manual focusing via a
loupe, and no metering of any kind. Modern cameras turn us all into spoilt
brats. ;->

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
in message news:41c30aae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...

> So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
> what's in it!

One problem is that the finder then becomes dimmer, as the same amount of
light is spread out over a larger field.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:
> Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...
>
> Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.
>
> When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70, they
> left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.
>
> But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.
>
> So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see what's
> in it!
>
> The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which itself
> is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not a normal
> lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the magnification
> should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."
>
> This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why don't
> they do it?
>
>

The why not is easy.
The dslr manufacturers have a huge investment in production lines that
can produce parts for both film and digital slr cameras.
The fact that they can flog cameras for both formats that use identical
parts in the optical path makes the overall cost of manufacturing both
less than if seperate finders were made for film and digital.
Also, any stockpiles of parts (prisms, mirrors, etc) from previous film
models can be re-tasked for digital bodies with no modification.
Canon, Nikon, Pentax and (even) Sigma all do the same thing in this regard.

Perhaps Sigma, the dslr manufacturer with the least to lose (and most to
gain) in market share, could do the cheapest mod to their next camera
and ditch the "sportsfinder" for a "capture area only" viewfinder.
It would be cheaper than upgrading the sensor to a larger or higher res one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The new Pentax DS I think is .95 and is very good.

"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c6891f$0$25837$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Michael A. Covington wrote:
>> Here's one of those "D'oh!" obvious thoughts...
>>
>> Digital SLRs need much more magnification in the viewfinder.
>>
>> When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70,
>> they left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.
>>
>> But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.
>>
>> So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
>> what's in it!
>>
>> The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which
>> itself is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is
>> not a normal lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the
>> magnification should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."
>>
>> This might actually make the finder prism assembly more compact. Why
>> don't they do it?
>>
>>
>
> The why not is easy.
> The dslr manufacturers have a huge investment in production lines that can
> produce parts for both film and digital slr cameras.
> The fact that they can flog cameras for both formats that use identical
> parts in the optical path makes the overall cost of manufacturing both
> less than if seperate finders were made for film and digital.
> Also, any stockpiles of parts (prisms, mirrors, etc) from previous film
> models can be re-tasked for digital bodies with no modification.
> Canon, Nikon, Pentax and (even) Sigma all do the same thing in this
> regard.
>
> Perhaps Sigma, the dslr manufacturer with the least to lose (and most to
> gain) in market share, could do the cheapest mod to their next camera and
> ditch the "sportsfinder" for a "capture area only" viewfinder.
> It would be cheaper than upgrading the sensor to a larger or higher res
> one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in
news:VODxd.13480$uM5.9554@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> One problem is that the finder then becomes dimmer, as the same amount
> of light is spread out over a larger field.

That did not stop Pentax from doing it right.
Anyone knows if the Pentax finders are too dim?


/Roland

 

[Leonard]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
in message news:41c30aae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> When Canon and Nikon made SLRs such as the 10D, Digital Rebel, and D70,
> they left the viewfinder magnification the same as in film SLRs.
>
> But the focusing screen is smaller, to match the smaller sensor size.
>
> So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
> what's in it!
>
> The finder magnification is presently "0.75x with a 50mm lens" which
> itself is a bit low compared to earlier film SLRs. But a 50mm lens is not
> a normal lens on these cameras; a 30mm lens is. Accordingly, the
> magnification should be increased to about "1.25x with a 50mm lens."

Elan7N : 90% coverage at 0.7x
20D : 95% coverage at 0.9x

Not enough to overcome the smaller sensor size, but getting there. The
DRebel also has slightly better magnification and coverage than the
film version.

- Len

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> The new Pentax DS I think is .95 and is very good.

Okay, I stand corrected on the Pentax DSLR cameras.
Pentax seems to have asked some actual users what they want.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
> "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote
> in message news:41c30aae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
>
> > So... The finder *needs* to have higher magnification, to help us see
> > what's in it!
>
> One problem is that the finder then becomes dimmer, as the same amount of
> light is spread out over a larger field.

People keep saying that, but I wonder. I tried a Nikon F100 with the Tokina
17/3.5 in a store the other day (three or four years ago<g>) and was blown
away. It's far better than any of the 645 SLRs with a 35mm f/3.5 wide angle.
The F100 really is a lot brighter.

So I distrust the "light is spread out over a larger field" since it would
tell you that the medium format SLRs and TLRs should be a lot brighter than
a Nikon F100, and none of them are anywhere near as bright. (I meandered by
the local pro lab the other day, and they were demoing digital backs on
various MF cameras, and the Hassy 500 screen was so dim I couldn't even
focus the thing. The Hassy H1 was fine, though.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cq7p54$o8h$1@nnrp.gol.com...

>> One problem is that the finder then becomes dimmer, as the same amount of
>> light is spread out over a larger field.

> People keep saying that, but I wonder. I tried a Nikon F100 with the
> Tokina
> 17/3.5 in a store the other day (three or four years ago<g>) and was blown
> away. It's far better than any of the 645 SLRs with a 35mm f/3.5 wide
> angle.
> The F100 really is a lot brighter.

> So I distrust the "light is spread out over a larger field" since it would
> tell you that the medium format SLRs and TLRs should be a lot brighter
> than
> a Nikon F100, and none of them are anywhere near as bright.

There's an additional variable: What fraction of the light reaching the
focusing screen eventually finds its way to the eyepiece? I suspect that
fraction is higher for 35mm cameras than for medium-format cameras because
the marketplace demands it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>My crib is more to do with the fundamental design of the
>cameras/lenses. In the last, say 10 years, what advances have been made
>to make faster, brighter and cheaper lenses? Any zoom or telephoto lens
>that says F2.8 or less gets priced at $1000 or above.

Canon's done work on the DO lenses, which are expensive now but
I suppose could be cheaper in future. Nowadays the advances in
manufacturing mean they can assemble cheap aspherical elements,
making much cheaper/brighter/lighter lenses. It's hard to make
robust quality (metal, seals etc) cheaper, so pro-lenses won't
come below a certain price I guess.

There's also cutting edge technology that uses diffractive
coding of wavefront through a special lens coating, which
can then use processing to focus the image algorithmically.
That means very cheap lenses, but is currently military stuff.

--
Ken Tough