optical viewfinder conspiracy - DPChallenge Forums

02/20/2006 02:22:51 AM · #1

Back in the film days, an optical viewfinder provides the most accurate view for "guessing" how a photo will turn out, since we cant develop the negatives in camera (lets leave polaroid-instants out). So it makes sense that having an optical viewfinder is THE best for overal accuracy of what the film will "see", or can we put it, how light will appear on the negatives after passing through the lens. In digital days, why are they (manufacturers) still adopting this approach?

02/20/2006 02:36:29 AM · #2

Well, your first statement is a fallacy. The viewfinder only serves to show how the image is framed and also, by pushing a button, to preview DOF. Many shots I've made on film, looked great in the finder, but sucked once the film was developed. To make great shots, you have to have an innate understanding of how the film will respond to the light, just like you do with the sensor when shooting digital. Digital is easier, in some respects because you can chimp between frames and make adjustments. To do the same for film, you would have to switch emulsions.

What I want to know is why are consumers putting up with viewfinders that show less than %100 of the final image?

02/20/2006 02:58:59 AM · #3

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

What I want to know is why are consumers putting up with viewfinders that show less than %100 of the final image?

digital or film cameras?
I guess it's not so critical in digital because the image gets cropped anyway during printing or during PS...

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 03:16:14.

02/20/2006 03:00:42 AM · #4

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The viewfinder only serves to show how the image is framed and also, by pushing a button, to preview DOF.

on film cameras?

02/20/2006 03:01:37 AM · #5

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The viewfinder only serves to show how the image is framed and also, by pushing a button, to preview DOF.

on film cameras?

Yes, what you see in the VF is not what you get on film, not by a long shot.

02/20/2006 03:04:18 AM · #6

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What I want to know is why are consumers putting up with viewfinders that show less than %100 of the final image?

digital or film cameras?

My Nikon F3 had a %100 viewfinder, WYSIWYG as far as framing.

My 10D only shows about %95.

The VF's on a lot of non-pro bodies (film and digital) show less than %100.

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 09:59:14.

02/20/2006 03:17:26 AM · #7

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

My Nikon F3 had a %100 viewfinder, WYSIWYG as far as framing.

that's what I'd call precision! :)

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

02/20/2006 04:40:30 AM · #8

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What I want to know is why are consumers putting up with viewfinders that show less than %100 of the final image?

digital or film cameras?
I guess it's not so critical in digital because the image gets cropped anyway during printing or during PS...

Unless you're printing them yourself, the same is true for film as well. Labs will always crop a bit - although pro labs will print full frame if you specifically ask them not to.

The edge of frame on a negative/slide exposure is not a completely straight line - under magnification you can see that it's actually jagged, in a way that is apparently as individual to a camera as fingerprints are to people.

Carl Zeiss 35mm f2.4 Jena/Flektogon MC

02/20/2006 04:53:00 AM · #9

Originally posted by paddles:

The edge of frame on a negative/slide exposure is not a completely straight line - under magnification you can see that it's actually jagged, in a way that is apparently as individual to a camera as fingerprints are to people.

so there is no such thing as a 100% viewfinder? ??

ralph

Nikon Z9

02/20/2006 07:09:53 AM · #10

Nikon d2x is 100%

Uusilehto

Canon EOS-1D

02/20/2006 07:20:08 AM · #11

Originally posted by ralphnev:

Nikon d2x is 100%

So are the Canon 1- series cameras.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/20/2006 07:24:51 AM · #12

I find 94% coverage (or whatever the 20D is) infuriating!! I regularly have to guess how far I have to compose off centre in order to get a centred image. I am getting better at it, but it is enough to throw off an otherwise well composed rule of thirds image, unless I go back and crop. It would not be so bad, but the missing few percent are all on the LHS.

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 07:25:51.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/20/2006 09:46:34 AM · #13

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by paddles:
The edge of frame on a negative/slide exposure is not a completely straight line - under magnification you can see that it's actually jagged, in a way that is apparently as individual to a camera as fingerprints are to people.

so there is no such thing as a 100% viewfinder? ??

I've noticed the XT is close, but you do get just a little wider in the photo then what you see in the viewfinder. Not a big deal if you ask me as cropping it out is easy if I don't like it.
If it were the other way around (what you see is wider then what you get) I'd be pretty unhappy.

I've never had a problem centering?