Laforet
Nowhere Man
Through an SLR, you see the real image projected on a groundglass screen showing the actural image being formed on the flim. On the other hand, a RF's viewfinder gives an aerial image.
The main difference, apart from brightness is that RF viewing is sharp across the scene, while SLRs show you the minimal depth of field at open aperture. This can be an advantage, however more often RF shooters find it problematic because:
1. With a slow wide-angle lens, not only you get a dim finder, but there will be too much depth of field even at open aperture, making precise focusing difficult. This is especially nasty with DSLR's full matte screens, all you see is a "sort of sharp" image while keep turning the focus back and forward because you fail to lock-on:bang: Due to the inherent nature of an SLR, any focusing aids e.g. split-image, Nikon green dot does not provide a reliable indication since there is a shorter base length for wide-angle lenses.
2. With a longer (50mm>), fast lens, the depth of field is too little in the finder at open aperture. Not only this makes it harder to judge the surroundings while you have focused accurately on your subject, but also in case you actually stop down for a photo, thing that you have not noticed while composing starts to show up. FOr how many times, a tree branch or distant pylon has grown over the head of my gorgeous model because it was renderd out of focus and neglected by my eyes🙁
Certainly, you could lock up your mirror and use an external viewfinder, however in that case why use an SLR after all? Man created SLRs for their ablity to use long lenses and compose without parallax error, is it that hard to have the best of both worlds?
I did not discover the salvation with the intentions above, it is more of an elaboration from my exprience. When I was starting to do some serious macro(micro)photography, I was told to get the Nikon 6x magnifiying finder and a special macro screen type M. When I first used it, it was very different from what I used to think for SLR viewing. It is exceptioanlly bright, a true blessing with heavily extended lenses and my cheap microscopes. Apparently this is no rocket science, the ground-glass has been replaced by a clear piece of fresnel so there is minimal light loss at the screen. Since you see an aerial image like a RF, image is sharp regardless of the focal point. However, the way to focus is a bit bizzare with this combination: you adjust the diopter on the finder until you see a tiny crosshair clearly, now without refocusing your eyes, focus the lens till everything is equally sharp, to help juding the degree of sharp focus, it is recommended to slightly shake your head around and your eyes should not see any difference in sharpness(😉 No mum, I am not on a high, just trying to take a photo of brussel sprouts)
As your photographic proficiency make you less susceptible to GAS attacks, I soon accquired this focusing screen fetish (Now complimented by recent, uncured lens hood fetish😀 ), first I brought new and used screens with all sorts of strange grid lines and split image at all angles, followed by nikon H screens which has microprism covering the entire viewfinder ( the idea to use under low lights is cool but actually using it may cause sores in you eyes) , and finally G type screens which I am ultimately satisfied with.
Basically type G screen is a piece of clear fresnel lens, just like the M screen, so the aerial image is sharp all the time, no matter where have you focused at. To make life easier, they added a 12mm circle filled with microprism as a focusing indicator, which coincides with the metering range on most Nikon SLRs. Microprism in usage, has very similar characteristics to the rangefinder patch: When you see a well defined object it is in focus, or not. The microprism circle is also much larger in size to the RF patch, turns out to be twice as good.Not to mention the overall brightness is comparable to any Leica M, even with a modest f/2.8 lens.
With a type G screen fitted, most differences in viewfinder style is eliminated (what? brightlines? 🙄 never heard of such a thing),and I can comfortably pack my M2 with F3 without worrying of getting used to any one of them when swapping bodies. In the end, it could have been better if the mirror could be made non-moving, an SLR without blackouts is always more than desirable.....:angel:
The main difference, apart from brightness is that RF viewing is sharp across the scene, while SLRs show you the minimal depth of field at open aperture. This can be an advantage, however more often RF shooters find it problematic because:
1. With a slow wide-angle lens, not only you get a dim finder, but there will be too much depth of field even at open aperture, making precise focusing difficult. This is especially nasty with DSLR's full matte screens, all you see is a "sort of sharp" image while keep turning the focus back and forward because you fail to lock-on:bang: Due to the inherent nature of an SLR, any focusing aids e.g. split-image, Nikon green dot does not provide a reliable indication since there is a shorter base length for wide-angle lenses.
2. With a longer (50mm>), fast lens, the depth of field is too little in the finder at open aperture. Not only this makes it harder to judge the surroundings while you have focused accurately on your subject, but also in case you actually stop down for a photo, thing that you have not noticed while composing starts to show up. FOr how many times, a tree branch or distant pylon has grown over the head of my gorgeous model because it was renderd out of focus and neglected by my eyes🙁
Certainly, you could lock up your mirror and use an external viewfinder, however in that case why use an SLR after all? Man created SLRs for their ablity to use long lenses and compose without parallax error, is it that hard to have the best of both worlds?
I did not discover the salvation with the intentions above, it is more of an elaboration from my exprience. When I was starting to do some serious macro(micro)photography, I was told to get the Nikon 6x magnifiying finder and a special macro screen type M. When I first used it, it was very different from what I used to think for SLR viewing. It is exceptioanlly bright, a true blessing with heavily extended lenses and my cheap microscopes. Apparently this is no rocket science, the ground-glass has been replaced by a clear piece of fresnel so there is minimal light loss at the screen. Since you see an aerial image like a RF, image is sharp regardless of the focal point. However, the way to focus is a bit bizzare with this combination: you adjust the diopter on the finder until you see a tiny crosshair clearly, now without refocusing your eyes, focus the lens till everything is equally sharp, to help juding the degree of sharp focus, it is recommended to slightly shake your head around and your eyes should not see any difference in sharpness(😉 No mum, I am not on a high, just trying to take a photo of brussel sprouts)
As your photographic proficiency make you less susceptible to GAS attacks, I soon accquired this focusing screen fetish (Now complimented by recent, uncured lens hood fetish😀 ), first I brought new and used screens with all sorts of strange grid lines and split image at all angles, followed by nikon H screens which has microprism covering the entire viewfinder ( the idea to use under low lights is cool but actually using it may cause sores in you eyes) , and finally G type screens which I am ultimately satisfied with.
Basically type G screen is a piece of clear fresnel lens, just like the M screen, so the aerial image is sharp all the time, no matter where have you focused at. To make life easier, they added a 12mm circle filled with microprism as a focusing indicator, which coincides with the metering range on most Nikon SLRs. Microprism in usage, has very similar characteristics to the rangefinder patch: When you see a well defined object it is in focus, or not. The microprism circle is also much larger in size to the RF patch, turns out to be twice as good.Not to mention the overall brightness is comparable to any Leica M, even with a modest f/2.8 lens.
With a type G screen fitted, most differences in viewfinder style is eliminated (what? brightlines? 🙄 never heard of such a thing),and I can comfortably pack my M2 with F3 without worrying of getting used to any one of them when swapping bodies. In the end, it could have been better if the mirror could be made non-moving, an SLR without blackouts is always more than desirable.....:angel:
