How important is your viewfinder?

[Range Loser]

When considering buying another camera, how high on the list of wants is the quality of the viewfinder?

I grew up with cameras like the Olympus OM2 and Nikon F3. I use a Nikon D700 now and although it's a nice finder, still bemoan the fact that it isn't 100%.

This week I briefly tried a Sony A77 in a camera shop with it's much publicised fabulous EVF and thought it was lousy compared to an OVF.

How important is your viewfinder, and which is your favourite?

After all photography is all about looking.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fundamental.

Cheers,

R.

 

[zauhar]

As I have said in other threads, it's one of the reasons I don't have a digital camera. (That plus maddening controls, plus "shutter lag".)

I intend to check out the GRX and its external VF, but things I have read about it sound discouraging.

Randy

 

[Michael Markey]

Fundamental to me also.

Strangely though ,I`ve gotten use to using the GRD without recourse to either the back screen or the rather nice VC 28 metal finder which I bought for it.

 

[jsrockit]

So much so that I had to have a digital M. Next best for me is the Fuji X100. Basically all of my cameras were chosen due to the VF.

 

[sevo]

It depends. There are cameras I love and use because of an excellent finder, as well as others where I don't seem to mind the crap finder at all...

 

[nighstar]

for a film camera a good viewfinder is especially important to me, but for digital i find it to be less important provided the LCD is great and has "live view". i have no problem with having no viewfinder whatsoever on a digital camera if the LCD is great, but that's me...

....but then again, now that i think about it, i think the size of the camera makes a difference too. for example, there's a difference (to me) using the LCD to frame awkwardly angled photos if the camera itself is smallish vs handling a much larger DSLR and trying to frame using the LCD at an angle. i guess for a DSLR that (among other reasons) makes a good viewfinder important.

 

[nobbylon]

It's very important to me. I have the d700 and the f5 fitted with magnifiers. No complaints at all.

 

[Frontman]

James Ravilious credited his ability to compose well to the old Leica VIOOH finder he used on his M3. He said he wouldn't have become a good photographer without it. How can you take a proper picture if you don't know what the camera is seeing? I have only one digital camera, a Lumix LX5, and I use the Lumix optical viewfinder on it, I think the Lumix electronic LVF sucks.

 

[batterytypehah!]

I put up with a lot of barely adequate finders, come to think of it, for the sake of a small, pocketable design. Leica IIIf, Vito II, Rollei 35, Minox 35, Ricoh R1 all see a lot of use with me.

OTOH, I also keep an Agfa Optima 535 just for its amazing finder. The lens is nothing spectacular, the film mechanism is dreadful, it can't handle faster than 500 speed film, but the finder is a delight.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It is as important as anything else that is important while taking a photo with a camera.

And my favorite is the Hasselblad 500 c/m's (w/"etched" grid) -- notice the 's is possessive.

 

[rover]

Well, with my eye sight driving me crazy recently....

I wasn't/am not overly impressed with the OM1 or FM3a I aquired in 2011. The OM4ti and Leica R7 though are pretty darn good. The clean flat mat in my SRT 101 still snaps into focus, and a good clean RF still works well, with and even sometimes without my glasses. There still are times though when my EOS 7ne works best.

 

[zuiko85]

Very important. If you can't see, you cannot focus accurately. Most of my fails in photographs is missed focus.

 

[thegman]

Important to a point, but not the be all, and end all. My M3's finder is pretty lousy compared to the ZI or Bessa cameras, but the rest of it's charms more than compensate. My Rolleiflex finder is dim, but it works. But sometimes you'll look though a finder, like the LCD ones on superzooms, and just know you could not deal with it.

 

[KoNickon]

I am concerned more with the brightness and clarity of the finder than with its framing accuracy. There are lots of SLRs out there that don't show 100% of the picture (the vast majority), and likewise rangefinders only give an approximation of what the film records. Also critical with a rangefinder is the clarity of the RF patch, for accurate focusing.

The finders of the OM-1 and OM-2 are exemplary, even though they aren't 100%. Much of course depends on how fast a lens is mounted on the camera, but these are very large, bright viewfinders in any event, with a good eyepoint for glasses wearers. The M3 finder is great, but I am always amazed at how good the finder on the CLE is -- easy to focus, even with a low magnification that's needed for the 28mm framelines.

 

[zuiko85]

This discussion would almost have to be split between TTL viewing and optical VF (as in rangefinder). Two different systems, each with it's own advantages and disadvantiges.

 

[Prest_400]

The VF was a reason to choose the OM-1 as my first film camera. Beautiful, and with the 50mm sometimes it can be used with both eyes open (not as easy as an RF pressumably)

The only thing I don't like about big viewfinders is that it feels harder (at least to me) to catch all the composition because I need to move the eye around to see what's happening in all the frame.

Non TTL VFs have the advantadge (most, at least) of seeing outside the frame, and no mirror blackout too!

I can use LCDs on digitals without much problem (don't have an SLR or EVF camera, just a P&S) although it's more hit and miss. VFs might be better for lower speeds because you hold them to the eye. Sadly, checking focus isn't easy and I've had some pics ruined by the AF going nuts... and not noticing until I used a PC screen.

I remember taking a peek at a D60 VF a few years ago. Looked like a tunnel!

 

[Hatch]

It's very important to me. I have the d700 and the f5 fitted with magnifiers. No complaints at all.

Same here.

My D2x without magnifier is like looking through a telescope wrong way round.
With magnifier it's nearly as good as the f5's

 

[SteveM]

Comparing similar cameras, a better viewfinder is always a plus. I like having aperture and shutter speed that many SLR viewfinders show, but the clean mechanical Leica view works fine too. The viewfinders of my old folders are by comparison terrible, but they can still produce great photos.

Steve

 

[segedi]

As I have said in other threads, it's one of the reasons I don't have a digital camera. (That plus maddening controls, plus "shutter lag".)

I intend to check out the GRX and its external VF, but things I have read about it sound discouraging.

Randy

I have the GXR with M mount module and a Sony NEX-5n with the hawk's adapter, both cameras with their viewfinders. While the Sony EVF is nice, it has a higher pixel count, I don't mind the EVF on the GXR at all.

Both offer 100% coverage, which my lowly Canon's never do. And both also tilt for viewing at angles through 90° which makes shooting from a lower position done more easily.

And I really prefer the camera body in every way to the Sony. The GXR has more buttons, but they are laid out intelligently and you can assign a lot of functions to them. I've customized the buttons to allow me to change metering pattern, ISO, exposure compensation and start MF assist - all without having to go to a menu setting! And with a dial, I've input 3 lenses to provide for EXIF info for them as well as change the defaults - I mirrored my settings across all lenses, but you could have different metering pattern, exposure, image type etc with the turning of a dial.

Perhaps the most surprising is that I use the live view screens half the time, which I've never done with digital cameras before. These 3" ground glass-like viewports make excellent finders too! And the sony, with it's tiltable screen is nice!

Is any EVF as clear as an optical? well of course not. But with the advantages of focus assist and two different sizes (EVF and live view screen) I can't say that they are worse than on optical VF and for how I use them, often better.