manual film slr with brightest viewfinder:

I really liked the Nikon FG-20 that I was using for a little while. It has since been given to a friend as a birthday gift (trying to infect him with the film bug, which was successful), so now I'm using my father's F that he bought brand new in college. The finder isn't as nice :(.
 
Of my SLRs, my FM3a certainly has the brightest finder. Somehow, though, I find the finders in both my New F-1 and OM-4T, in different ways, seem to suit me better. It's pretty marginal, though. I can live with "good enough" just fine with plenty worse finders than those. Anything better than a K1000 is a bonus.

...Mike
 
Aren't we comparing appels and oranges ?

How can one compare viewfinders without mentioning the lens used ? Obviously, a viewfinder will be brighter when used with a 50/1.2 than used with a 50/3.5 for example, so I think it makes no sense mentioning viewfinder x or y is brighter, without at least making sure both were compared with lenses with the same max. aperture.

And besides, the OM-1 is best regardless aperture :D
 
gliderbee said:
Aren't we comparing appels and oranges ?

How can one compare viewfinders without mentioning the lens used ?
Click to expand...
Well, I had the sense to use a 50mm/f1.4 of appropriate manufacture to sort-of confirm my casual comparisons before posting. (Oh, OK, I had to use an f1.8 and a 55mm/f1.2 on my OMs and split the difference.) I assume everyone else either did something similar, or else were just reporting their (no doubt well-informed) impressions.

...Mike
 
mfunnell said:
Of my SLRs, my FM3a certainly has the brightest finder. Somehow, though, I find the finders in both my New F-1 and OM-4T, in different ways, seem to suit me better. It's pretty marginal, though. I can live with "good enough" just fine with plenty worse finders than those. Anything better than a K1000 is a bonus.

...Mike
Click to expand...

"Seems to suit me better"

I think that is important because I now have 3 (not my fault) OM1s and I have to say that for me the finder in them are nothing special. I am going to thy a new screen in the one I sent for service, but it has a long way to go to be a good fit for me.
 
rxmd said:
I find the eyepoint to be more important than the absolute brightness or size.
Click to expand...

Please help educate me. So, for me an OM1 is good but not yet a good fit, but I have a nice ME Super which is. Iif I go search I may find that the eye point for each is different. What other things should I look for?

I should add that I had an MX which didn't wow me either. I may throw that into the comparison because I think I may be able to find better apples to apples info about it against the ME Super.
 
rover said:
Please help educate me. So, for me an OM1 is good but not yet a good fit, but I have a nice ME Super which is. Iif I go search I may find that the eye point for each is different. What other things should I look for?
Click to expand...

The three things that matter are eyepoint, magnification and coverage. It's explained by Mike Johnston here. Focus snap is relative, and depends on the coarseness of the focus screen, combined with the brightness. I measured absolute brightness (as % transmission of the incident light to the eyepiece) in a few cameras, but found that perceived and actual brightness don't always correlate - which is probably why you can get data (a number) that describes eyepoint, magnification and coverage, but not brightness, and why people's opinions on these differ. I, for instance, like the Nikon FA/E/G/M viewfinders, but they are miles away from me considering them the "brightest". The Leicaflex SL, Contax Aria and Olympus OMs with the 2 series screens are among the brightest to me.

Another factor to consider is the telecentricity of the light coming from the focus screen: the coarser the screen, the better the focus snap, but the lower the brightness. The focus screens in autofocus SLRs work like a section through a bundle of fibre optic cables, each with a "lens" moulded onto the front and rear surfaces. They are very bright because all the transmitted light is directed towards your eye, but they are not good for manual focusing because the texture of the screen isn't coarse enough.

The only way to find what you like is to look through as many cameras as you can, then find out what that viewfinder's characteristics are, and if you want to find another camera with a viewfinder that you like, try to find one with specs that are close to the one you liked previously.

Marty
 
Last edited:
I don't know about brightest but easiest to focus for my old eyes is a Pentax H3v. Someday I would like a Leicaflex SL but the Pentax lenses are plentiful, inexpensive and very good.

Worst would be an Exa.

Joe
 
My Olympus OM-1n viewfinder is nice and big, but it is NOT (and I repeat NOT) bright. I am using a 50mm f/1.4 lens on it.
 
Hey Paul--regarding the battery--I buy Duracell 625As at Wing's---Batteries Plus carries them, too.
The 625A is the same size as the old 625 mercury battery, and it is 1.5 volts rather than the 1.35v for the older battery. We tested the OM1 with old and new battery, and there was not that much difference in the meter readings. Same with a Minolta SRT 202. The new 625A style works great in my old Nikkormats, too.
Paul
 
Great link. The OM viewfinder doesn't have great eyepoint, which is why my eyeball moves around, growing tired, with my face planted against the eyepiece.

On the other hand, the Aria:

"With the Aria, which, like most Contaxes, has a particularly excellent viewfinder, the coverage goes down slightly to 95% (still very good), but the magnification goes up, to .82X. This, plus the Aria's excellent "focusing snap," makes manual focusing easy. Combined with the Aria's outstanding eye relief (more than one inch, better than both the Nikon F5 and Canon EOS-1V!), it makes for a very good viewfinder indeed."

No wonder I like the Aria so much...
 
1. OM-1 or OM-2 or OM-3/4 with 2-13 focusing screen.
2. Contax ST
3. Nikon F3

... in that order.
Would like to try a Leica R8 or 9 for comparison.
 
For me, a vf can be too big. My sp500 has one, which is just on the edge of being not usable in terms of size, because i want to see the edges without much looking around in the vf.
despite that its also not brighter than my k10d's vf, it could well be bigger or as big as the one in the sp500, but 100% coverage would be a much stronger improvement.

The brightest vf i have looked through was of an ae-1.
 
Paul in a SLR view finder brightness is for me a non-issue, not nearly what it is with the rangefinders. I currently use the Canon AE1-p the AT-1, Pentax ME Super , Nikon F, FT2 . FTn. Don't get me started on Minolta - well why not I enjoy the SR7 XGM. X-350, X-700 IMHO their all good. All fun and in today's market expensive.Go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom