Viewfinder brightness; RF vs SLR + fast glass

[helvetica]

One of my main areas of interest, photographically, is portraits around and after dusk. I am used to 35mm SLR's and APSC DSLR's. For the sake of my question, I'm simply curious about focusing ease - the bigger and brighter the viewfinder's image, the easier it is to focus.

Moving from APCS to Full Frame makes you wonder how you ever saw the world through the "toy like" viewfinders on APSC that are dim and small by comparison. Likewise, if you move from an slow zoom (17-40/4) to a fast prime (50/1.4) the viewfinder will brighten up, but only by double. Modern screen will not show you much of an improvement as they are optimized for f/2.8.

How does your standard .72 viewfinder compare to say, a good manual SLR (F2, F3) with a fast prime? Other than the obvious issues of framelines, parallax, and lens speed not contributing to brightness (all de-facto RF vs SLR points) - does an M "feel" more like FF or APSC? Is it brighter (easier to focus) with a fast glass'd SLR?

 

[thegman]

I'd say brightness of my Olympus OM2n is much the same as my Leica M3 was, maybe the Leica just a touch brighter. Both are pretty dim compared to a Zeiss Ikon or Bessa finders, which for me are the gold standard of RF finders.

My only experience with APS-C is a D7000, I thought the finder was very nice, but just a little on the small side. I'd say a Bessa or M will feel like FF or larger.

Personally I find a RF much easier to focus than a split screen on an SLR, and the gap only gets bigger the darker it gets. For focusing in the dark, RF is an easy winner. Of course, as you say the SLR has it's de facto advantages too, framing longer lenses for example.

 

[mfogiel]

If you are after low light portraiture, the gold standard is Zeiss Ikon with either a 35/1.2 Nokton or 50/1 Noctilux, or any good 1.2-1.5 lens, and there are many. There is nothing in the universe, that's better than that VF, when you look trough it, it seems brighter than no VF at all.
This was shot wide open with the Nokton 35/1.2

20121227 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[helvetica]

Wow, two votes for the CV finders! I remember reading on the Camera Quest page that the finder was brighter, but I thought that was just marketing.

I have played with some Barnak Leica's, and they seem like a landscape-only camera to me: far too dim from grime buildup and from small size. I have seen through a few M viewfinders, but I don't have the hours behind one to have real familiarity, nor have I had an M in one hand and an SLR in the other to do a good A:B comparison.

 

[ferider]

Brightness of the viewfinder is only one thing. I find Patch contrast and RF accuracy (no back-lash) more important for available light focusing. And in this respect, for 50mm, a good M3 will beat any other of my film cameras. I like my OM1 and OM2 with Zuiko 50/1.2, or my F3 with 55/1.2, but for hand-held, 50mm portraiture - if I had to get a shot reliably - an M3 would be my goto camera. I can hand-hold it 2 stops lower than my SLRs, easily.

And I have had a Bessa R3, among others. Not accurate enough for me.

Roland.,

 

[Keith]

The Zeiss Ikon finder is freakishly bright I agree. Nothing I've ever looked through has matched it.

 

[mfogiel]

If you like film portraiture in dimly lit environments, then a RF with a 50mm lens is the thing to go for, although film has its limitations, and cannot compete with digital in usable ISO range. However, a Tri X @ 1000 in DD-X or Acufine, will be borderline acceptable, and it would also be nice to get a 1.4-1,5 sharp lens on a body that is easy to focus. In my opinion, besides the ZI, also a 0.85x Leica 6, 7 or MP or even M3 will be very good.
An alternative worth mentioning would be a Pentax 645N with one of the fast MF lenses on an adapter: I use 90/2.8 or 105/2.4 from Pentax 67. That camera has a truly great VF, and a MF negative is a different game altogether.

 

[helvetica]

... I find Patch contrast and RF accuracy (no back-lash) more important for available light focusing. ...

I see what you are saying here; the split-image viewfinder does not work that fantastically well - or quickly - in low light, low contrast situations.

 

[redisburning]

RF is easily better than any SLR for me.

now that I do little shooting in low light, I can live without RF. I really wish I had had a Leica before when I did though.

FWIW Olympus series 2 screen versus any other SLR focusing screen is like HD television vs standard.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for RF -- even with trick screens and an f/1.2 lens on an SLR.

Cheers,

R.