Viewfinders shrinking as they evolve, inspires thoughtless snapshots?

S

spystyle

Established
Local time
6:40 AM
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
120
Composition - it's important!

As you know, a great exposure with poor composition is worthless.

As they evolve cameras are getting smarter at making great exposures, but at the same time viewfinders are shrinking so tiny - I think there is a strong connection between viewfinder size and composition.

I think with time viewfinders should be getting bigger like televisions.

Look at televisions, they are getting bigger and sharper and better every year! But viewfinders are getting smaller and dimmer.

I wonder if these tiny viewfinders compel the shooters to create thoughtless snapshots rather than to compose with thoughtful intention.

That's what I like about my old SLR's when compared to my new stuff - my inexpensive ($40) Nikon EM from 1979 has a finder that utterly trumps my ($400) Nikon D40 from 2006.

Yet if you compare a television from 1979 with a television from 2006 ...

Well I think you smell what I am cooking

I like my viewfinders big and my women small, but I get the opposite anymore :)

Cheers,
Craig
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's funny, for the longest time, people were concerned with viewfinder magnification. The best cameras had a 100% mag, crappy cameras had worse.

Now there are cameras with no viewfinders, only LCDs. What's the magnification of holding the LCD two feet from your face? It's probably 5%!

Strange how a feature that was once important has simply vanished.
 
Im guessing,
the number of people that actually want to make a picture is way lower than the ones who just want to make a snapshot, and want the smallest thing possible to carry with them.. Dslr's are included in this, they seem to be the new p&s..
We're outnumbered..
I guess.
 
Really? I find the lcd screen of my dslr and my wife's point and shoot much easier to use for composition than the ground glass screen of my TLR, or the squinty viewfinder of my LTM rangefinder.
 
If you want a big VF in RF use an external VF.
If you want a big VF in an SLR use a film SLR.
If you want bigger you'd have to shoot LF (I suggest an 8x10 then you'll get a 10" notebook view).

I don't think the VF size is an issue with composition as there aren't any left outside of DSLRs. All I see is people with digital P&S cameras shooting away, some composing and some not. Besides, you can hardly see the LCD screen on a sunny day; the Hoodman screen shields are alright if you stick your face up to the camera (just like in the film days :p).
 
You know, I Googled it and I keep hearing about this and that particular film SLR which had the best finder. Also that some $5000 dSLR have pretty good finders. So it seems like extremes.

What about film SLR's with digital backs? I used to own a Fuji S1 and S2, those were hybrid digital cameras built into Nikon film bodies, if I recall they have big finders.

I'd like to see a company make a digital back for Pentax K1000 :)

Hell just take the guts from a Kodak EasyShare and stuff them in there, how hard could it be? If they can make tiny cameras inside of cell phones it seems they could make a digital back for my beloved K1000 :)

Here is a shot I took with an EasyShare v803, I tried to make it look like a rangefinder photo :



See the EasyShare guts are workable :) Stuff them into a K1000 and you've got yourself a winner !

Plus, there is not a digital student camera that replaces the K1000 adequately, in my opinion. Many modern high school students are using point-and-shoot digicams rather than K1000 anymore - heresy!

Ah well, I'm just ranting.

But truly the viewfinders in my old cameras are a pleasure to compose with :)

have fun!
Craig
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
Yes, it's funny, for the longest time, people were concerned with viewfinder magnification. The best cameras had a 100% mag, crappy cameras had worse.
Click to expand...

The 100% figure for expensive film cameras is not the magnification, it is the portion of the image that is visible in the finder. You see 100% of the image with any $50 digital camera.

Viewfinder magnification is largely dependent on the sensor size. A small-sensor camera can easily have much larger magnification than an expensive full-frame SLR. It's also dependent on the lens.

The OP is comparing today's $400 camera to what is today a $40 camera, but the FE wasn't a $40 camera back then. The FE is the equivalent of the D300 or D700. Be prepared to spend a little bit more than $400 and you'll get a better viewfinder.
 
If you want a viewfinder that you put up to your eye the size does have a limit. It can't be a greater area than your eye can see. So while the little tunnel viewfinders on cheap DSLR's are far from ideal, just increasing the size doesn't automatically make things better.But help is at hand because the electronic viewfinders in the latest small and fully featured cameras, such as m4/3, give a 100% view and can be made to the optimum size for the eye to see and scan. Additionally P&S cameras that only have an LCD also tend to give a 100% view, and in which case could easily be said to be better for thoughtfully composing a photograph than a Nikon D40.Steve
 
Steve is right and I could not disagree more with the OP. I just tried out an Olympus EP2 at my local camera store. The small EVF was astonishing in it's brightness and contrast, and sharp as a tack. I will be getting one next month.

I want small cameras. And this idea that small viewfinders inspires thoughtless photographs is ludicrous. The photographer decides what is thoughtless or not, not the camera. It does not matter if the photograher is looking through any type of viewfinder or using the screen for composition, it all starts with the photographer, not the camera.

And besides, snapshots are my favorite form of photography.:)
 
Last edited:
spystyle said:
What about film SLR's with digital backs? I used to own a Fuji S1 and S2, those were hybrid digital cameras built into Nikon film bodies, if I recall they have big finders.

I'd like to see a company make a digital back for Pentax K1000 :)

Craig
Click to expand...

Actually the Fuji S1 and S2 were not hybrid digital cameras rather they were based on film cameras as were Canon's early DSLR.
Fuji S1-S2=Nikon N65/F65 Body
Canon D30, D30 and 10D
The DSLR that fall into the Hybrid catigory would be the
DCS 410, 420 and 460 built around a Nikon N90 body
DCS 520 and 560 built around a Canon EOS-1 body
DCS 620, 660, 720 and 760 Built around a Nikon F5 body
To see just how huge the DSC cameras were here's a comparision of the DCS 760 and the Nikon D3
DCS 760(7.6 x 6.2 x 3.5 in) 1860 g (4.1 lbs)
Nikon F3 (6.3 x 6.2 x 3.4 in)1240 g (2.7 lb)
 
They want users to make bad pictures, thus getting frustrated and purchasing next camera in hope of improving results. So they make cameras with functional or ergonomical flaws and hope selling more.
 
Yep - small minds make boring photos. But good finders help you make better photos.

EVFs have a lot of potential but most of them have one absolutely damming flaw. Real time delay. You're not going to get a decisive moment if the the finder is 1/30sec behind the times. Add that to shutter (and possibly focus) delay.

OK - I get it that an EVF doesn't need to have the resolution of an optical viewfinder because it can zoom, but the interface to control that zoom better be good and fast. Even so - I would want an EVF with at least 1080p resolution - a good EVF would be at least high-quality HD video. I mean the finder itself would have at least 1080 lines of physical resolution. Is that happening yet? What the best one anyone's seen? 640x480?

I have no doubt that someone, perhaps very soon, will make an amazing EVF AND a super fast interface to control it.

Until that time - even the cheap little finder on my Nikon D3000 is better than ANY current EVF. And the finder on my Bessa is even better than that because I can see outside the frame.

So, what I need in an EVF is a dedicated, 0 lag, high quality HD video system with its own lens so I can see beyond the frame. And I want a super-fast interface that can instantly zoom in and give me a sensor-level view of anything, anywhere in the image.
 
I didn't like my 15mm finder. It was too large, so my eye had to search around, and that prevented me from seeing the whole picture as one, and my composition suffered.
 
Marko said: I didn't like my 15mm finder. It was too large, so my eye had to search around, and that prevented me from seeing the whole picture as one, and my composition suffered.

Marko, I think you may not be the first person in the world to discover that it's difficult to make a good composition with a 15mm lens - no matter what finder is used.
 
rxmd said:
...The OP is comparing today's $400 camera to what is today a $40 camera, but the FE wasn't a $40 camera back then...
Click to expand...

Hey! That's a good question, let me look that up ...

The Nikon EM was announced for $231 in 1979, it included it's kit lens "series E" 50/1.8.

$231 in 1979 is the same as in $634 2006

According to thr EM's Wikipedia page "SLRs usually sold for 30 to 40 percent below list price"

$634 minus 20 percent equals $507

$634 minus 30 percent equals $444

$634 minus 40 percent equals $381

The Nikon D40 was announced in 2006 for $499, it included it's kit lens 18-55 "G II"

So, assuming you bought the Nikon EM in 1979 at a camera store that sold it for 20 percent less than list price - then later bought the Nikon D40 is 2006 for full price - they cost about the same.

I think the Nikon EM and the Nikon D40 are the same class of camera and cost basically the same price when announced.

MaxElmar said:
Y...And the finder on my Bessa is even better than that because I can see outside the frame...
Click to expand...

That is a stellar point - a "perfect" viewfinder would clearly show what is in the frame, but also show what is outside of the frame - so you can better choose to include something or better see what you are not including.

I think a good viewfinder is like an artist's canvas - and these days they have us "painting on matchbooks".
 
Last edited:
MaxElmar said:
Marko said: I didn't like my 15mm finder. It was too large, so my eye had to search around, and that prevented me from seeing the whole picture as one, and my composition suffered.

Marko, I think you may not be the first person in the world to discover that it's difficult to make a good composition with a 15mm lens - no matter what finder is used.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I just feel that if i could more easily see the whole picture, i'd have better photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom