gb hill
Veteran
On a YouTube video John Free was emphasizing the importance of the camera:s viewfinder being 100% in accordance whth what you see on the film. I'm sure digital is as important too. This is one of his main reasons he uses a Nikon F3. John says to find a camera that has a 100% viewfinder.
So my simple question is what SLR's, or any camera for that matter has a 100% viewfinder besides the F3?
So my simple question is what SLR's, or any camera for that matter has a 100% viewfinder besides the F3?
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
F4, F5, F6 from Nikon
Dynax 9 from Minolta
All EOS1 models from canon and the old good F1n
A few more I am sure.
Dynax 9 from Minolta
All EOS1 models from canon and the old good F1n
A few more I am sure.
dtcls100
Well-known
I believe all of the pro Nikons do - F, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6. While some say the F2 shows less than 100%, I remember seeing Nikon ads specifically trumpeting the F2’s 100% viewfinder. Maybe this varies depending on the finder used.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
All the Nikon Fs do have 100% viewfinder coverage. I'm pretty sure all of the top of the line Nikon D series SLRs do too.
I believe the Contax RTS models do, and the Canon F1 (don't know about the new F1 and later). Some Beseler Topcons (the Super D?) have 100%. And perhaps one or another Alpa model.
Frankly, the 100% SLR viewfinder coverage is of major importance only when doing critical copy and forensic work, and similar things that require critical dimensioning of objects in the view. This kind of viewfinder is much more expensive to produce than other SLR viewfinders because not only must the pentaprism be larger and made to a higher quality standard but the entire camera and viewfinder system must be held to significantly tighter assembly and adjustment tolerances than others.
Most SLR viewfinders cover from 93% to 98% of the actual field of view and few ever notice the difference. Those who do, and for whom it matters, generally measure the actual vs the covered portion of the viewfinder and learn how to visualize the "extra" unseen bit that will be recorded.
There is also the issue with SLR cameras as to what constitutes 100% coverage. Usually it means that the focusing screen is 100% of the nominal 24x36 mm format dimensions AND that the prism and finder allows you to see 100% of that focusing screen. However, due to ray trace differences that arise from the ray trace of different focal lengths, the actual recorded image on film is rarely exactly 24x36mm in size, despite the format gate. The issue is that with long focal lengths, the ray trace is nearly orthogonal to the film across the entire field of the lens so the format is usually as inscribed by the format gate, but with short focal lengths, the recorded image on film is often just a bit larger since the angle that the light strikes the film can sneak beyond the format gate since the ray trace from the center of the lens to the edges of the frame inscribe a more angled approach to the film.
(It is one small advantage of the mirrorless digital world that it is easy to have the full active portion of the sensor displayed in the EVF or on the LCD at exactly 100% coverage, since the EVF/LCD can mimic the sensor's receiving pixel array exactly.)
G
I believe the Contax RTS models do, and the Canon F1 (don't know about the new F1 and later). Some Beseler Topcons (the Super D?) have 100%. And perhaps one or another Alpa model.
Frankly, the 100% SLR viewfinder coverage is of major importance only when doing critical copy and forensic work, and similar things that require critical dimensioning of objects in the view. This kind of viewfinder is much more expensive to produce than other SLR viewfinders because not only must the pentaprism be larger and made to a higher quality standard but the entire camera and viewfinder system must be held to significantly tighter assembly and adjustment tolerances than others.
Most SLR viewfinders cover from 93% to 98% of the actual field of view and few ever notice the difference. Those who do, and for whom it matters, generally measure the actual vs the covered portion of the viewfinder and learn how to visualize the "extra" unseen bit that will be recorded.
There is also the issue with SLR cameras as to what constitutes 100% coverage. Usually it means that the focusing screen is 100% of the nominal 24x36 mm format dimensions AND that the prism and finder allows you to see 100% of that focusing screen. However, due to ray trace differences that arise from the ray trace of different focal lengths, the actual recorded image on film is rarely exactly 24x36mm in size, despite the format gate. The issue is that with long focal lengths, the ray trace is nearly orthogonal to the film across the entire field of the lens so the format is usually as inscribed by the format gate, but with short focal lengths, the recorded image on film is often just a bit larger since the angle that the light strikes the film can sneak beyond the format gate since the ray trace from the center of the lens to the edges of the frame inscribe a more angled approach to the film.
(It is one small advantage of the mirrorless digital world that it is easy to have the full active portion of the sensor displayed in the EVF or on the LCD at exactly 100% coverage, since the EVF/LCD can mimic the sensor's receiving pixel array exactly.)
G
Mackinaw
Think Different
Actually, none of the F-1's have 100% coverage. For some inexplicable reason, Canon settled on 97%.
Jim B.
pushto1600
Certified Camera Owner
Isn't the DE-1 prism for the F2 the only one with 100% coverage?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The semi-mythical Zunow SLR of 1958 is reputed to have had 100% view coverage in its finder.
Hari
Well-known
All pro body Nikons from the original F
zuiko85
Veteran
Thank you Godfrey! For putting some common sense into the ‘100% viewfinder coverage’ discussion. Back in the day it was more of an advertising ploy than a real advantage you just couldn’t live without. If you shot slides the image edges were covered, and neg holders seldom allowed full frame coverage unless you filed them out. (Showing the whole negative and some or the surrounding prefs became a bit of fad for a while.)
Of course, with digital that has mostly become a non issue.
Of course, with digital that has mostly become a non issue.
For some, 100% coverage may take priority; it doesn't with me.
Do you wear glasses? Do you need a diopter? Everyone is different and has different preferences.
Here is the best article I've ever read regarding viewfinders and the compromises in their designs: magnification, coverage, eye relief, etc.
Well worth the read.
https://www.luminous-landscape.com/understanding-viewfinders/
Do you wear glasses? Do you need a diopter? Everyone is different and has different preferences.
Here is the best article I've ever read regarding viewfinders and the compromises in their designs: magnification, coverage, eye relief, etc.
Well worth the read.
https://www.luminous-landscape.com/understanding-viewfinders/
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
The difference between 95% and 100% is much smaller than people think. The difference between the 97% viewfinder of my Olympus OM1 and the 100% of my Nikon F4 is difficult to spot even by having them side-by-side.
Yes, and the difference in magnification is not as dramatic as one might think, either.
I just put my Nikon FE2 (.86x) to my right eye, and my Pentax MX (.97x) to the left.
The magnification difference can be seen when viewed in this way, but the relative difference is less than one might anticipate.
When looking through each camera's viewfinder individually, one directly after the other, it's actually quite difficult to determine there is any magnification difference at all.
As outlined in the article linked above, a higher mag generally means less eye relief, which is true in this case, as I have to put my eye closer to the MX eyepiece than to the FE2 eyepiece in order to see the entire view.
I just put my Nikon FE2 (.86x) to my right eye, and my Pentax MX (.97x) to the left.
The magnification difference can be seen when viewed in this way, but the relative difference is less than one might anticipate.
When looking through each camera's viewfinder individually, one directly after the other, it's actually quite difficult to determine there is any magnification difference at all.
As outlined in the article linked above, a higher mag generally means less eye relief, which is true in this case, as I have to put my eye closer to the MX eyepiece than to the FE2 eyepiece in order to see the entire view.
css9450
Veteran
This is an important point. Commercial cardboard slide mounts are nowhere near 100%.
Freakscene
Obscure member
A 100% finder always has the penalty of lower magnification. It is also hard to design with long eye relief. I prefer more magnification and eye relief to 100% coverage. Even among 100% finders, the Nikon DE-3 in the F3HP is harder to focus a lot of the time than the DE-2 from the standard F3. There is also the issue of focus “snap” which is hard to quantify.
Marty
Marty
Ronald M
Veteran
Nikon F2 For Sure.
Higher mag and greater eye relief (eyepoint) tend to fight against each other, as outlined in the Luminous article above.
Contax Aria seems to have a combination that is unmatched by any other SLR:
.82X, 95% coverage, high-eyepoint (25mm.) It also has an excellent focusing screen, from experience.
Contax Aria seems to have a combination that is unmatched by any other SLR:
.82X, 95% coverage, high-eyepoint (25mm.) It also has an excellent focusing screen, from experience.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The Contax Aria has one of the best manual focus viewfinders. All the Yashica Contax cameras apart from the Ns are great for manual focus. The Leicaflex SL and SL2 are great too, but totally different - they are much less bright but the screens have amazing snap, especially the SL.
Marty
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Thanks for the correction. It is a little odd, since the Canon F-1 was supposed to be designed as a direct competitor to the Nikon F/F2. But eh?
When it comes to the best 35mm SLR viewfinder out there, well, I have had many Nikons and the F, F2, and F3hp were excellent for me. However, the Leicaflex SL and Leica R8/R9 are actually easier for me to see with and focus accurately, with excellent eye relief and a crispness that was unmatched by any of my other 35mm SLR cameras (Nikon, Minolta, and Contax).
I still have a Nikon F plain prism and a Leicaflex SL ... Both still make me very happy when it comes to the viewfinder.
G
dtcls100
Well-known
Nikon F2 with H series screens are fantastic to focus. These screens have microprisms across the entire surface so there is no need to focus and recompose for off-center subjects.
Nikon F6 also has an outstanding viewfinder, a little brighter than the F2. Best manual focusing AF camera by a mile (one of best manual focusing cameras period) and easier to focus than FM3a or FE2 (with latest and updated K3 screen).
Nikon F6 also has an outstanding viewfinder, a little brighter than the F2. Best manual focusing AF camera by a mile (one of best manual focusing cameras period) and easier to focus than FM3a or FE2 (with latest and updated K3 screen).
charjohncarter
Veteran
Right, So what is the big deal about this. If you shoot a couple of rolls and you are obsessed with 100% you will realize you don't or you do have it. But ability to focus well to me is very much, very much more important.