Which SLR has the brightest finder?

the minolta acumate screen as in x700 and hasselblad v series are very bright, the beattie for rolleiflex TLR is also very bright.
 
the specificity of the AccuteMatte is that, instead of being a "simple" fresnel, it's made of thousands of micro lenses which kind of amplify the light. It was first made in the late 1970s for the Minolta XD7, using for the first time a lightsaber... I mean a laser... 🙂 the lightsaber was for the Graflex flash holder...
 
i don't think brightness has quite the same appeal for slrs as it does for rangefinders. sure, it may be bright, but is it "snappy"?
 
My friend who has Nikon, Pentax and Leica SLR's had Bill Maxwell install a Hi-Lux screen in either his R8 or R6.2 (can't remember which.) He said it was the brightest, easiest-to-focus screen he had ever used.

He also has a Hasselblad Acute-Matte D and a Maxwell screen. He considers these two to be about equal in his Hasselblad.

Bill Maxwell once told me that the Acute-Matte D (not the original)was about equal to his screen and my friend agrees. Maxwell also stresses that brightness is not everything. A screen must have "contrast" (his words) in order for it to be of use for focusing.

So, if I were looking for the ultimate I would favor a Maxwell Hi-Lux screen for the Nikon F3HP with the screen markings you prefer.

I use a Maxwell screen with my 4X5 camera and used to have one for Hasselblad when I used Hasselblads.
 
Last edited:
Bill Maxwell once told me that the Acute-Matte D (not the original)was about equal to his screen and my friend agrees. Maxwell also stresses that brightness is not everything. A screen must have "contrast" (his words) in order for it to be of use for focusing.
Quote

Yes that's right, to bright decreases focus accuracy It has to be a balance between brightnes and focus accuracy.
 
I have an SL2 with a resilvered prism (courtesy of DAG), which has a distinctly blue tint. Not very bright. But it's certainly better than the desilvered prism it came with, which didn't seem to be especially bright.

I'd vote for the OMs as having the best finders, with the Nikon F2 next.
 
probably a Canon, since that one is the only slr that mounts an f/1 lens 😀

Lenses all being equal, the minolta dynax 7 is very very bright. The 9 too, but i can't compare...
But,as said above, the x-700 and the x-500 and x-300 all have very bright finders. Plus 1:1 magnification with a 50mm lens...
 
Usually, the manual focus slr's have screens optimized for contrast and "snappyness" whatever that means, while the AF versions are as bright as it gets.
This is also the reason why it is not too easy to focus manually an AF SLR.
 
ZeissFan said:
My vote goes to the Japanese Contax SLRs followed by the Rolleiflex cameras (although not the original SL 35).

They are noticeably brighter than other cameras I've used.
Click to expand...

Let's see, a person who calls himself ZeissFan says the Japanese Contax SLRs are best. Hmmmm. 😀

Actually,as I already said, I certainly agree, based on the Contax 139Q I used to use. Bright and contrasty.
 
sepiareverb said:
I don't know about brightest, but best? F4 hands down. Everything in view but out of the image field, lighted if you need it, uncluttered by focus areas.
Click to expand...

I second the F4, swap the screen for a type E or K and you are all set to use the best manual focusing SLR ever made. I taped over my DP-20 and set the lights on permenantly, at least at night you wont get that creepy green glow from your camera😛

I have had a Beattie interscreen for my F, sure it is bright, but it just feels....weird with the etched grid lines and split-image seemingly floathing upon no visible means of support. It is also very sensitive to lens and I sold it because I cant live with the sheer vignetting with wideangles. Its best use is probably with slow telephoto lenses where the DoF is small anyway.
 
Pherdinand said:
Usually, the manual focus slr's have screens optimized for contrast and "snappyness" whatever that means, while the AF versions are as bright as it gets.
This is also the reason why it is not too easy to focus manually an AF SLR.
Click to expand...

Can not agree more. Late Minolta AF cameras (800si, 7, 9) have had very bright screens, Minolta screens are known to be equal or better than Beattie ones. Minolta AF feels some 2 stops brighter than OM1 with 1-13 screen, close to my OM4ti with 2-13 screen. Manual focus aids "cost" in terms of light transfer, physically, so it's not fair to compare AF and MF - they are optimized for different purposes. I personally prefer OM with 2-13 screen, though there is no much difference to Nikon F3, I must say.
 
I think the original Leicaflex, a.k.a. Leicaflex Standard, must be the one with the brightest finder. Its viewing screen was entirely made of clear glass (that's right, plain window glass!) with only a tiny patch of microprisms in the center. It was a real pain for focusing but I don't think you will find anything brighter than clear glass.

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
Last edited:
It depends on the lens, doesn't it? I use an f/3.5 zoom lens as well as an f/1.8 prime. The viewfinder is much *brighter* with the faster lens.

My OM1n has the biggest view! It's like pressing my face against a picture window. But the brightness is then spread out. But with a fast, f/1.4 lens, it's also the brightest of all the camera/lens combinations that I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peterm1
Who is your favorite photographer in history - who has influenced you the most?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
David Murphy
David Murphy
Bololoco
Cameras to fix
2
Replies
30
Views
803
Mos6502
Mos6502
S
Suggestions / advice for new camera
2 3
Replies
45
Views
1K
silvershadelynx
S
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 2, K-mount 35mm SLRs, 1975 to 1980. From the first K-mount K2 to the magnificent pro caliber Pentax LX
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
Archiver
A
Velorum
Zeiss Ikon Tengor 54/2 - over 80 years old and still in the game!
Replies
5
Views
625
Velorum
Velorum
Back
Top Bottom