Why do we put up with small viewfinders?

OK, the whole point of an SLR is to look at the actual image that the sensor will see through the lens.

We compromise a bit on this by viewing with lens wide open for brightness, but most cameras have a dof preview, and basically WYSIWYG.

So why since digital and aps-c size sensors have we put up with such pokey small little viewfinder images?

to further worsen the situation, cameras with mirror rather than prism viewfinders typically have even smaller images. The main reason I have an ist DS rather than a DL or K100D is that the latter had pathetic lower magification viewfinders. Fortunately the K10 has an OK one as does the DS. (altho still much too small really) But Canon , the market leader, doesnt make one with a sensibly large viewfinder. even the full frame 1D suffers from a 70something% magnification ratio putting the image size back into the same league as the ist DS.

I think there are a few reasons why we put up with it.

1. autofocus has reduced the need for a large image. This applies less to us as pentax users since we tend to use more older manual focus lenses.

2. magazines hardly mention viewfinder magnification as a valid and critical feature for an SLR, even though it obviously is one. How much is this do do with canons marketing muscle and their extremely poor performance in this area?

so my questions are:

- can manufacturers be prevailed upon to improve it?

- does anyone else besides myself care about it?

- how hard would it be to make a viewfinder with some magnification in it so that a aps-c camera gave a viewfinder image like an old film camera?

- are third party manifying viewfinder attachments any good, and if so which one and where do I get it?

rant over - discuss!

Pentax viewfinders are probably the best currently available, especially the pentaprism ones.

The answer as to why so many are small is probably that manufacturers try to minimise the size of the cameras. This is not helped by the smaller dimensions of the APS-C sensors.

It is also true that not everyone uses manual focus so the need to provide aids for this has reduced.

I don't think anything will change, but if you want to see an incredible viewfinder then have a look through a 1959 Voigtlander Bessamatic and just marvel at the clarity. This is because only the central portion is a focusing ground glass and the main part of the field is an aerial image. But it is incredible and gives a benchmark to judge from.

The next best viewfinder is probably the Pentax 67....

Well, I was quite happy with the viewfinder on my P30T

but I havent seen a digital that comes close. Is it really so hard to put a bit of magnification in to compensate for the small sensor/mirror size?

The pentax finders are certainly among the better ones, although I looked through a Nikon D80 in a shop and I think it was comparable to the better pentax ones.

viewfinder magnification figures:
Pentax ist DS 95%
Pentax K10D 95%
Nikon D80 94%
Canon 30D 90%
Pentax K100D 85%
Pentax ist DL 85%
Canon 400D 80% (and a slightly smaller sensor!)

Back in the old days the bloke would look at the image on a ground glass screen, and it would be big enough to actually look at from a sensible distance. Ok, he had to have a cloth over him because it wasn't all that bright, but never mind. Presumably the image was upside down, as well, but that's just another minor detail.

Then we had viewfinders.

Now, of course, we've come full circle - and we have these stonking great LCD screens taking up the entire back of the camera. They're bright, the focusing is done for you, and they let you see what the picture will look like from the same sort of distance that you'd look at a print.

In due course, I expect, SLRs will implement live view too.

But I think in times to come, viewfinders that you had to jam uncomfortably up against your face will be seen as a bit of an aberration.

I agree with what you say – I still use a lot of manual focus lenses on my K10D, but even the new lenses I have, DA 16-45mm and DFA 100mm f2.8 macro, need manual focusing sometimes.

I just wish the K10 had the same versatile viewfinder options as my old LX

its all down to basic optics

the more you magnify an image, the dimmer it gets.

The image starts off the same size as the sensor, therefore if you want to have an image the same size as you would get from a 35mm camera, you have to crank up the magnification. The various camera manufacturers have selected the magnification on their viewfinders to result in what they think is the best combination of size and brightness.

Pentax viewfinders (yes, even the *ist DL and K100D, compared to other pentamirrors) are the best on the market. If you doubt this, take a trip to your local Jessops and ask them to let you have a look through a Nikon D50 or D70, but be warned you may get claustrophobia.

If you want a larger viewfinder, the only way you're going to get it is a ***** 5D or 1Ds.

I know, I'd happily trade some brightness for some size. a 50% bigger image only reduces the brightness by half a stop.

this is all just another reason to go full frame, except that the 5D has ruined it by having a 71% magnification.

35mm x 71% = 24.85 (5D)
23.5mm x 95% = 22.32 (ist DS and K10D)

so even the 5D isnt much better!

EDIT, is this actually right? are they talking about linear size with those figures?

I agree that full frame is the answer (for other reasons too) but only canon are doing it and they are messing it up.

so what about 3rd party add on magnifiers? angle finders with a 2x option, anyone use one?

so from the viewfinder size we are getting to the full-frame discussion again... *sigh*

well theres always the Leica R9 with matching digital back, if you are made of money.

it is the only fully valid reason for going full frame, the two are interlinked.

How about one of these? http://www.fotosense.co.uk/shop_details.asp?productID=1589

I've just thought of one possible advantage of small viewfinders - it should be easier to notice camera-shake.

but you can't judge focus on a little tft display. now if someone made one of those that was just optical and sold for £15 i'd go for it. even if the image was a bit dim.

i don't follow, why?

idea,

the viewfinder hasn't changed since the original K series, assuming that you could get hold of one, how about one of the old viewfinder magnifiers?

it should still fit, it will only magnify the middle of the finder but better than nothing?

[quote="Mongoose"]ultimately I think that noise and low photon count on small hi res sensors will bring us to use larger sensors, but I agree it doesn't apply with todays technology.

very interesting idea. also the area that would have been just the middle on a 35mm camera would be most of the finder on a aps camera.

theres a nikon one out there http://www.camerahobby.com/Access-NikonDG2.htm

any others?