yslee
07-03-2008, 03:31 PM
Ever since photography went digital, the popularity of photography has soared. In the past I'd maybe bump into no more than three random people holding a SLR camera even in an area considered to be "photogenic". Now, it's common to see someone proudly slinging a DSLR over their hip even on public transport. With such popular appeal it's also no wonder the Internet is now full of all kinds of sites discussing digital photography, and all new DSLR camera releases scrutinised heavily.
Still, one feature that's rarely bought up on the Internet chatter of these hardware discussions is a simple and not very alluring sounding specification: The camera's viewfinder.
Now, while it's not quite as sexy to talk about compared to ISO 204,800 (a favourite topic of many discussions) or 5 gigapixels, it's still something that's important. Like a computer monitor, it's one of the main interfaces (I like to think of it as the metaphorical “window” to the camera’s “soul”) of the hardware, and how good or bad the experience is can make a difference in the photograph taking process. A small, dim viewfinder is not the most joyous of things to use, and can make composing more difficult than needed. Large viewfinders present details present in the scene better, and if one didn't notice that signpost sticking out of your subject's head from behind, well, a large viewfinder can help.
Unfortunately at the mid and lower-end areas of the market, small dim viewfinders are common. Large viewfinders require expensive pentaprisms, so in making the camera cheap it's normally one of the first things to go. Most beginners then have to learn composing through the tunnel-vision of a viewfinder, compared to the days of film when something like the cheap Pentax K1000 would have been used.
I suspect one reason why it's not commonly talked about is simply because it's a hard topic to bring to the Internet. After all, there's no easy way to measure the viewfinder, something designed for the human eye to use.
Still, in order to demonstrate the differences in viewfinders, I decided to use a digital compact and smack its lens through the viewfinder to approximately simulate how the view would look like. Please remember this is an approximate; it’s unlikely this is a proper testing methodology. Also, the camera was left in manual mode to keep the exposure constant, and give an indication of the varying viewfinder brightness.
I've used a Nikon D70 to show a typical entry-level DSLR, a Nikon D300 to show a high-end DSLR, and an old classic film SLR, a Nikon FA, to approximate what a view from a full-frame DSLR could be like. Effort also has been made to keep the image sizes to scale during the process of cropping and reframing.
I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.
Here's the view from the D70:
http://pixels.dysorder.org/D70VF.jpg
D300:
http://pixels.dysorder.org/D300VF.jpg
FA:
http://pixels.dysorder.org/FAVF.jpg
Taking LAB colour values from the centre of the viewfinders, the L (luminousity) value are as follows:
D70: L value of 57-58
D300: L value of 60-62
FA: L value of 68-69
As you can see, the FA has the largest view of them all, and also the brightest viewfinder. Not having to enlarge the viewfinder image as much to get a similar physical dimension means not losing as much light.
To conclude, while it a spec not talked about, it is something every prospective DSLR camera buyer should at least consider before making their purchases. Whether or not it is important is left to each individual, but it should be part of the decision making process. As always, I recommend buying from the local store, where one can try out the camera in-person, which also allows one to try out the ergonomics and UI of the camera, not just the viewfinder.
As for myself, it ranks high in terms of importance, and is almost enough to make me consider the just announced full-frame Nikon D700. The insane premium, along with the loss of the FOV crop, is something that (just barely) tips the scale in me deciding to keep the D300.
Still, one feature that's rarely bought up on the Internet chatter of these hardware discussions is a simple and not very alluring sounding specification: The camera's viewfinder.
Now, while it's not quite as sexy to talk about compared to ISO 204,800 (a favourite topic of many discussions) or 5 gigapixels, it's still something that's important. Like a computer monitor, it's one of the main interfaces (I like to think of it as the metaphorical “window” to the camera’s “soul”) of the hardware, and how good or bad the experience is can make a difference in the photograph taking process. A small, dim viewfinder is not the most joyous of things to use, and can make composing more difficult than needed. Large viewfinders present details present in the scene better, and if one didn't notice that signpost sticking out of your subject's head from behind, well, a large viewfinder can help.
Unfortunately at the mid and lower-end areas of the market, small dim viewfinders are common. Large viewfinders require expensive pentaprisms, so in making the camera cheap it's normally one of the first things to go. Most beginners then have to learn composing through the tunnel-vision of a viewfinder, compared to the days of film when something like the cheap Pentax K1000 would have been used.
I suspect one reason why it's not commonly talked about is simply because it's a hard topic to bring to the Internet. After all, there's no easy way to measure the viewfinder, something designed for the human eye to use.
Still, in order to demonstrate the differences in viewfinders, I decided to use a digital compact and smack its lens through the viewfinder to approximately simulate how the view would look like. Please remember this is an approximate; it’s unlikely this is a proper testing methodology. Also, the camera was left in manual mode to keep the exposure constant, and give an indication of the varying viewfinder brightness.
I've used a Nikon D70 to show a typical entry-level DSLR, a Nikon D300 to show a high-end DSLR, and an old classic film SLR, a Nikon FA, to approximate what a view from a full-frame DSLR could be like. Effort also has been made to keep the image sizes to scale during the process of cropping and reframing.
I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.
Here's the view from the D70:
http://pixels.dysorder.org/D70VF.jpg
D300:
http://pixels.dysorder.org/D300VF.jpg
FA:
http://pixels.dysorder.org/FAVF.jpg
Taking LAB colour values from the centre of the viewfinders, the L (luminousity) value are as follows:
D70: L value of 57-58
D300: L value of 60-62
FA: L value of 68-69
As you can see, the FA has the largest view of them all, and also the brightest viewfinder. Not having to enlarge the viewfinder image as much to get a similar physical dimension means not losing as much light.
To conclude, while it a spec not talked about, it is something every prospective DSLR camera buyer should at least consider before making their purchases. Whether or not it is important is left to each individual, but it should be part of the decision making process. As always, I recommend buying from the local store, where one can try out the camera in-person, which also allows one to try out the ergonomics and UI of the camera, not just the viewfinder.
As for myself, it ranks high in terms of importance, and is almost enough to make me consider the just announced full-frame Nikon D700. The insane premium, along with the loss of the FOV crop, is something that (just barely) tips the scale in me deciding to keep the D300.