Originally posted by Unsinkable II Thanks for all the replies.
I was indeed more interested in the optibrite enhancement rather than the focusing aid. Taking away the focusing aid would still give a bright viewfinder without specific center metering issues.
Sure, but don't you think if Optibrite is so wonderful and suitable in
real world practice, that the mfgrs would offer brighter screens as default?
And that the majority buying public would surely demand they do by now? (people aren't totally stupid, or remain so forever)
Quote: As for metering issues in general, I don't understand why (as has been mentioned, and refuted) a camera maker couldn't compensate in their software/hardware from the get-go.
You might also want to ask eg. Canon, who DOES offer interchangeable f-screen capability but only in their up-market FullFrame models, plus a small range of optional screens genuine Canon branded for them; why does Canon not make say split-prism the default, and why they only recommend it with caveats and warnings that it's only suitable for certain specific applications and beware of the limitations and irregularities in operation.
7D owners seem to laud the brightness of their beloved toy too (100% though, which helps), as well as it's great metering, so maybe the recipe has been cracked already?
After exhaustively researching this matter myself, incl the plethora of peer comments reviews etc. out there by those who've been down the path themselves; I was very grateful for all their balanced advice and decided in the end to not waste my money or time even trying any out.
Trust me, it IS worth reading all the great material on this and other photography forums, which is easy enough to dig up too, because all you want to know has been expertly covered over the years among the usual subjective and objective assessments that will be a real eye opener and include things that won't even be thought of or covered in this short rinse & repeat cycle.
Sure there are niche uses for them, but truth is the overall market would likely be 1 per 1,000 of DSLR owners who need them for whatever job or reason.
If that weren't the case then the KatzEye mob would be super rich and there'd be so much other competition out there that OEMs surely would include them at least as an option on all models.
Btw; while you're researching don't forget to take count of the amount of people (like the example already here), who have bought and tried them, then soon given up as too impractical for their general everyday use.
Then there's others who have hands on tested $200 KatzEyes v sub $30 fleaBay jobs in their same equipment, and concluded the latter near equal.
Go figure, it's your call.
So please do yourself a favour; play the online equivalent of RTFM and then decide if your own needs, equipment and usage
might fit the bill - or would it only end up yet another whole 30 days use lifespan then into the novelty gadgets that didn't quite work out drawer to gather dust.
eg. If I ever get a spare body myself, I'd probably fit one with a split/prism viewfinder and dedicate for my macro addiction. But as for (faking) more brightness, I'd probably resort to Liveview to adequately solve that equation.
Forget the conspiracy by camera manufacturers theory. It doesn't hold water when you become informed enough and reason it all out.
.R.