Tiny View Finders - Why?

cali92rs · 05-14-2012, 10:27 AM

I was playing around with my ME and ZX-5 this morning, and good lord, the viewfinder looks like the windshield of my Silverado compared to the size of the K-5 viewfinder. It's much less eye fatiguing using those cameras compared to the K-5
But it isnt a Pentax specific issue. I have noticed that samething with Nikon DX DSLRs. Tiny, wimpy viewfinders.

Is there something inherent in these crop sensor DSLRs that forces camera manufacturers to use smaller view finders? Is this just for differentiation from the FX camera line i.e. pay more money and you will get a bigger finder?

Adam · 05-14-2012, 10:45 AM - **1 Like**

Because the sensor is smaller, they just make the whole mirror box and focusing screen small as well. It's more cost-effective, as the bigger the mirror, the harder it is to make a high-framerate shutter.

The istD had a full-frame mirror box, but after that, Pentax reduced its size down to APS-c likely for the reasons above. I'm sure there's an ff on the horizon, though- and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d!

**apisto** · 05-14-2012, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Because the sensor is smaller, they just make the whole mirror box and focusing screen small as well. It's more cost-effective, as the bigger the mirror, the harder it is to make a high-framerate shutter.

The istD had a full-frame mirror box, but after that, Pentax reduced its size down to APS-c likely for the reasons above. I'm sure there's an ff on the horizon, though- and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d!

Which usage of "I'm sure" are you using?

The "I know this for a fact" I'm sure?

Or the "Surely they will" I'm sure?

cali92rs · 05-14-2012, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Adam

and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d!

Thanks

And if your willing to "loan" me $10K, i will gladly use that 645d!

**pacerr** · 05-14-2012, 11:06 AM

Keep in mind that when comparing VF's you're dealing with the area of the window (that's a dimension squared) and the size of the "container" becomes larger quickly. Eg., going from 1x1 to 2x2 is not an area increase of 2 units, it's 4 units.

Among other issues, such as the APS-C factor and the need to reduce inertia of mirror parts that Adam mentioned, was the addition of the on-board flash components in the space of the mirror box and a trade-off in favor of AF.

I'd gladly give up the OBF to return to a better VF and a clear view of the aperture ring of older lenses. Wireless/remote triggering of OFF-board/auxiliary flash (via Bluetooth?) and other functions (tethering?) can't be too far in the future anyway.

H2

Tanzer · 05-14-2012, 11:36 AM

The K-5 was my first dSLR and I the relatively tiny viewfinder has been quite disappointing, compared to my old film SLRs. I would love to have a FF camera more to get a proper sized VF more than I necessarily care about the exact sensor dimensions.

But for what it is worth, the K-5 is still much bigger than the miniscule VF in the (entry-level) Canikons. I cannot imagine trying to manually focus using one of those little plastic children's toys.

ofer4 · 05-14-2012, 01:10 PM

Had the same experience recently... I have a K-r and bought an old Pentax film camera for the lens on the front. On a whim, I looked through the older camera's viewfinder, and HOLY COW!

dylansalt · 05-14-2012, 01:18 PM

yes it's something we truly lost with the age of digital - not even the best FF can compare

Tanzer · 05-14-2012, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by dylansalt

yes it's something we truly lost with the age of digital - not even the best FF can compare

Is this true? Or did you just mean that most modern OVFs don't have focusing aids like split prisms and microprisms? I haven't tried a FF dSLR.

I once considered a Canon 5D MkII, and I would have expected this to have a similar OVF area as my old film cameras. I would have been pretty disappointed if it was smaller. If what you are saying is true, then the "upcoming" FF Pentax might not be such a big deal, to me.

RioRico · 05-14-2012, 02:48 PM

You want a tiny VF? Try a Fed or Argus RF. Sacre bleu!

Edvinas · 05-15-2012, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by dylansalt

yes it's something we truly lost with the age of digital - not even the best FF can compare

Digital has nothing to do with it. Autofocus is the thing to blame

Edvinas · 05-15-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Because the sensor is smaller, they just make the whole mirror box and focusing screen small as well. It's more cost-effective, as the bigger the mirror, the harder it is to make a high-framerate shutter.

The istD had a full-frame mirror box, but after that, Pentax reduced its size down to APS-c likely for the reasons above. I'm sure there's an ff on the horizon, though- and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d!

IMHO this has nothing to do with the size of mirror and mirror box. Put as large mirror as you want, however you still need to show in viewfinder only the same area of image which will fall onto sensor. Therefore you can't put larger focussing screen either. You can increase the size of the image in viewfinder itself, however then viewfinder will become even darker...

I've never used *ist D, so I can't say anything from my experience, however dpreview says that *ist D has 0.95x magnification prism viewfinder with 95% frame coverage. I.e. it's the same size as viewfinder in *ist DS, K10D and K20D, all of which have APS-C sized mirror and mirror box.

rhodopsin · 05-15-2012, 05:09 PM

Well, making the VF image 2x larger makes it 1/4 as bright...

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-15-2012, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by rhodopsin

Well, making the VF image 2x larger makes it 1/4 as bright...

Finally someone who understands. The size is inversely proportional to the light
Or more correctly the square

noblepa · 05-15-2012, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Edvinas

IMHO this has nothing to do with the size of mirror and mirror box. Put as large mirror as you want, however you still need to show in viewfinder only the same area of image which will fall onto sensor. Therefore you can't put larger focussing screen either. You can increase the size of the image in viewfinder itself, however then viewfinder will become even darker...

I've never used *ist D, so I can't say anything from my experience, however dpreview says that *ist D has 0.95x magnification prism viewfinder with 95% frame coverage. I.e. it's the same size as viewfinder in *ist DS, K10D and K20D, all of which have APS-C sized mirror and mirror box.

I agree. The focusing screen must be the same size as the sensor. To make an APS-C slr viewfinder look as large as that on a full-frame film slr would require a magnifyer in the prism, between the focusing screen and the eyepiece. This would probably make the prism bulge even larger than it is.

05-14-2012, 10:27 AM	#1
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Tiny View Finders - Why? I was playing around with my ME and ZX-5 this morning, and good lord, the viewfinder looks like the windshield of my Silverado compared to the size of the K-5 viewfinder. It's much less eye fatiguing using those cameras compared to the K-5 But it isnt a Pentax specific issue. I have noticed that samething with Nikon DX DSLRs. Tiny, wimpy viewfinders. Is there something inherent in these crop sensor DSLRs that forces camera manufacturers to use smaller view finders? Is this just for differentiation from the FX camera line i.e. pay more money and you will get a bigger finder?

05-15-2012, 04:12 PM	#11
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by dylansalt yes it's something we truly lost with the age of digital - not even the best FF can compare Digital has nothing to do with it. Autofocus is the thing to blame Last edited by Edvinas; 05-15-2012 at 04:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Tiny flower, and a tiny bug	bluestringer	Post Your Photos!	4	04-09-2012 07:29 AM
Macro Tiny and i mean tiny, spider	LightSpeed	Post Your Photos!	5	02-04-2012 07:47 AM
Pentax AF bodies with pentaprism finders?	Leopardwizard	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	6	11-02-2011 02:54 PM
Macro Tiny Fly Tiny Bud	eaglem	Post Your Photos!	6	08-05-2011 05:48 PM
View finders.	djayvo	Photographic Technique	2	01-11-2009 03:04 PM

05-14-2012, 10:45 AM - 1 Like	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Because the sensor is smaller, they just make the whole mirror box and focusing screen small as well. It's more cost-effective, as the bigger the mirror, the harder it is to make a high-framerate shutter. The istD had a full-frame mirror box, but after that, Pentax reduced its size down to APS-c likely for the reasons above. I'm sure there's an ff on the horizon, though- and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d!

05-14-2012, 10:55 AM	#3
apisto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 588	Originally posted by Adam Because the sensor is smaller, they just make the whole mirror box and focusing screen small as well. It's more cost-effective, as the bigger the mirror, the harder it is to make a high-framerate shutter. The istD had a full-frame mirror box, but after that, Pentax reduced its size down to APS-c likely for the reasons above. I'm sure there's an ff on the horizon, though- and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d! Which usage of "I'm sure" are you using? The "I know this for a fact" I'm sure? Or the "Surely they will" I'm sure?

05-14-2012, 10:59 AM	#4
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d! Thanks And if your willing to "loan" me $10K, i will gladly use that 645d!

05-14-2012, 11:06 AM	#5
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Keep in mind that when comparing VF's you're dealing with the area of the window (that's a dimension squared) and the size of the "container" becomes larger quickly. Eg., going from 1x1 to 2x2 is not an area increase of 2 units, it's 4 units. Among other issues, such as the APS-C factor and the need to reduce inertia of mirror parts that Adam mentioned, was the addition of the on-board flash components in the space of the mirror box and a trade-off in favor of AF. I'd gladly give up the OBF to return to a better VF and a clear view of the aperture ring of older lenses. Wireless/remote triggering of OFF-board/auxiliary flash (via Bluetooth?) and other functions (tethering?) can't be too far in the future anyway. H2

05-14-2012, 11:36 AM	#6
Tanzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Perrineville, NJ Posts: 1,375	The K-5 was my first dSLR and I the relatively tiny viewfinder has been quite disappointing, compared to my old film SLRs. I would love to have a FF camera more to get a proper sized VF more than I necessarily care about the exact sensor dimensions. But for what it is worth, the K-5 is still much bigger than the miniscule VF in the (entry-level) Canikons. I cannot imagine trying to manually focus using one of those little plastic children's toys.

05-14-2012, 01:10 PM	#7
ofer4 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Utah Posts: 428	Had the same experience recently... I have a K-r and bought an old Pentax film camera for the lens on the front. On a whim, I looked through the older camera's viewfinder, and HOLY COW!

05-14-2012, 01:18 PM	#8
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	yes it's something we truly lost with the age of digital - not even the best FF can compare

05-14-2012, 02:42 PM	#9
Tanzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Perrineville, NJ Posts: 1,375	Originally posted by dylansalt yes it's something we truly lost with the age of digital - not even the best FF can compare Is this true? Or did you just mean that most modern OVFs don't have focusing aids like split prisms and microprisms? I haven't tried a FF dSLR. I once considered a Canon 5D MkII, and I would have expected this to have a similar OVF area as my old film cameras. I would have been pretty disappointed if it was smaller. If what you are saying is true, then the "upcoming" FF Pentax might not be such a big deal, to me.

05-14-2012, 02:48 PM	#10
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	You want a tiny VF? Try a Fed or Argus RF. Sacre bleu!

05-15-2012, 04:27 PM	#12
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by Adam Because the sensor is smaller, they just make the whole mirror box and focusing screen small as well. It's more cost-effective, as the bigger the mirror, the harder it is to make a high-framerate shutter. The istD had a full-frame mirror box, but after that, Pentax reduced its size down to APS-c likely for the reasons above. I'm sure there's an ff on the horizon, though- and if you really want a big VF, try the 645d! IMHO this has nothing to do with the size of mirror and mirror box. Put as large mirror as you want, however you still need to show in viewfinder only the same area of image which will fall onto sensor. Therefore you can't put larger focussing screen either. You can increase the size of the image in viewfinder itself, however then viewfinder will become even darker... I've never used ist D, so I can't say anything from my experience, however dpreview says that ist D has 0.95x magnification prism viewfinder with 95% frame coverage. I.e. it's the same size as viewfinder in *ist DS, K10D and K20D, all of which have APS-C sized mirror and mirror box.

05-15-2012, 05:09 PM	#13
rhodopsin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Deep Forest Posts: 643	Well, making the VF image 2x larger makes it 1/4 as bright...

05-15-2012, 06:04 PM	#14
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	Originally posted by rhodopsin Well, making the VF image 2x larger makes it 1/4 as bright... Finally someone who understands. The size is inversely proportional to the light Or more correctly the square

05-15-2012, 06:38 PM	#15
noblepa Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Village, Ohio USA Posts: 1,142	Originally posted by Edvinas IMHO this has nothing to do with the size of mirror and mirror box. Put as large mirror as you want, however you still need to show in viewfinder only the same area of image which will fall onto sensor. Therefore you can't put larger focussing screen either. You can increase the size of the image in viewfinder itself, however then viewfinder will become even darker... I've never used ist D, so I can't say anything from my experience, however dpreview says that ist D has 0.95x magnification prism viewfinder with 95% frame coverage. I.e. it's the same size as viewfinder in *ist DS, K10D and K20D, all of which have APS-C sized mirror and mirror box. I agree. The focusing screen must be the same size as the sensor. To make an APS-C slr viewfinder look as large as that on a full-frame film slr would require a magnifyer in the prism, between the focusing screen and the eyepiece. This would probably make the prism bulge even larger than it is.