I've had an original Canon digital rebel 300d for quite some time now and have always found the view through the viewfinder to be restrictive. It seems like it's dim and hard to see details that I can see with the naked eye. It's fine for quick composition, but it's quite lacking IMHO.
I've used a friend's 1Ds mkII several times and am blown away by the BIG BRIGHT viewfinder each and every time. It's like the whole world opens up looking through that. At least in comparison to my viewfinder.
I've done a little bit of research (including searching here) about viewfinder magnifiers, but I don't think that's what I want. I want a bigger field of view and most importantly more brightness. Naively I'd think that some sort of optics would exist to help me get a view closer the one I've seen in the 1Ds mkII.
I've been shopping for a few camera body recently, and am almost settled on a Canon T2i. You'd think that a camera 7 generations after mine might have a few improvements. I'm guessing though that the viewfinder is similar to what I have.
Any suggestions for me, either on the 300D or for my (probably) upcoming T2I ?
The problem is that you cannot 'fix' the effect of a poor viewfinder design on the output side. If there is just not enough light going through, a viewfinder magnifier will not create more light... it will just enlarge the image at the cost of brightness, so you would end up with a larger, but less bright image which is not what you want. In theory, you could probably go the other way, and try to obtain a smaller but brighter view, but that is not what you want either.
I am not sure how much better the T2i is in terms of viewfinder, compared to the 300D.
Another option is to try to move up in the line of Canon bodies, and try to get, e.g., a used 5D. Not only this camera has a full frame sensor, hence much larger and brighter viewfinder, but it also uses a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror, which improves the viewfinder.
There's not much you can do about the quality of tiny viewfinders. If you have enough light, a viewfinder magnifier can be helpful (larger image, but darker); they can also be awkward to work with hand-held.
Once high quality electronic viewfinders are ubiquitous, you'll be able to get a big viewfinder on smaller format cameras. This is available now if you get a Sony NEX 5n or 7 for your next camera (same sensor size as Digital Rebel series in a mirrorless camera with EVF instead of optical viewfinder).
But, to reiterate my first point, the best option for a great viewfinder (and all-around good camera a huge step up from a 300D) would be a used 5D Classic.
There's not much you can do about the quality of tiny viewfinders. If you have enough light, a viewfinder magnifier can be helpful (larger image, but darker); they can also be awkward to work with hand-held.
Once high quality electronic viewfinders are ubiquitous, you'll be able to get a big viewfinder on smaller format cameras. This is available now if you get a Sony NEX 5n or 7 for your next camera (same sensor size as Digital Rebel series in a mirrorless camera with EVF instead of optical viewfinder).
But, to reiterate my first point, the best option for a great viewfinder (and all-around good camera a huge step up from a 300D) would be a used 5D Classic....Show more →
I agree that the 5D is a fantastic value right now and would be steps ahead of a cropper but the 5D doesn't even have a 100% viewfinder .
1Ds2 is my pick and another great deal these days if you dont mind the weight and speed issues.
blgentry wrote:
I've had an original Canon digital rebel 300d for quite some time now and have always found the view through the viewfinder to be restrictive. It seems like it's dim and hard to see details that I can see with the naked eye. It's fine for quick composition, but it's quite lacking IMHO.
I've used a friend's 1Ds mkII several times and am blown away by the BIG BRIGHT viewfinder each and every time. It's like the whole world opens up looking through that. At least in comparison to my viewfinder.
I've done a little bit of research (including searching here) about viewfinder magnifiers, but I don't think that's what I want. I want a bigger field of view and most importantly more brightness. Naively I'd think that some sort of optics would exist to help me get a view closer the one I've seen in the 1Ds mkII.
I've been shopping for a few camera body recently, and am almost settled on a Canon T2i. You'd think that a camera 7 generations after mine might have a few improvements. I'm guessing though that the viewfinder is similar to what I have.
Any suggestions for me, either on the 300D or for my (probably) upcoming T2I ?
Ok I'm not sure what type of VF the old 300D was but all the other rebels after it have been the 'pentamirror' type which is not as good as a 'pentaprism' that is found in the xxD and x series bodies .
Having had a couple of rebel bodies 350D & 450D and a few better bodies (30D, 40D, 50D, mk2n , 7D) I can say all of those had much better vf's. Rebels are like looking thru a keyhole.
Now brightness doesn't just come from the VF type but also the size, screen type and of course the speed of the lens that's on the front. (5.6 never looks that bright) .
Of all the above bodies the 7D has the best in my opinion. I have also used a 5D and if memory Serbs me the VF seemed better than what I was using at the time (40D) but I don't remember being stunned by it.
But the other week I was in a shop that had an only OM1 with a 50/1.8 on the front. Just looking thru the VF on that was like looking at an IMAX screen compared to a normal home TV . Seeing that VF in a body that's about the size of a rebel makes you realise how much we have been robbed .
Ultimately if you want better VF and you use AF most / all of the time then a non rebel will be better. Going to a 5D will probably be better still , but you have to consider if the larger sensor size is what you want or need befor diving in just for the VF.
Best crop VF is the 7D
Brian, if you are sure you want a crop body, think about 7D. If you don't have much $$ a 1D2 or 1D2n has a really nice VF, either would be under $1000 in a pro size body with great AF and handling (waaaaay fun to shoot if you don't mind the brick type bodies). 5D also has a super nice VF, but the handling and body is entirely different...
I had a 450D (XSI) for a while, added a 5DII, and finally a 1D IV; each was a noticeable step up in viewfinder clarity and brightness. Though the coverage increased from only 95% to 98% to 100%, the increase in perceived resolution was much more significant.
I'm afraid you're wanting something that doesn't exist, that is, a Rebel with a bigger, brighter viewfinder. Magnifiers are an aid that, like the responses above point out, may add in one aspect while detracting in another. From your scanty profile, I can't tell what you shoot, but a consideration for you may be that Live View is important - as it is in certain landscape photography and pretty much all macro...so a 5D or older 1D version not be the best route...consider a 5DII, way down in used price right now while folks are trying to fund the 5DIII. From 40D on up, you have Live View, so one of those may suit you, BUT, the difference in viewfinder with the xxD series may be minimal...
Of course, if Live View (or video) has no bearing, you can discount pretty much this entire post!
+1 @ 1D II / IIN or 5D ...assuming 1Ds series would be likewise nice.
Shooting mostly manual focus ... I frequently use my angle finder and/or wear a visor/hat to help offset ambient light a bit. The other thing is to use faster glass to let more light in for a better VF experience.
I'm happy with the optical VF on my 5D2 and it's head and shoulders above my old 10D and XTi. However, an optical VF will never be as bright as reality due the light loss from the focusing screen, pentaprism, semi-slivered mirror, etc. It helps a lot to use faster optics, e.g., a F2.8 lens is much brighter to compose with than a F4 or 5.6 lens.
If you really want bright, you might consider switching to a camera with an EVF (the Sony NEX 7 has the best one for now). I use a Olympus E-P3 with EVF for point 'n shoot and it is so bright it almost hurts. It actually can "see" in the dark but looks fake and gritty in low light. I still greatly prefer the more natural look and feel of my 5D2 optical VF.
Thanks for all the replies. As I was writing the original post, I thought what Tenn.Jer said: I think I want something that doesn't exist.
I'm not super tied to a crop body, but that's what I'm used to and frankly my budget is rather on the low side. My usual approach to this is to try to spend more money on glass, but at this point my camera body is SO antiquated that I feel like it's in my way more often than not. A big viewfinder would be awesome, but a 7D, 5D, 5DII, or (wow) a 1D(s)mk?? is a bit beyond my budget.
I think I'll end up getting a T2I, live with the viewfinder, and perhaps pick up a 35mm F/2 or something. I'd like a "real" normal lens and the 50mm f/1.8 is more like a portrait lens on crop bodies. I wonder why so many people recommending the 50mm prime for crop bodies miss this?
Oh and Ian, you nailed the impression I get from my VF: It's like looking through a keyhole!
Thanks again; I'm starting to like this community already.
Be aware that the interraction between the focus screen (which is not interchangeable on many cameras) and the brightness of the lens image at maximum aperture (which is used for all AF work and nearly all viewfinder work) will affect the brightness that you see in the viewfinder. With most focus screens the image gets disproportionately darker with smaller apertures. e.g. compared to an f/2.8 lens the viewfinder image with an f/5.6 lens might be 3 or 4 stops darker instead of just 2 stops darker. Unfortunately, focus screens that work better at small apertures tend to work less well than the others at larger apertures.
mmurph wrote:
Full frame. All lenses at F 2.8 or better.
Compared to crop and the F4.0-f5.6 variable lenses, it is heaven.
Or at least ditch the kit zooms and get constant aperature f4.0 or 2.8, plus a couple of primes at 1.8.
No other way really.
+1: in Canon land. I was first excited to read thet the viewfinder in the 5D III is 100%. But then other news came up regarding this model which make me believe that the one in my current 5D II is still excellent.
retrofocus wrote:
+1: in Canon land. I was first excited to read thet the viewfinder in the 5D III is 100%. But then other news came up regarding this model which make me believe that the one in my current 5D II is still excellent.
well I guess the 5D2 has always been the Manual focus/Alt lens body of choice. If the MF alt lens world is your thing then there is probably no reason to change. The 5D3 biggest draw by miles is the much improved AF
I'm guessing though that the viewfinder is similar to what I have.
. 