Why do I sometimes get a shaking viewfinder image in my Canon 550D?

Question

Sometimes I put my viewfinder to my eye before I turn on my camera. When I turn it on, the viewfinder image slightly shakes and moves a bit vertically. This also happens when I look through my viewfinder and press the shutter when the camera has been on, but not used for several minutes.

My camera is a 8 month old Canon 550D and I use it with a Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM lens.

As it happens sometimes, the behaviour is hard to reproduce and hence I can not give you more information about the problem.

Does anybody know why this is happening?

Asked by Bart Arondson

Answer

As forsvarir says, it's most likely the optical stabilisation initialising.

And to clear up one of you comments; In a DSLR you will only see a stabilised image in the view finder with a stabilised lens. When you look through the view finder you're not seeing a picture that have been captured by the sensor first. So any stabilising happening on the sensor is not visible through the view finder.

With a mirror-less camera where you use the screen instead of a view finder, sensor stabilisation will be visible.

Answered by Håkon K. Olafsen

Check more discussion of this question.

Shaking viewfinder image in Canon 550D

Question

Sometimes I put my viewfinder to my eye before I turn on my camera. When I turn it on, the viewfinder image slightly shakes and moves a bit vertically. This also happens when I look through my viewfinder and press the shutter when the camera has been on, but not used for several minutes.

My camera is a 8 month old Canon 550D and I use it with a Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM lens.

As it happens sometimes, the behaviour is hard to reproduce and hence I can not give you more information about the problem.

Does anybody know why this is happening?

Asked by Bart Arondson

Answer

As forsvarir says, it's most likely the optical stabilisation initialising.

And to clear up one of you comments; In a DSLR you will only see a stabilised image in the view finder with a stabilised lens. When you look through the view finder you're not seeing a picture that have been captured by the sensor first. So any stabilising happening on the sensor is not visible through the view finder.

With a mirror-less camera where you use the screen instead of a view finder sensor stabilisation will be visible.

Answered by Håkon K. Olafsen

Check more discussion of this question.

My viewfinder is too small — what can I do about it?

Question

I own a 450D, and I am very satisfied with the image quality, features, and so on. The only thing that disturbs me is the viewfinder. I can barely see the whole image when looking through it (black blends in near the edges as my eyes focus the image) and as soon as I look through it slightly from the side, e.g. when I'm shooting near the floor, the whole thing gets to be controlled by luck. Manual focus is almost impossible to get right — especially with the crappy focus ring on the kit lense (it's slightly better with the 60mm/2.8). Later, when I view the photos on my PC, I can see details that I haven't noticed at all while using the viewfinder and therefore did not have control of.

Am I the only one having these problems? Is there any possibility to improve my viewfinder's image without buying a new camera? And last but not least, which cameras do have good, big viewfinders? Does it have something to do with the size of the sensor?

Asked by eWolf

Answer

There are a few things conspiring against you. First is the fact that your camera uses a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism to orient the viewfinder image so up is up and left is left. Mirrors are nowhere near as efficient as total internal reflection within a prism, but they are a whole lot cheaper. And unlike a prism, they get worse rather than better the further away from the normal angle you get. (The 60D, 7D, 5D, 1D and 1Ds all use a pentaprism.)

The focusing screen makes a difference as well. I don't know enough about the actual construction of the screens in the various Canon models to say for sure whether that's a contributing factor in your case, but I do know that back in the day the Minolta Acute Matte screen was brighter than other designs by a significant enough margin (nearly a full stop of apparent brightness compared to the screens Nikon and Canon were using) that Hasselblad licensed the technology for their medium format cameras.

The reflex mirror is only partially silvered these days as well (it used to be just an ordinary front-silvered mirror in the Dark Ages). Again, I don't know if there is a significant difference in transmissivity between the various models of camera, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.

The image erector, the screen and the reflex mirror (not to mention the optics used at the eyepiece) are all places where a camera maker can save a buck or two when making an entry-level camera.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

My viewfinder is too small!

Question

I own a 450D, and I am very satisfied with the image quality, features, a.s.o. The only thing that disturbs me is the viewfinder. I can barely see the whole image when looking through it (black blends in near the edges as my eyes focus the image) and as soon as I look through it slightly from the side, e.g. when I'm shooting near the floor, the whole thing gets to be controlled by luck. Manual focus is almost impossible to get right - especially with the crappy focus ring on the kit lense (it's slightly better with the 60mm/2.8). Later, when I view the photos on my PC, I can see details that I haven't noticed at all while using the viewfinder and therefore did not have control of.

My question is: Am I the only one having these problems? Is there any possibility to improve my viewfinder's image without buying a new camera? And last but not least - which cameras do have good/big viewfinders? Does it have something to do with the size of the sensor?

Asked by eWolf

Answer

There are a few things conspiring against you. First is the fact that your camera uses a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism to orient the viewfinder image so up is up and left is left. Mirrors are nowhere near as efficient as total internal reflection within a prism, but they are a whole lot cheaper. And unlike a prism, they get worse rather than better the further away from the normal angle you get. (The 60D, 7D, 5D, 1D and 1Ds all use a pentaprism.)

The focusing screen makes a difference as well. I don't know enough about the actual construction of the screens in the various Canon models to say for sure whether that's a contributing factor in your case, but I do know that back in the day the Minolta Acute Matte screen was brighter than other designs by a significant enough margin (nearly a full stop of apparent brightness compared to the screens Nikon and Canon were using) that Hasselblad licensed the technology for their medium format cameras.

The reflex mirror is only partially silvered these days as well (it used to be just an ordinary front-silvered mirror in the Dark Ages). Again, I don't know if there is a significant difference in transmissivity between the various models of camera, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.

The image erector, the screen and the reflex mirror (not to mention the optics used at the eyepiece) are all places where a camera maker can save a buck or two when making an entry-level camera.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

Why aren't the electronic bright lines for framing in the X-Pro 1 viewfinder more accurate?

Question

The Fujifilm X-Pro 1 has a viewfinder which can switch between an electronic mode and an optical mode with an electronic overlay. One of the key features of this overlay is a "bright frame" — the optical finder shows a good deal more than the expected coverage area of the lens, and the bright line is supposed to show the actual frame.

But, in my experience, the frame line is drawn much too small — there's something between 5-10% off each side. Some of this is surely to cover for the parallax error (since it's not a through-the-lens finder in optical mode), but it seems like Fujifilm could have made the tolerances a little closer. As it is, I'm getting used to cropping in post — or switching to the EVF for critical composition, which is annoying, since the optical view is so much nicer for catching fleeting expressions.

I understand why lower-end DSLR viewfinders don't offer 100% coverage, as there are considerable and obvious savings in size, weight, and cost. But in this case the viewfinder shows a considerable margin outside the line: the overall finder is more than 100%. Since the bright frame is drawn electronically, why isn't it drawn to more accurately match the field of view of the mounted lens?

Fujifilm has clearly put a lot of work into the design and photography-focused user interface of this camera, of which the hybrid viewfinder is a centerpiece. So, surely the viewfinder frame lines work this way for some good reason. What is that reason?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

You can move your head around, and the frame will line up differently depending on your exact point of view. And wearing glasses, the frame will seem even smaller than without - because your eye is further away. Cropping is far easier than synthesizing something you thought would end up in frame, but actually didn't.

The viewfinder on a rangefinder camera should not be considered a device for exact framing, but rather choosing the direction of shooting. The bright frame shows you what's certainly covered. The expensive Leica M9 exhibits similar behavior.

Another issue is that the focal length of a lens is only approximate, with 5% variation not too uncommon. To make matters worse, adjusting focusing distance affects focal length on most of photographic lenses.

It would be possible to craft a more exact viewfinder if the human photographers had a standardized viewfinder-to-eye mount and lenses would report their actual focal length all the time. As long as these issues remain, it's better to err on the safer side.

Answered by Imre

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I change the Fujifilm X-Pro 1's viewfinder magnfication manually?

Question

The Fujifilm X-Pro 1's optical viewfinder mode automatically switches magnification to match the prime lens mounted. There's a "bright frame" electronically drawn as a heads-up display showing the area of the actual frame.

I have the 35mm lens mounted. When I picked up the camera a little bit ago, I discovered that the view through the finder was wider than it has been in my previous few days of using the camera, and that the bright line rectangle was smaller than I was used to. It seems to have switched to a wider view.

After puzzling at the controls and the manual for a while, I couldn't figure it out. I eventually unmounted and remounted the lens, after which everything was back to normal. But the camera seemed to always "know" the right focal length, as it drew the bright frame appropriately.

How did the camera get into this state? A glitch, or something I inadvertently changed? Is it possible to do on purpose? (I can see an advantage in some situations in having less magnification, in order to see more of the surrounding situation.)

I've searched the manual, but found nothing about this. (Unfortunately, the manual is both poorly organized and full of gaps on many points.)

Asked by mattdm

Answer

It seems you pushed the lever that switches from the OVF to the EVF for more than 2 seconds. Doing so will bring the magnification glass on top of the OVF. Try pushing it again for more than 2 seconds to put it back in the other position. That magnification glass is useful for the other lenses...

Answered by sebastien.b

Check more discussion of this question.

How does one track action with a fast telephoto prime lens?

Question

With my normal-range prime lenses, I tend to shoot with both eyes open — what I see in the viewfinder has a high correspondence to what I see with my other eye. With my 70mm (105mm in 35mm-equivalent terms), it's a little trickier, but not so much that I really ever have to think about it.

With the Pentax DA★ 200mm f/2.8, though, it's a different story, for two reasons. First, at 300mm-equivalent, the field of view is so radically smaller than my unaided vision that it's just confusing to operate with two eyes. And second, the depth of field is so small that if I move away from my target, there's good odds I'm just looking at blur.

If this were a zoom lens, I might consider tracking the scene at a wider focal length and then zooming in. But that's not an option.

Clearly, people use these lenses for sports and wildlife photography all the time. What's the trick? I was at a not-so-fast-moving kung fu demonstration, and kept losing people. I can't imagine catching a bird in flight; do people just point at a flock and hope something is in the field of view? Is this just a matter of really learning to know the lens, or is there something I can do?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

Based on the last two answers I may be missing the point of the question here, but instead of worrying about aperture, your question more directly relates to how do I track action.

Tracking abilities I would split into 3 categories.

1. The Camera
2. The Lens
3. You

Part 1: The Camera

Some cameras just wont do tracking particularly well. You really need one that can do continuous auto-focus (not all do). This is the AI Servo mode if you're in Canon land, or on Nikon there is a C/S/M setting that does this (you want C for Continuous). I'm afraid I can't comment on Pentax, but refer to your manual. So set your camera to continuously focus.

The next thing to check is to ensure it is using all available AF points. Again, this varies by camera, but you may have a diamond of 7 or 9, or be lucky enough to have more - 19, 51, 61.....depending on make and model of camera. Just make sure all of them are enabled.

Also, think about the metering mode you choose. for things against the ground, or landscapes, you may want evaluative or full metering, but for a bird or aircraft in the sky, choose centre-weighted or spot metering.

Finally, choose your shooting mode appropriately. For action shots you will want shutter priority mode. I think Pentax use the mnemonic "Tv", as do Canon. Nikon and others just use "S". Then set a shutter speed appropriate to your action. Fast moving = 1/1000th or more. Slow subjects = 1/250th maybe? The benefit of your fast lens will be felt as you can keep the ISO low whilst still getting correctly exposed shots.

Part 2: The Lens

I'm not sure this pertains to you as its about image stabilisation, and I think the Pentax uses in body stabilisation. But in the Canon/Nikon world long lenses with IS/VR modes also have a stabiliser "mode". If you have this, ensure the mode is set correctly for your shooting type. Mode 1 is generally for overall use, handholding, normal shooting. Mode 2 usually only tries to correct vertically, so is useful for panning. Perhaps in the body of the Pentax you can select the mode too??

Also, the AF of the lens must be sufficiently fast to keep up with the constant refocussing by the camera body. But the lens you suggest has an SDM motor which seems to be well liked and fast.

Part 3: You

Practice your panning. Practice following targets across the ground and sky. It doesn't have to be in the dead centre of the frame but there's nothing worse than a raft of photos of your favourite car, plane, bird, etc with it's back end cut off! You may find a change of stance helps, or to hold the lens differently, or use a Monopod. Also, I would not tend to keep both eyes open as when you are tracking action, it only serves to distract you. Concentrate on whats in the viewfinder as thats what the camera sees.

I hope that helps?

Answered by Mike

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does the viewfinder of the Nikon D90 have a 4×4 grid instead of 3×3?

Question

I was amazed that viewfinder of my camera has a 4 x 4 grid. Why is this? There's no 3 x 3 grid. Sad. What is the reason to did it so? Is it possible to fix it (upgrade software of camera)? What cameras do have 3 x 3 or golden ratio grid?

Asked by garik

Answer

See this on the golden ratio and this on the rule of thirds. In short, these "rules" aren't very well supported as rules, and the assumption may be that they're unlikely to be very important to someone buying a mid-level DSLR. The even division has the advantage of showing you the center nicely, and simply having more lines is nice for alignment because it's more likely that something linear in the scene will correspond.

You can't change this in software, as the lines are physically on the screen. I don't believe Nikon makes official replacement, but you can get third-party focusing screens from KatzEye Optics with various grids, including "Rule of Thirds Grid" and various crop lines for 8×10 or square format or etc. If you really would like golden ratio grids, they'll do that too as a custom option.

Alternately, it looks like the corner focusing point indicators are on or very close to thirds; you can use that for composition instead.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the pros and cons of an articulated display?

Question

In my opinion an articulated display (one that rotates to allow viewing at different angles) is a big advantage for a modern camera. But I see that most professional and/or more expensive cameras do not offer it.

An articulated display is a long-time standard feature for all video camcorders, yet most modern DSLRs with video capabilities offer no such feature.

What is the reason for not making the articulated display a 'standard" feature on any high-end camera?

Asked by sasha

Answer

Articulated displays are just another moving part that is not typically necessary on pro grade equipment. Adding a screen like that will likely increase the size of the camera, and also make the screen more vulnerable to damage and wear.

Some pro series cameras also now have options for external LCD screens that can be attached to the body. Many videographers use these.

The main advantage to me, is to use the camera from odd angles. If for example you were at a concert and wanted to capture an image of the band, but you were short - you can use the articulating screen to still see what you are capturing. The same goes for objects down low.

Finally, I personally rarely use my LCD screen for image capture, I am much more inclined to use the viewfinder if the camera has one.

Answered by dpollitt

Check more discussion of this question.

Why can't I see bokeh in the viewfinder?

Question

I took this shot a few months ago, and something has been bugging me ever since. I was a bit surprised when I saw the image and saw the conspicuous "bokeh orbs". The thing is, I hadn't noticed anything of the sort when looking through the viewfinder. I hadn't noticed any particular highlights on the glass, and certainly didn't see such noticeable discs of light as you can see in the final image. They must have been there to a degree, but I certainly didn't expect the shot to turn out like it did.

I've been wondering why that is. I've searched for answers, and come up with a few possibilities of my own:

• the microprism filters the light such that a narrower beam of light is focused through the viewfinder, so you see more DOF than what goes through the shutter

• something to do with the human eye, in that your iris may provide more depth of field - your eye further focuses the light, certainly might be interpreted differently than light hitting a flat sensor

• the brightness and contrast of the final image may not match what was seen through the viewfinder. The room was fairly dark and the shot was at 1/60th second, so possibly the bokeh is brighter in the final image than I would have seen through the viewfinder. Maybe it was there, just not as prominent?

• I am imagining the whole thing, they were there all the time I just wasn't paying attention

Is it a combination of all of these (particularly the last one)?

Asked by MikeW

Answer

It's probably a combination of two factors, firstly as you rightly suggest the focus screen plays a role - the view you see in the viewfinder effectively passes through a second aperture and so appears to be stopped down to about f/2.4 - f/2.8

So you can see bokeh through the viewfinder, it will just be much less pronounced due to the smaller effective aperture.

You can readily verify this, put on a fast lens stop down to f/5.6 and press the depth of field preview button (which closes the lens aperture, as if the camera were about to take a shot) you ought to see a darkening. Now stop down to f/2.5 and press the depth of field preview button, now the image in the viewfinder doesn't change as the lens is already stopped down that amount by the focus screen.

See also the top answer to this question:

Why is the depth-of-field preview in the optical viewfinder of my Canon 500D inaccurate?

Secondly you were probably focussing your attention on the bottle of merlot, the human eye only sees detail in a very narrow spot in the centre of your vision. The brain moves this spot around to create the illusion that you see the world in detail. If you were concentrating on the bottle you may simply have not actually 'seen' the bokeh in the background.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

What does “viewfinder magnification” mean?

Question

Viewfinders (both optical and electronic) typically come with two stats: magnification and coverage. The latter measuring how much of the actual exposed area (film or sensor) one sees. But what is magnification?

Asked by subsub

Answer

The magnification is not a solitary measurement; in the case of optical SLR viewfinders in 35mm-format or APS-C, it's usually stated as "magnification with a 50mm lens focused at infinity" with the standard viewfinder optic diopter setting (no user correction applied).

It's only when all of those factors are taken into consideration: the focal length of the lens (which can be changed with the focus distance even without zooming, depending on the lens design) and the viewfinder diopter (adjustments for negative diopter correction will make the viewfinder image appear smaller, and positive will make it appear larger) that you can talk about magnification. And then it's pretty simple -- it's the apparent size of what you see through the viewfinder compared to what you'd see with the naked eye.

Ideally, I suppose, you'd want 1x (1:1) magnification with a normal lens so that when you're living the single-lens lifestyle you can easily shoot with both eyes open and everything matching in both eyes. That will almost always lead to some vignetting of the screen, though, and make the in-viewfinder data areas almost impossible to see without shifting your eyes around the finder's viewport. For this reason, the magnification is usually slightly less than 1x. (Some very-high-eyepoint finders, especially the lovely optional "sports finder" for the late, lamented Canon F1n, can be 1x or larger—but you could look through that sucker with both eyes.)

And because you're spreading a smaller amount of light over a larger area, a given magnification (with a purely optical system) will be significantly dimmer for a small sensor than it would be for a larger one (since the focusing screen is the same size, roughly, as the sensor). That's why, all else being equal (same screen design, same prism design and materials, etc.), a full-frame 35mm-format DSLR's viewfinder will be brighter than an APS-C's with the same magnification spec.

Electronic viewfinders, of course, can always pump up the brightness to compensate for the image magnification, but they still have to allow for the viewport problem in an eye-level finder—a 1:1 picture in the viewfinder is only helpful if you can see the whole thing.

The actual magnification of the viewfinder image will change, of course, when you change lenses or zoom. The specification, though, will give you some idea of the apparent size of the focusing screen -- a larger number means you will see a bigger picture through the viewfinder, and that can make composition a lot easier.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the small +- wheel next to my view port for?

Question

I had a scare last night when everything in my view port looked blurry on my brand new Canon 60D, even the digital display a red focus boxes.

The images photos came out clear, the live view was clear, the auto focus was working but everything in the view finder was fuzzy.

I realized spinning/adjusting the small wheel next to the view port fixed this issue.

So my question is, why is this needed at all, what is it for? Is there a way to turn it off? I don't want to accidentally spin it again and make everything fuzzy.

Asked by John Isaacks

Answer

That control adjusts the diopter, an optical adjustment to the viewfinder that allows folks with varying vision abilities to see things clearly. Think of it a bit like reading glasses - it allows for minor vision correction. The idea is that folks who have decent vision but might need minor correction can make an adjustment on the diopter so that as they look through the viewfinder, objects are clear.

As you note, for someone with perfect vision, throwing and adjustment in there can actually make things look worse and cause problems with manual focus.

As it is a manual/mechanical adjustment, I'm not aware of a way to disable the ability to adjust the diopter, although a bit of gaffer's tape over the dial might help avoid inadvertent adjustments.

Answered by ahockley

Check more discussion of this question.

How important is lack of color matrix metering and 100% viewfinder in Nikon F100 compared to Nikon F5?

Question

I'm planning to buy a film camera. I'm undecided between Nikon F100 and Nikon F5. The major differences that I could figure out from Thom Hogan's review are:

Pro F100:

• F100 is lighter than the monster F5

Pro F5:

• F5 has color matrix metering, compared to F100's matrix metering, which according to him is immaculate.
• F5 has a 100% viewfinder compared to F100's 96%.

Being a DSLR shooter, I'm not able to figure out how important a good color matrix meter would be. On my DSLR I'm mostly on spot meter, but then I've the luxury of reviewing the image on live view and making any necessary adjustments. Also, my DSLR has a 92% viewfinder, but again I've the luxury to crop digital images.

How important are these factors in a film camera?

Answer

A 100% viewfinder is really a pro feature on film cameras -- it can actually cause problems if you are shooting for mounted slides or having your film processed at a consumer lab, since part of the image is going to be lost under the slide mount or to slight cropping in automated printers. If you compose to the edges of a 100% finder, you are going to lose something somewhere; the "consumer" viewfinder will at least make sure that you're getting it all in. Cropping still happens; it's just not under your control. If you're shooting for film scans (common for everybody these days, but once upon a time something that only pros shooting for print would do), or printing to the frame edge (which is going to have a bit of a grungy roughness) then the 100% finder makes a lot more sense and can be worth the extra cost.

Colour matrix metering means that the camera can recognize things like skin tones and make allowances for them. If the metering is grey-scale only, then the meter is only looking for grey-scale values; the matrix computer won't be able to say "ooh, this looks like a tight head shot, and that big pinkish blob in the middle is probably meant to be a stop or so above middle grey". If you're letting the camera do most of the work, then the ability of the camera to distinguish colours make a lot of difference. If you're spot metering and placing tones (doing the roll-film version of the Zone System), then it won't make any difference -- the success of the metering job depends on your ability to expose for the tones. (If you're shooting anything that's colour-critical, incident light metering, either with a light meter or with a grey card and your camera's meter, is often the better choice anyway. You can take advantage of the film's latitude and printing/processing to bring the highlights and shadows back into line, but getting the critical stuff bang-on works best in camera, and you don't want to be guessing at subject reflectance.)

So it all comes down to what you're shooting and what happens after the shot. If you're shooting in a journalistic style and need the camera to be a full partner in the exposure so that you can get that never-to-be-repeated shot, then colour matrix metering can help (a slight caveat, though: it doesn't work nearly as well in a world of darker-skinned people as it does with East Asian and European complexions and scene recognition is never perfect -- you need to know enough to perform a quick sanity check on what the camera is telling you). And if you're processing the finished image yourself or scanning it for print, then the ability to compose to the edge in a 100% viewfinder will make a small difference in the sharpness and grain of the final image -- but if you're not, then you may lose elements of the image that were important to the composition.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the pros and cons of a viewfinder versus a liveview?

Question

Provided a DSLR has both i.e. a viewfinder as well as a liveview feature. Which one is more preferable for focusing and composition, and why?

Is there something which can be done through a viewfinder but not through a liveview or the vice versa?

Answer

It would depend on the specific camera, but in many cameras Live View will show 100% coverage (the final image will be the same as what you see in the LCD) where the viewfinder may only be 95% (true on certain Nikon models at least).

Live View uses a different autofocus mechanism, which seems slower to me, but is said to be more accurate. It is often used to focus in landscape and macro photography, and has the advantage that you can even zoom in on your subject to check focus more accurately.

Live View has a distinct advantage in low light where the image on the LCD will be brightened so it is easier to see your subject and compose, whereas the viewfinder will become dim as the light fades.

Live View will be a drain on the battery.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there advantages to using a viewfinder for focusing instead of using a camera's rear LCD screen?

Question

Are there any particular advantages to using the viewfinder for focusing instead of the LCD?

Answer

In general there are the following advantages of manual focussing via the optical viewfinder instead of the LCD:

• The viewfinder image is almost certainly sharper than the LCD, when viewing the entire image. This makes it easier to judge when something is in focus for the times when you need to be able to see the whole image at once (e.g. for a scene that may change without warning)

• The viewfinder image updates in realtime whereas the LCD has a small lag due to the need to read and process the sensor image, as well as the finite refresh rate of the LCD screen. This could have affect focusing speed as you can turn the focus ring faster using the viewfinder as you can see the changes in focus more immediately.

• A viewfinder is easier to use in direct sunlight (though you can get a loupe/shades that make LCD viewing easier).

• Viewfinders in SLRs have the option of using a split prism focussing screen which allows easy manual focussing on subjects with sufficient detail.

• DSLRs with live view limit the amount of time you can view the image live on the LCD as it can heat up the sensor. The time is quite long, however for all day shoots in hot conditions sensor overheating may be become a disadvantage of using the LCD screen compared to the viewfinder.

• Similarly the shutter is open the whole time you are using the LCD so if you inadvertently point the camera at the sun (or worse put the camera down pointing at the sun) you can damage the sensor.

There are also many advantages of using the LCD instead of the viewfinder to manually focus:

• The flipside of the last point, if you point the camera at the sun using the LCD you'll only damage the camera, not your eyes!

• If you don't need to monitor the whole image you can zoom the LCD image into the area of interest to see more detail than you can through the viewfinder.

• The LCD image you see is always has the exact DOF you will get in the final image if you focus stopped down. Most laser etched focus screens in SLRs cut of light after about f/2.5 meaning the DOF will appear greater in the viewfinder when using fast lenses wide open.

• For compact cameras with optical viewfinders there is a paralax error meaning you see a slightly different image than you capture. Again DOF may be different. The LCD shows you the correct image.

• Most SLR viewfinders only cover 95% of the image. If for some reason you need to focus on the extreme edges you need to use the LCD screen.

• The LCD screen is more visible in the dark due to the ability to brighten the picture by increasing ISO.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there advantagers to using a viewfinder for focusing instead of using a camera's rear LCD screen?

Question

Are there any particular advantages to using the viewfinder for focussing instead of the LCD?

Answer

In general there are the following advantages of manual focussing via the optical viewfinder instead of the LCD:

• The viewfinder image is almost certainly sharper than the LCD, when viewing the entire image. This makes it easier to judge when something is in focus for the times when you need to be able to see the whole image at once (e.g. for a scene that may change without warning)

• The viewfinder image updates in realtime whereas the LCD has a small lag due to the need to read and process the sensor image, as well as the finite refresh rate of the LCD screen. This could have affect focusing speed as you can turn the focus ring faster using the viewfinder as you can see the changes in focus more immediately.

• A viewfinder is easier to use in direct sunlight (though you can get a loupe/shades that make LCD viewing easier).

• Viewfinders in SLRs have the option of using a split prism focussing screen which allows easy manual focussing on subjects with sufficient detail.

• DSLRs with live view limit the amount of time you can view the image live on the LCD as it can heat up the sensor. The time is quite long, however for all day shoots in hot conditions sensor overheating may be become a disadvantage of using the LCD screen compared to the viewfinder.

• Similarly the shutter is open the whole time you are using the LCD so if you inadvertently point the camera at the sun (or worse put the camera down pointing at the sun) you can damage the sensor.

There are also many advantages of using the LCD instead of the viewfinder to manually focus:

• The flipside of the last point, if you point the camera at the sun using the LCD you'll only damage the camera, not your eyes!

• If you don't need to monitor the whole image you can zoom the LCD image into the area of interest to see more detail than you can through the viewfinder.

• The LCD image you see is always has the exact DOF you will get in the final image if you focus stopped down. Most laser etched focus screens in SLRs cut of light after about f/2.5 meaning the DOF will appear greater in the viewfinder when using fast lenses wide open.

• For compact cameras with optical viewfinders there is a paralax error meaning you see a slightly different image than you capture. Again DOF may be different. The LCD shows you the correct image.

• Most SLR viewfinders only cover 95% of the image. If for some reason you need to focus on the extreme edges you need to use the LCD screen.

• The LCD screen is more visible in the dark due to the ability to brighten the picture by increasing ISO.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does viewfinder spec state 3 times more dots than there are pixels?

Question

My DMC-G2 has a viewfinder spec of 1,440,000 dots, but I read a review that says it is really 480,000 pixels:

The electronic viewfinder has an extremely high resolution of 1,440,000 dots (480,000 pixels), offering a 100% field of view and 1.4x magnification. The Panasonic G2's viewfinder has a generous +/-4.0 diopter adjustment range, and a rather tight 17.5mm eye point.

What gives? How am I supposed to compare with other cameras?

Answer

I'm a bit skeptical about what they are stating. It says that the viewfinder is "1,440,000 dots equiv". The "equiv" term is an annoying marketing term used when trying to be competitive without stating the true nature of something, they are simply stating it is "equivalent to" such a thing. The Electronic Viewfinder is "equivalent" to a "1,440,000 dot" resolution. Whatever that means, who knows, but I doubt its actually truly 1.4 million dots.

EDIT: Based on the linked review, the EV has 480,000 "pixels" comprised of 1,440,000 "dots". This is a wacky marketing way of saying that it has 480,000 dots each of red, green, and blue, the triplets of which make up a resolution of 480,000 total pixels in a 4:3 form factor. This boils down to a EV screen size of around 1470x1100 pixes.

Comparing the viewfinder with other DSLR's. This viewfinder is 100% coverage and 1.4x magnification. The magnification is multiplied by the sensor size, which is 17.3x13.0mm. Thats a viewfinder size of 24.22x18.2mm, which is basically APS-C size. In contrast, a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR will usually have 95-97% coverage and anywhere between 0.70x to 1.0x magnification, depending on the model. Most of the entry-level DSLR's are around 0.85-0.95x, while the Canon 7D is a 100% 1.0x APS-C viewfinder. A Canon 5D Mark II is a 98% 0.71x viewfinder, which is again about the size of an APS-C sensor.

The LCD screen on the back has "460K dots" in it, which these days is pretty low. Most of the more recent Canon and Nikon LCD screens have 920k or 1040k dots.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I solve the problem of viewfinder lag when shooting video with a DSLR?

Question

I use my DSLR camera to shoot videos of moving subjects (such as a car), and sometimes I pan the camera to track the subjects as they move.

The problem I have is that to track the subject, I have to watch the video screen and coordinate my hand movements. But the video image has a non-trivial lag. Furthermore I usually use image stabilized lenses (and mode 2) which reduce shake and improve the watchability of the recorded video, but adds more lag and non-linearity to my panning movements.

So the proposed solution I came up with is to have a separate optical viewfinder, so that I can track the subject without any lag or stabilization. Ideally such a viewfinder should be mounted on the hotshoe. But searching around on the Web, it seems there aren't many reasonable products for this application (e.g. Olympus-specific wide angle viewfinder, >100 USD), and it seems not many people have considered using an optical viewfinder for video recording.

My question is, how would you approach this problem?

Answer

I have a similar problem with my astrophotography setup in that sometimes it's difficult to see where I have my piggyback camera pointed in the sky. In stargazing circles, there are "unity" finders which are basically a piece of glass on which a dot is projected, allowing the user to orient the view at the sky with no magnification. These are called reflex sights or red dot finders.

I was looking for something that could attach to my camera to allow me to use my existing red dot finder. I found this product for sale and it met my needs:

http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendasight/index.html

The product was actually marketed for the sports shooter that needed to get quick orientation. It may work for you. It's worked very well for my use.

edit: the advantage of the red dot finder is that there are no paralax issues because the dot still shows where you are pointed, even if your eye is off center. This should help with video work when your head has to move around as needed.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I better see my LCD to check a picture in bright sunlight?

Question

Maybe a stupid question for some, but here we go. I just recently return from sea side holidays. One of the problems that I had was checking photos "on spot" when most of the time it was sunny, with very little shadow. Do you have some tricks/tips to overcome this situation beside capping hands around screen? Or did I perhaps somewhere in manual missed function how to view photos through viewfinder like many compacts have (I have Canon 500D).

Answer

I had a sun shade on my D100 years ago... that lasted exactly one shoot. I'd look into the hoodloupe. I have a couple... great product.

hoodmanusa.com

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I get sharp manual focus despite poor eyesight?

Question

I suffer from astigmatism. It's only mild, though I feel it's affecting what I'm seeing when looking through the viewfinder. Frequently, after shooting a photo with my Canon EOS 7D, I'll load it into Lightroom and discover that what looked sharp as an LCD preview is actually not at all in focus when you get down to the 1:1 level.

Normally I let auto-focus do all the work, so I attribute this to back-focusing effects that I'm not picking up on when looking through the viewfinder.

Today, I switched to manual focus while using my tripod to see if I could do a better job than the AF. Rocking the focus ring back and forth, I found it hard to distinguish the point where my subject is in focus (blurry -> slightly blurry -> blurry); indeed, when I got back to Lightroom I still found about a third of my shots came out slightly off-focus.

Is there anything that I can try that could improve my shots, particularly anything that would reduce/nullify the effect of my eyesight while using the camera? The obvious answer to this could be "wear glasses" -- which I do, but not while using the camera, as I feel like they're in my way every time I peer through viewfinder!

Update: I've marked the Katz Eye answer as accepted, as I've used one previously on a Minolta film camera; it really helped when focusing. However, all the answers here are great and have been very helpful.

Answer

Pixel peeped images aren't likely to look sharp unless you're viewing from a distance... Something to bear in mind.

However, for manual focus improvement, you may want to consider a custom focussing screen such as the Katz Eye split prism screen. The basic idea here is much like a rangefinder camera, the prism splits the image when it is out of focus and when it is brought into focus, the image lines up. This can assist quite a bit, especially with poorer eyesight.

On the plus side, it will help confirm if your camera autofocus is iffy.

Check more discussion of this question.