The biggest issue I have is with the concept of the SLR is the viewfinder. It seems to me that the technology around the SLR viewfinder was flawed from day one, and has now been functionally superseded by electronic viewfinders. Yet despite this, many people still favour the experience – proven of course by the fact that Nikon and Canon’s top flight cameras are still SLRs. I don’t really like the SLR viewfinder, and shooting the Nikon F75 has reminded me of this fact.
The flawed SLR
The concept of any camera that gives a view through the lens is flawed by the nature of the lens’s aperture. The issue is, as soon as you stop down the aperture, less light is let through. I don’t want to go into too much detail, but the technology that gets around this problem in SLRs is based on innovation that dates back from the 1950s, 60s and 70s – and short of improvements in speed of function, most of which have come at the expense of good haptic experience – the technology hasn’t really advanced since
The basic principle of modern SLRs is based on framing and focusing at the widest aperture. When a smaller aperture is selected, the camera will automatically stop the lens down the moment before the shutter is fired. Built in meters deal with this issue by knowing the set aperture on the and compensating for it when giving a reading.
The impact of this on the user of the SLR is that whilst the view through the lens is largely accurate in terms of framing (at least in SLRs with 100% viewfinders) depth of field isn’t. On SLRs that have them, depth of field preview buttons allow the user to see the impact of the chosen aperture, but of course this comes along with the corresponding darkening of the view through the finder.
The mirrorless solution
Modern mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders make a much better argument for a through-the-lens view. For a start, they show the impact of the chosen aperture on/in the screen without the image darkening. Stopping down the aperture lets through less light, but mirrorless cameras up gain on the sensor to compensate. In low light, this does mean that noise can become visible on the screen, but to my mind at least, the compromise is much less significant. Electronic viewfinders are also able to show much more useful information such as how the image will be exposed, live in the viewfinder. In short, the view though a mirrorless camera is pretty much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get experience, whereas the view through an SLR isn’t.
The offset viewfinder
I’m sure there’ll be many regular readers scratching their heads at this point. I’m a point & shoot and rangefinder photographer; my camera viewfinders are so far from providing a wysiwyg experience, how can I possibly be critical of the SLR for this issue? As I talk about in this post from a little while back, I really enjoy not seeing what I’m going to get in the camera.
Rangefinder cameras only give an idea of framing, everything else is achieved through use of your imagination. You have to imagine what the impact of using the lens wide open stopped down will be. You make the decision based on the image you see in your head, not the one through the viewfinder. As I talk about in that post, I find SLR viewfinders distracting from the mental image that I prefer to take advantage of when shooting. The wide open lens view sort of imposes itself onto that part of my imagination, and I don’t really like it.
When taking the above photo with my Nikon F75, the wide open aperture of the lens made it difficult to see the cathedral in the background. To make my decision about what aperture I wanted to shoot at I found myself having to mentally override what the viewfinder was telling me. With a rangefinder I would have relied entirely on my minds eye, and if I’d been shooting a mirrorless camera I’d have had the view shown to me exactly as the photo would have turned out. The half way house SLR with its clunky and archaic DOF preview button just did it work for me…
You can catch up with the rest of the posts in this series here
Share this post:
Comments
Rudiger Smoot on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Moreover, I prefer to see a true image through the camera viewfinder not a digitised version, I personally don't believe it does the eyes any good and I cannot stand mirrorless digital cameras anyway..for my style of photography anyway.
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
TonyB on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Stefan Vermeer on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Martin South of France on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Blinx on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Mirrorless has changed things somewhat, but I still find it a hamstrung model, essentially a lens with a computer on the back interpreting data to a visual readout. Practical, but utterly without nuance. For film era comparisons, it's a straight choice between RFs for deep focus and wider lenses, and SLRs for shallow focus and longer focal lengths. Both can be adapted for the opposite use - I sometimes use a 28mm 3.5 on an SLR and zone focus, but it's generally horses for courses. A problem with most DSLRs is they've evolved around full frame, heavy duty, professional body types, and relegated crop frame compact DSLRs to beginners ranges (cheap), or wildlife (not cheap and heavy). Another issue is finders are optimised for AF, and remove the accuracy and feel of manual focusing.
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Sam Cornwell on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Wayne on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
I have recently been using early Zorki SLRs. They are based on the Barnack Leica models, but modified to function as SLR. While they present typical Soveit Era, Russian build quality, they also present a sort of unique melding of rangefinder and SLR photo experience. The MIR 37mm 2.8 lens I use most frequently on the Zorkis also seems to throw in an element of the view camera experience: compose and focus with lens wide open, then turn the preset ring to the selected aperture for the photograph, and shoot. While the MIR 37mm is fairly large, the Industar 50mm 3.5 lenses can almost be called "pancake" and when in use do not make the cameras that much larger than the Barnack they are modeled after.
It is kind of funny, the viewfinders/screens are not very bright on these cameras and I initially experienced some disappointment and frustration with results; but then, I remembered something I had read related to view camera focusing: focus your full attention on the focus screen glass, rather than the object as it appears on the glass, and my experience improved. It was/is a hard thing for me to differentiate philosophically, and may be nothing more than a mental stunt, but it worked........for me. There you have it, rangefinder, SLR, and view camera combined into one roughly hewn, but reliable camera. They can still be had at fairly low price. Get one. They are hugely entertaining. Something you can really become absorbed in as you hunt for photographs.............That is the purpose?, Isn't it?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Callum Ross on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
This reveals an underlying problem which you hint at in the article though, which is that, at least for personal/ artistic photography, seeing what the camera sees can, paradoxically, be a hindrance to achieving the image in your mind. Ultimately I think the conclusion is that whether an SLR or viewfinder is better is actually more subjective than the technical differences and advantages suggest (e.g. being able to see the DoF is only an advantage of the SLR if you actually want to be able to DoF). Bear with me whilst I get rather abstract: If you think about the process of making a photograph as beginning with your eye (physical and imaginative) and ending with the photo itself, there has to be something in between that to actually make it—the camera. With an SLR there is physically a lot between your eye and the potential photo—the lens, the focus-screen, etc. Now this seems like an advantage—you're seeing what the camera sees—but you could also say that you don't want to see what the camera sees, you want to see what you see. With a rangefinder or other viewfinder camera, the only thing in between your eye and the potential photo is almost nothing at all, just the few bits of glass in the viewfinder. Now you could say, whilst less is physically getting in between the eye and the photo (the lens, mirror, etc.) there are other things such as framing, DoF, flare, which are going to get in the way in the sense that you can't see them but they are there. Here's the catch—in my opinion this leaves far more down to your mind and eye than the camera, and remember what we were trying to achieve when I set up this example was the best route from eye to photo. In this way I feel that, paradoxically, the direct route of the SLR (scene-->lens-->eye) is less productive than the rather messy and uncertain route of the viewfinder (scene-->viewfinder lots of imagination-->eye). This may all be overthinking and moot but I like the idea nonetheless.
I've spoken for far longer than necessary but I'll just add that I agree with every sentiment that the F75 is certainly not the SLR to use as a benchmark. Almost any 70s/80s manual focus SLR offers close to full coverage and magnification with far less distraction in view, e.g. I love the fact my ME Super displays only shutter speed in the viewfinder, despite many bemoaning the lack of aperture indication.
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Robert E Smith on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
This is how we used to do it in the days before AF and other auto stuff which mostly just gets in the way of taking pictures
The viewfinder serves one purpose, to frame the shot, if it does that ok then there really isn't a problem
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Lars on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
karellen on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Sorry for the long comment Hamish, you are not the only having rants!
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
karellen on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Mark O'Brien on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Rollin Banderob on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
John Lockwood on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Ben on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Evan Bedford on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
James on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Neil on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
This is the advantage of SLR viewfinders for me, is the ability to use longer and shorter focal lengths which are always going to be represented, and I think there are a fair few artists using SLR's to great effect and are OK with the viewfinder experience, Salgado for example uses a Canon and seems to get pretty good results!
As the resolution of digital viewfinders improves I agree with you they will become the standard, I like the fact you can zoom in and you're focussed right on the sensor. The choice is going to be really do you want to see how something is going to look while you are shooting it? or do you want to imagine what the end result will be? Both have their drawbacks and positives. No doubt we'll be able to apply Lightroom presets live in camera soon, probably on the Sony A10, if they can fit another button on the body for it.
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Dan Castelli on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
But, this is only my experience and others will get different results.
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Terry B on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
I'm guessing that there is a difference between film and digital slr viewing because in the latter case the v/f image is invariably smaller in a digital slr than its FF film counterpart. This must surely be the case with both 4/3rds and APS-C dslr cameras. I owned two 4/3rds, an Olympus E-500 and a Panasonic LC10, and in both cases viewing was abysmal, even with the Olympus 20% magnifier, and accurate manual focusing was nigh on impossible with either camera. At the time I did look through a friend's Canon 20D, and this was no better. The day must surely come when the resolution of the best EVF's will make using one a far better experience than an slr because without significant increases in the size of the mirror, screen and pentaprism we've come about as far as we can with the size constraints of cameras.
You mentioned having an Exakta mount zoom lens and thus you may be contemplating an Exa/Exakta body. To better inform your choice, you may find this site interesting.
http://www.ihagee.org/
I'd recommend you try and handle any model first, to assess if the v/f experience is for you. The brighter fresnel lens screens for the Varex/RTL models are plastic, but I've found the duller proper ground glass screens sharper and easier to focus despite being less bright. You can't change screens or v/f on the lesser Exa models. The last Exakta model, the RTL, is a re-badged Praktica, probably a VCL2, with some cosmetic external changes. This camera will take original Exakta lenses with the body aperture release button, but unfortunately for shutter tripping as on original Exaktas, you will need a spacer pin to connect to the shutter release on the left side of the pentaprism housing. Unless they come with a camera body, they are extremely rare today.
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Comment posted: 13/01/2018
Gregory Lewis on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 14/01/2018
On the good side I had a 100% success rate on auto-focus in Sports mode, exceptionally accurate metering in all conditions including flash-fill and the ability to operate with VR style lenses. With a battery grip and Sigma 24-120mm lens the F75 was a reliable shooter as I saved up for an F6.
http://leatham.com.au/film/2015_3_thirlmere/2015_3_thirlmere.html
No problems with the F6 with manual focus although for subjects that don't move much I prefer my F3. I recently tried my son's FE2 with a Nikon 50mm f/1.2. That would be my recommendation for manual focus shooting.
Comment posted: 14/01/2018
Neil Piper on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 14/01/2018
An experienced photographer can make a picture with any camera.
It's looking,seeing , light and lenses.
Get experience.
Comment posted: 14/01/2018
John Casteel on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
Paulo Moreira on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
Ken Hindle-May on Nikon F75 Project – Part 4 – The SLR viewfinder, fundamentally flawed and entirely outdated…?
Comment posted: 15/01/2018
On the whole, though, my shooting style is quite often dependent on precise placing of lines or other compositional elements and because of that, which makes parallax error very frustrating. I find rangefinders to be an uncomfortable halfway house, lacking the precision of an SLR or the convenience of a compact. It's a shame, because I really like the engineering and feel of them, but I rarely want to shoot with mine.
Comment posted: 15/01/2018