 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Reason Canon DSLRs lack manual focusing aids?
My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. > My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which > is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not > include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. It has been making plenty cents. _____ Slack > My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which > is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not > include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. Sure it does: CO$T. Every feature has a cost. It might not be much per camera but, if one is making tens of thousands of units with a feature used by VERY few, eliminating that feature can save a LOT of moola. Besides, it's an AUTO-FOCUS system primarily. Don't get me wrong: I used the focusing aids on my Canon AE1 and T90 regularly. Of course, I *HAD* to manually focus the FD lenses. Along comes the EOS auto-focus system and manual focusing is no longer necessary in most cases. Having used the EOS system for a year now, I am VERY impressed with its auto-focus performance. :) JR >My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which >is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not >include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. If you want it, you can get it. http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/Canon20D-F.htm ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ This has been an issue since the advent of autofocus film SLRs. There is apparently no technical reason why a split image or other focusing aid cannot be used in autofocus SLRs (one problem might be that users would soon realize that autofocus often only means almost focused). The problem is compounded by the viewing systems in less expensive SLR designs which do not use bright, heavy and expensive pentaprisms but darker alternatives. > This has been an issue since the advent of autofocus film SLRs. There is > apparently no technical reason why a split image or other focusing aid > cannot be used in autofocus SLRs (one problem might be that users would soon > realize that autofocus often only means almost focused). The problem is > compounded by the viewing systems in less expensive SLR designs which do not > use bright, heavy and expensive pentaprisms but darker alternatives. And just simply smaller cropped sensor means a smaller viewfinder, right? $And just simply smaller cropped sensor means a smaller viewfinder, right? Yes, basically. The viewfinder on a cropped-sensor camera _could_ be made larger, but there's only a certain amount of light available, and that light would then have to be spread out over a larger viewfinder. People complain enough already about how dim some viewfinders are, so making them even dimmer probably wouldn't be a good thing.  SignatureStephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ >My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which >is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not >include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. Probably >90% of 20D owners use AF >90% of the time, so making manual focus easier does not make a lot of commercial sense for Canon. Making the viewfinder brighter and clearer for easier composition takes a higher priority, even though this inevitably makes manual focusing more difficult. On the other hand, you can be sure that 100% of Nikon FM10 owners use manual focus 100% of the time, because there isn't any AF option, so it makes complete sense for Cosina (makers of the FM10) to make manual focus easier. Tony Polson wrote: >>My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which >>is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > takes a higher priority, even though this inevitably makes manual > focusing more difficult. So focus screens would end up dimming the view, I guess that makes sense. > On the other hand, you can be sure that 100% of Nikon FM10 owners use > manual focus 100% of the time, because there isn't any AF option, so > it makes complete sense for Cosina (makers of the FM10) to make manual > focus easier. > Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So focus screens would end up dimming the view, I guess that makes sense. But do they? There are third-party focus screens available, claiming both split prism and brighter image. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >> Tony Polson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >But do they? There are third-party focus screens available, claiming >both split prism and brighter image. But they are generally coarse grained. There's no such thing as a free lunch. >>> Tony Polson wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >But they are generally coarse grained. I've not found this to be the case with the Katz Eye Plus or the 20D. Just what third party screens have you used in order to make such a generalization. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>>> So focus screens would end up dimming the view, I guess that >>>> makes sense. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I've not found this to be the case with the Katz Eye Plus or the 20D. I've been thinking of getting one of those screens. Are they any good? As for the dimming effect, I can't see how the presence of a split prism in the center could possibly affect the brightness on the rest of the screen. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>>> So focus screens would end up dimming the view, I guess that >>>>> makes sense. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >prism in the center could possibly affect the brightness on the rest >of the screen. I like mine and am waiting for Rachel to do one for the 5D. The only dimming was on the old ones and if you were over f/5.6 the split prism would get dark but the Plus model fixed that. Oh, if you get one do get the brightness treatment, it's worth it. http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/Canon20D-F.htm ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>> I've not found this to be the case with the Katz Eye Plus or the 20D. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > split prism would get dark but the Plus model fixed that. Oh, if you > get one do get the brightness treatment, it's worth it. I was wondering about the brightness treatment as well. Is it really worth the extra $55? The web page mentions that the effect increases with the f number, and none of my lenses have a maximum aperture smaller than f/5.6. And what about metering? SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>> I've not found this to be the case with the Katz Eye Plus or the 20D. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >with the f number, and none of my lenses have a maximum aperture >smaller than f/5.6. And what about metering? I add 1/3 of stop for meter compensation and that works out well. Yes, the brightness is worth the $55, at least I thought it was. Go over to Fred Miranda's Canon board and search the archives. There are several long threads on the Katz Eye and other focusing screens. Here's one thread on it. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=14612329 ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>>>>So focus screens would end up dimming the view, I guess that >>>>>makes sense. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > prism in the center could possibly affect the brightness on the rest > of the screen. You are right, if it's just a dot in the middle that's no loss. I was thinking of the other type where most of the screen darkens in a pattern, I only vaguely recall looking through other folks cameras and seeing that, not sure. >> As for the dimming effect, I can't see how the presence of a split >> prism in the center could possibly affect the brightness on the rest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pattern, I only vaguely recall looking through other folks cameras and > seeing that, not sure. That sounds like it would have been a screen with microprisms over the entire area. I've never seen one of those, but maybe they exist. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>As for the dimming effect, I can't see how the presence of a split >>>prism in the center could possibly affect the brightness on the rest [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That sounds like it would have been a screen with microprisms over the > entire area. I've never seen one of those, but maybe they exist. Or maybe just a larger area than the split prism type. > But they are generally coarse grained. > > There's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes there is, it's a MAxwell focus screen! Those things are amazing. The problem with many AF screens is they lack contrast (in favor of low cost/brighter finder) since they assume most buyers will never take the camera off the "P" AF mode anyway. A good focus screen doesn't need focus aides, but they aren't cheap. SignatureStacey >>But they are generally coarse grained. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera off the "P" AF mode anyway. A good focus screen doesn't need focus > aides, but they aren't cheap. How is contrast increased? >>My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which >>is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >takes a higher priority, even though this inevitably makes manual >focusing more difficult. I take it you you've not tried the new Katz screens? ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > Probably >90% of 20D owners use AF >90% of the time, so making manual > focus easier does not make a lot of commercial sense for Canon. > Making the viewfinder brighter and clearer for easier composition > takes a higher priority, even though this inevitably makes manual > focusing more difficult. If they put a split-image in there, then people like me would bitch because we like microprisms - and vice versa. With autofocus, there's really no need for these things anymore. >> Probably >90% of 20D owners use AF >90% of the time, so making manual >> focus easier does not make a lot of commercial sense for Canon. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If they put a split-image in there, then people like me would bitch > because we like microprisms - and vice versa. What about split prism with a microprism collar, as is often seen? > With autofocus, there's really no need for these things anymore. There are still situations where manual focus is needed. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com > What about split prism with a microprism collar, as is often seen? Ick...never cared for those either. > There are still situations where manual focus is needed. Maybe I've spent enough time with groundglass that I don't see it as a big deal. The few times I've had to manually focus with m 10D for whatever reason, it hasn't been a problem. >What about split prism with a microprism collar, as is often seen? Many AF users would complain that it got in their way. > >What about split prism with a microprism collar, as is often seen? > > Many AF users would complain that it got in their way. And, unfortunately, most people would just use it to put people's heads, the sun, etc. >>What about split prism with a microprism collar, as is often seen? > > Many AF users would complain that it got in their way. I never trust AF 100%. Being able to verify that it got it right would be nice, which is why I'm looking into the katzeye screens. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com > If they put a split-image in there, then people like me would bitch > because we like microprisms - and vice versa. That's the whole point of interchangeable focusing screens. > With autofocus, there's really no need for these things anymore. Don't be silly. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > That's the whole point of interchangeable focusing screens. >> With autofocus, there's really no need for these things anymore. > Don't be silly. I agree with the OP. I used the split ring and prismatic aids ALL the time - before the 20D. I haven't missed them ONCE. :) JR > I agree with the OP. > > I used the split ring and prismatic aids ALL the time - before the 20D. I > haven't missed them ONCE. Now, does that mean you haven't yet been in a situation where autofocus doesn't work or doesn't work well, or that you don't find manually focusing any harder without those things? I know there's no issue with using actual manual-focus lenses on the Canon, since you can't use older Canon lenses on their new cameras, but Nikon people often use manual focus lenses. I'm not a big fan of split-image rangefinders, but I'd like to have a microprism circle. For some obscene reason, the folks at brightscreen.com don't offer that for the D2x, unfortunately, or I'd buy one. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I used the split ring and prismatic aids ALL the time - before the 20D. >> I haven't missed them ONCE. > Now, does that mean you haven't yet been in a situation where autofocus > doesn't work or doesn't work well, or that you don't find manually focusing > any harder without those things? I choose the former: I have yet to encounter a situation where the AF doesn't work (properly). I have done very little MANUAL focusing with the 20D. On those few occasions, the lack of the focusing aid(s) was not a problem for me. I agree that focusing aids would be nice, but I wouldn't want them at the cost of a less-bright viewfinder. :) JR Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote: || 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote: ||| [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] ||| Canon choose to not include a manual focusing aid in the ||| viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. Likelu because the auto focus works... :-) >My Nikon FM10 is easier to focus manually than my Canon 20D, which >is absurd, given the huge difference in price...why did Canon choose to not >include a manual focusing aid in the viewfinder? It doesnt make any sense. The interesting thing is that Nikon makes split image screens for the F5 but doesn't make them for the F100. You can use F100 screens in Nikons D1 series cameras. But for some reason, Nikon doesn't make screens with manual focus aids for their digital cameras. My personal preference is E screens, so it doesn't matter much to me. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.