The viewfinder is probably the most undervalued component of our cameras. It is the primary interface of the camera, yet most of us put up with a shrunken and dim viewfinder. The rest of the buttons and adjustments are secondary.
Recently, I was reading up a little on “bright” viewfinders to try to figure out what that was all about. I initially thought it had something to do with the percentage of coverage or the viewpoint, which spec sheets (sometimes) state, but I found out it does not. Once I figured things out a little, I decided to go and do some brightness tests on my own with some of the full-frame digital cameras out there (5D, a900, D700, 5DmII). Here is what I found.
First, here is what the viewfinder specs mean. The percentage of coverage is simply that: when you look through the viewfinder, only the top of the line cameras actually show you 100% of what is actually recorded on the sensor (or film). Magnification, also, is exactly what it says. You will see a figure like 0.72x, meaning the image in the viewfinder is de-magnified just a little. Those do not directly affect the brightness, though.
I also saw a lot about viewpoint. Now this characteristic is no so self explanatory. Basically, this is how far away from the eyepiece/viewfinder your eye can be and still see all of the image in the viewfinder. And for folks like me who wear glasses, that actually is important. The bigger that number, the less of a chance I have of needing to crush my glasses in between the camera and my face just to see everything. As you can see, though, this has little to do with brightness either.
Then, I found a handy article about viewfinder brightness on Luminous Resource. The examples were all film cameras, which would be really hard to actually pick up and compare these days, as the article suggests we do, but the principles are still the same.
Basically, brightness is related to the focusing screen. The light comes in the lens, bounces up off the mirror, goes through the focusing screen, bounces around in the pentaprism, and then out to your eye. Focusing screens can be bright or not, and it has some affect on focusing, though in the super fast auto focus world of today, I could not really figure out from the article what the affect on focusing is with modern day focusing systems.
Anyway, the long and short of it is this: there is no measurement for brightness. You just say, “wow, that’s bright” or “look’s good to me” and buy your camera. It does make a big difference, though. The darker the situation, the more a bright viewfinder, the more you will still be able to see.
Ok, field tests. Since there is no measurement and you really just have to compare, that is exactly what I did. I will cut all bias out and just give you the facts of what I compared.
Sony a900 vs. Canon 5D
At first, I looked around in one camera, then the other (in the same environment, same store). The Sony seemed brighter. Then, I got the (maybe not so) bright idea to put one camera up to each eye, looking through both at the same time (at which point I got some interesting looks). The Sony was WAY brighter than the Canon. There is my measurement…”WAY” brighter.
I do not know how much the lens on the camera can affect this, but both cameras had the high quality zoom kit lenses. So, they were on pretty even ground. And aperture should not be an issue, because the lens aperture stays wide open till the time a photo is taken, at which point it will quickly close down to your setting and return to fully open, and both these lenses have approximately the same aperture.
Canon 5D vs. Nikon D700
What I was missing was the D700 (this was before the 5DmII was out). So, on a different occasion, I was able to do the same comparison, one camera up to each eye. I could not tell a difference between the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700. Well, they did seem different, but it is so subtle, that if the brightness is different, it is very close. As for lenses (if it matters), the Canon had the f/4 kit lens, and the Nikon had it’s kit lens on too. At least, I am pretty sure…it might have had my f/2 35mm on there…but I do not think so.
Canon 5D mark II vs. Sony a900
Then, the Canon 5D mark II came out. I expected it to be the same as the original 5D, but when I had a chance to try it out against the a900, the results surprised me. I could not tell a difference between the Sony a900 and the Canon 5D mark II viewfinders’ brightnesses. Again, it seemed different, somehow, but I could not definitely say which one was brighter. It was more like a slight difference in tint more than one in brightness. This time, the Canon had the f/4 kit lens on and the Sony had an f/1.4 50mm on there. So, if lens and aperture do play some part, then the Canon 5D mark II wins.
Conclusion
I am no expert, but since the experts will not give us conclusive tests, I have to do my best when judging viewfinder brightness on my own. It looks like the Sony a900 and Canon 5D mark II are brighter than the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D, though those have not all been compared against each other or all compared in the same environments. Short of a mega photo store, I cannot make a better comparison. I am lucky they even let me touch some of those, much less try to find all four in one store at the same time.
Now, I do not want to say anything bad about the Canon 5D or the Nikon D700. I have had two professionals (one of whom I very much trust and has a lot more experience than I do) say they loved the bright 5D. So, assuming my comparisons have some validity, they have much to look forward to in the Mark II.
I would take any of them…though that Sony had an awfully loud shutter, less of a click and more of a clump, if you know what I mean. And feel free to leave your comments below. Do you think I am full of it? Do you know more than me? Tell us all…my pride is certainly not based on my ability to judge camera brightness. I am learning here too.
Thanks for the nice comparison. I believe your observations are valid.
Regarding the shutter sound in the Sony. The entire mirror assembly moves up in the Sony as well as swinging up. That results in more noise but are there benefits to that?
If you read about the 5D mk II you will notice that it cannot use any of the Canon APS size lenses. Those have shorter backfocus points and the back of the lens extends father into the chanber. With Canon not changing the design, the mirror on its way up will strike the back of most APS lenses. So the Sony design permits the use of your wonderful APS lenses with a croped area just as if you placed it on your 6-10 MP cameras.
In addition the double action in the Sony permits a larger mirror to be employed so brightness is not sacrificed. This leads to the fact that everyone states that the Sony has the brightest and largest finder. And as you have mentioned the finder is very important in photography.
And lastly the double movement allows for a better antishake function as the mirror swings to a higher level above the sensor. Remember the sensor has to move up from time to time to compensate for shake. The old low noise designs would cut the light off at the top of the frame from time to time.
By the way – yesterady I spent two hours with the A900 at the Sony Styles store. I took a 8 GB card and took several hundred photos. I in no way found the noise objectionable. The only way I think that would matter is if you were trying to be a stealth photographer – which if you think about is pretty hard to do with these relatively large cameras with long lenses pressed against your face and pointed at people. Personally, I feel that this noise balking is just sour grapes that the biased community likes to echo in defense of their preferred systems. It is sort of like a snob appeal thing. Think about that – does the noise really matter under 99% of conditions – remember all DSLRs make some noise?
[…] ChinaCoop.net ยป What Camera Has the Brightest Viewfinder? […]
I do not want to comment too long on the shutter noise here, because that was just one line in a rather long entry about a different topic entirely. No, I would not call it “sour grapes” or snobbery. In many situations, the camera itself (long lenses, loud shutters, bulky cameras) break up the moment we are trying to capture. I do not have any zoom lenses for that very reason (well, among other reasons). I like my camera as unobtrusive as possible (I know…I should shoot a Leica).
I found this interesting comment on Luminous Landscape about the compared brightness of the Canon 5D markII and the Sony a900:
“One of the advantages of a full frame camera is the large bright viewfinder. The one on the Canon is very nice, but the one on the Sony is exceptional. Looking through them side by side the A900 viewfinder is larger and brighter. It also is noticeably less yellow than the view through the 5D MKII.”
In other words, he actually says the Sony beats the Canon in brightness, but I especially notice his comment about the tint difference, which I mentioned. I would just listen to the Luminous Landscape guys…they are much more experience than I am, though I would like to see more info on the brightness.
Nice writeup – however your observations are a little flawed.
Lens aperture has a direct correlation between viewfinder brightness – so for the tests to be fair they all have to be using the same max-aperture lenses.
Try it out for yourself – put a lens on your camera – go into aperture priority mode – and stop it down a bit – then press the DOF preview button on your camera. Notice it getting much dimmer? This is the same thing as having a slower lens on your camera – its just showing you the different apertures.
So if in fact you were comparing a f4 lens to a f2 lens – the results would be extremely biased towards the f2.
Not necessarily. If I understand correctly, most cameras’ viewfinders (including if you press the depth of field preview button) do not show you anything more open than f/2.8 or so. The intro to this article is an interesting bit of information:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/slrs/5d/focus-screens.htm
I certainly cannot see any difference using the depth of field preview button wide open with my primes. I tried it again just yesterday, and f/1.8 is WAY more shallow than my DOF preview showed.
Yes, it still would have been best to have similar lenses on each camera, but as I said, this was not scientific test. Still, I think a little browsing online will quickly concur my findings: the Sony a900 whips them all! I still do not prefer it as a camera, but that viewfinder is questionably the best out there. What we need to see is a comparison between the D700, 5D mark II, and the a900.
I have to agree with Todd. Even the brightest VF will go dim if you put a F5.6 lens on the VF. That is why some cameras require a faster than F5.6 to be able to AF. In order to give fair comparison you’ll need to attach lens with same speed to both cameras. And no, this is not scientific it is just for doing apple to apple.
Scientific comparison is if you want to measure and include the true max aperture of the lens.
Well, I very easily could have been using different max aperture lenses, but it is still not a problem, and this is why. The Sony a900 I tested did have a prime on it, but if the camera will only allow f/2.4ish. The Canon it was up against had a f/2.8 L on it, I guess the 24-105, but I cannot remember.
So, if there could be a slight brightness edge for the Sony having that extra half stop or so, depending on how the camera is actually made…but the difference in the a900 and the 5D was way more than half a stop, and that is my point here.
I just had an additional thought. If you can change out the focusing screens on the Canon 5D and 5D mark II, and seeing as those will allow you to see through the lens at the lens’s maximum aperture, you could get a much brighter viewfinder on the Canons if you used that focusing screen. Hmm…