I have read many threads throughout photo.net and come across a fairly common remark about Nikon's viewfinders being "brighter" than Canon. Why is this? What makes Nikon's viewfinders so much better than Canon and why can't Canon implement that technology... ?

-- Bill Meyer (william_meyer@stortek.com), September 24, 1998

Answers

I'm not sure if Nikon's viewfinders are any brighter than Canon's or not, but focusing screens on some cameras from both companies can be changed to brighter or just different screens. The biggest problem with Canon finders is eye relief. This is the distance your eye can be from the finder and still see the entire image. The high eyepiont finders from Nikon are supposed to have much better eye relief, and are easier to use, especially if you wear glasses.

Could Canon correct the problem? Of course! Why haven't they? I wish I knew. I guess they have decided that it wouldn't bring in enough additional market share to justify a design change. Who knows? I hate the flat eyecups on the EOS cameras, but like the cameras in general. That is why, unless someone has already decided on a camera, but not which version, such as A2 vs A2E, I suggest people look at all brands.

-- Brad (reloader@webtv.net), September 24, 1998.

Thanks Brad, I get it now and that makes sense. Eye relief is very important, especially with binoculars and riflescopes, etc. In lieu of that, it doesn't make sense that Canon doesn't incorporate this in their new design (especially the brand new EOS 3). I have often found that I have to cram my head against the back of my A2 at times.

-- Bill Meyer (william_meyer@stortek.com), September 25, 1998.

Bill, I agree with Brad that there's nothing but cost and weight stopping Canon from implementing these improvements.

One thing to note is that Nikon uses real pentaprisms in all their SLRs (I'm not sure about the FE10 or FM10), even the low end N50 and N60. I know that Canon uses plastic penta-mirrors in the Rebel bodies (not sure about the Elans or the EOS 5 and EOS 3).

One way to show the costs of high eyepoint viewfinders is to look at Nikon F3. The original F3 had 100% viewfinder coverage and an eye-relief around 12mm. Later they introduced the F3HP with an eye-relief of 24mm. It weighs 45 grams more. The viewfinder are interchangeable and both can still be bought new today. The DE-3 (the HP one) costs $117.45 more and except for being bigger (and the higher eye-point)has no additional features. In fact, both the DE-2 and DE-3 have no hotshoe, no metering sensors, and no electronics. They're just glass, brass, leather and a little plastic.

I'm sure the extra weight and size would pose all sorts of problems for designers trying to modify existing designs.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), September 25, 1998.

In reference to pentamirror vs pentaprism, Canon uses real pentaprisms on everything from the Elan II up the the 1n.

-- Brad (reloader@webtv.net), September 25, 1998.

The problem I have with Canon viewfinders(besides the lack of eye relief) is the difficulty with manual focusing. The times I've used them I couldn't tell whether things were really in focus or not. I think this is due to the fact that Canon screens are brighter than Nikon's. Not all Nikon screens are the same in this regard either. I have an easier time manually focusing my F3 than my N90s.

-- Paul Wilson (pwilson@ultranet.com), September 28, 1998.

Minolta X-700 had perhaps the top MF viewfinder screen during the 80s. Olympus OM-2 also was exceptional as the viewfinder magnified 3 % more than the Minolta finder and 5% more than Nikon's FE/FG/FM series. The F-3 is a great camera but the screen is dark.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), February 07, 2002.