Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,849   Posts: 1,582,828   Online: 714
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    I find most any SLR with a split image focusing aid to be easy to achieve
    correct focus.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    37
    The best one for me is the Canon T-90. The focus snaps into place, especially with fast lenses, such as the FD 35mm f/2 SSC. Close second is the Leica R7. The Leica finder is as bright and a little contrastier, but the Canon viewfinder/lens combination is very quick and accurate to focus.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    843

    Brightest / easiest to focus SLR

    It has been noted that the camera with the brightest finder is not always the easiest one to focus. I find the Minolta X-700 with a grid screen to be both bright and easy to focus. It is easier for me to use older M42 lenses with an adapter than to use them on any of my M42 mount cameras. With the grid screen I don't have to worry about getting the subject in focus with a distracting focusing aid and then recomposing. I can focus on any part of the screen. It is not likely that any third party company made focusing screens for the X-700 which were better than the ones Minolta made. For very close macro work or with very slow lenses I prefer a plain matte screen. I find changing screens in the X-700 annoying so I leave a grid screen in one, a plain matte screen in another and the standard screen in the rest. Where Canon manual focus cameras are concerned, if I use an L screen in an F-1 or F-1n it is very close in brightness to using an F-1N with the same type screen. The older Konica Autoreflex cameras did not have the brightest finders but the T3 is not "1960s technology." The T3 came out in 1973. I have a T2 with transplanted Nikon E screen (grid) and also an FT-1 with a transplanted E screen. These are handy for macro work and with slower lenses so I don't have focusing aids in the center blacking out.

    Before I had Nikon FE and FE2 cameras I got an N2020 for macro work. At first I had planned to replace the standard screen with a B or E screen but I found that the standard screen was fine. The N2020 has fairly primitive auto focusing but I don't use its AF so that doesn't bother me. The FE and FE2 have viewfinders which are not as bright as those in the Olympus OM-1 to OM-4series but they seem more contrasty. It's funny about the Olympus cameras. All five of my OM bodies have non-interchangeable screens. I have three OM-10s, an OM PC and an OM 2000. The OM-10 has a pretty bright viewfinder. I may have one of them overhauled to get a grid screen put in. The OM 2000 is made by Cosina and has the same fairly good viewfinder as the other Cosina-made SLRs I have.

    Other SLRs with nice finders that I have include the Minolta SRT 201, Nikon F2, Canon FT QL, Canon FTb/FTbN, Nikkormat FT3. Which ones have less nice finders? Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax Spotmatic II, Mamiya 500 DTL, Mamiya ZE, Mamiya NC1000/NC1000S, Miranda Autosensorex EE, Vivitar 220SL.

  4. #34
    onepuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    95
    The Olympus OM single-digit cameras are the best I've tried. All have very large and bright viewfinders. The drawback is the view can be almost too large if you wear glasses due to the short viewpoint so I would recommend the OM-3 or OM-4 as they have dioptric adjustment and allow you to use the camera without glasses. The later OM-4 and the titanium versions are the best bet due the reduced battery consumption on these models. I have heard the 2-13 screen is the best though these seem to be as rare as hen's teeth.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    The OM's are the Kings of the lot

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    I have not used a F3HP, but my F4s has a slightly smaller image due to the extra stuff it displays. It does have adjustable diopter though, which isn't important for me. The pentax 67 SLR is pretty big and bright too, but it's not a 35mm.
    I can't say the same about pentax 67. I sold mine since I found it hard to focus due to dim viewfinder and bought pentax 67II which is way better.

  7. #37
    alexmacphee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    310
    I haven't used enough SLRs to say which is the best, but of the three dozen or so I've used, the one that stands out for me is the Contax RTS. I'd only gone into the shop to have a play, nothing else, but as soon as I put it to my eye, I knew that I was leaving with it. You can almost hear the pop as the image passes in and out of focus. That big and sublime Planar f/1.4 helps a lot, too.
    Alex

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    The cameras I've used include all Leicaflex variations, Leica R3, R4, R-E, R6, R8, Nikon F, F2, Nikkormat FTN, Olympus OM-1 & OM-2, Pentax Spotmatic and ME, Minolta SRT-series and Canon FTb. Of these, the ones I like best are the Leicaflex SL if you don't need diopter correction, or Leicaflex SL2 with the Leicaflex SL viewscreen if you do need diopter correction.

    Following these in approximate order of preference are Leica R8, R6 and R-E, Nikon F & F2 & Olympus OM, then Leica R4 and R3 and Nikkormat FTN, Pentax ME, Canon FTb, and Minolta SRT-series, and Pentax Spotmatic. For those who are over 40 years old, diopter correction is very important and will make most of these cameras a pleasure to use.

  9. #39
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    798
    OM-1 and OM-2 have large viewfinders, the OM-3 and OM-4 had to shrink magnification to 0.84x in order to fit all the information in the display. I prefer the OM-1 over the OM-4, and I have both!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin