Reason Canon DSLRs lack manual focusing aids?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by 223rem, Dec 10, 2005.

  1. 223rem

    223rem Guest

    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.
     
    223rem, Dec 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 223rem

    Slack Guest


    It has been making plenty cents.
    _____
    Slack
     
    Slack, Dec 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 223rem

    Jim Redelfs Guest

    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
     
    Jim Redelfs, Dec 10, 2005
    #3
  4. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 10, 2005
    #4
  5. 223rem

    bmoag Guest

    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.
     
    bmoag, Dec 10, 2005
    #5
  6. 223rem

    Paul Furman Guest

    And just simply smaller cropped sensor means a smaller viewfinder, right?
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 10, 2005
    #6
  7. 223rem

    Tony Polson Guest


    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, Dec 10, 2005
    #7
  8. $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.[/QUOTE]
     
    Stephen M. Dunn, Dec 10, 2005
    #8
  9. 223rem

    Paul Furman Guest

    So focus screens would end up dimming the view, I guess that makes sense.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2005
    #9
  10. But do they? There are third-party focus screens available, claiming
    both split prism and brighter image.
     
    Måns Rullgård, Dec 11, 2005
    #10
  11. 223rem

    Tony Polson Guest


    But they are generally coarse grained.

    There's no such thing as a free lunch.
     
    Tony Polson, Dec 11, 2005
    #11
  12. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 11, 2005
    #12
  13. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 11, 2005
    #13
  14. 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.
     
    Måns Rullgård, Dec 11, 2005
    #14
  15. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 11, 2005
    #15
  16. 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?
     
    Måns Rullgård, Dec 11, 2005
    #16
  17. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 11, 2005
    #17
  18. 223rem

    Paul Furman Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2005
    #18
  19. 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.
     
    Måns Rullgård, Dec 11, 2005
    #19
  20. 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.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Dec 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.