Best Nikon VF

[kivis]

Which Nikon has the brightest, clearest Viewfinder? I need some eye relief. I do wear glasses but not strong ones.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

For me, it is the F3HP. Although the F100 is not bad either.

 

[Rook]

By many accounts, the Nikon S3 rangefinder camera has the brightest viewfinder of them all. Although I cannot verify this with personal experience, as I've never used one.

 

[ooze]

I like the K screen for the Nikon F4, however I do not like the camera. So I installed this screen into an F3HP, a camera I like very much. The original F3 screen is not bad, but the one for the F4 is visibly brighter. This way I have a camera with great eye relief and very bright viewfinder. I haven't encountered any problems with focusing accuracy or metering.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I am constantly surprised that no one, AFAIK, has actually tested this.
Rigging up a light meter to the viewfinder and swopping screens and lenses across Nikon bodies with a constant light source. Is it perhaps the actual differences are too small? Not saying there is no difference to the photographer but I do suspect subjective bias. I have opinions on which I prefer but they are based on different scenes and illuminations and certainly the matching of screen to lens can have a dramatic effect, hence those lists Nikon produced when they made the vast choice of screens.
So, to the OP, that depends on the camera (prism performance, deterioration over time? clean mirror?) the screen and lens interaction and maybe the scene brightness as I find different screens are better for low light than strong light and of course vice versa. There is no single best for all circumstances, just IMHO.
Also a very bright screen can be harder to manually focus (without split screen etc aids ) as the contrast change is lower. When Hasselblad introduced the acutte matte there were complaints about focus being harder, they (actually Minolta of course) produced, quite quickly, a second version that was slight less bright to improve the contrast change at point of focus, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Xmas]

I am constantly surprised that no one, AFAIK, has actually tested this.
Rigging up a light meter to the viewfinder and swopping screens and lenses across Nikon bodies with a constant light source. Is it perhaps the actual differences are too small? Not saying there is no difference to the photographer but I do suspect subjective bias. I have opinions on which I prefer but they are based on different scenes and illuminations and certainly the matching of screen to lens can have a dramatic effect, hence those lists Nikon produced when they made the vast choice of screens.
So, to the OP, that depends on the camera (prism performance, deterioration over time? clean mirror?) the screen and lens interaction and maybe the scene brightness as I find different screens are better for low light than strong light and of course vice versa. There is no single best for all circumstances, just IMHO.
Also a very bright screen can be harder to manually focus (without split screen etc aids ) as the contrast change is lower. When Hasselblad introduced the acutte matte there were complaints about focus being harder, they (actually Minolta of course) produced, quite quickly, a second version that was slight less bright to improve the contrast change at point of focus, be careful what you wish for.

The OP said 'brightest clearest'

-the Iris removes brightness, people had trouble with extinction meters
-clearest is subjective

If you need a diopter and work in dull light you will pay with fuzzy pictures if you don't spend the money.
If you have limited acuity you will only be able to use the split image device or a rangefinder, unless you can work with autofocus.

 

[Chris Livsey]

The OP said 'brightest clearest'

Indeed, I thought I had addressed "brightest" by pointing out the multiple factors that affect brightest, and that brightest may not be best.

Clearest is open to interpretation, I had taken it to refer to focussing ability ie what is usually referred to as "snapping" into focus. Equally clearest could refer to the one with the least clutter, ie no grids circles split image etc.

I did not address the issue of eye relief but no doubt there is a list somewhere of the eye relief offered by the multiplicity of Nikon finders? Perhaps the OP could clarify eye relief, in that is he/she referring to the strict definition or to a more nebulous factor of best for "tired" ageing eyes? And, as you allude, are we talking manual or autofocus.

 

[narsuitus]

Which Nikon has the brightest, clearest Viewfinder? I need some eye relief. I do wear glasses but not strong ones.

The Nikon F2 with the DA-1 sport finder (see center viewfinder in attached image) or the Nikon F with a similar sport finder.


Nikon F2 Viewfinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[narsuitus]

Akiva,

I looked through your Flickr photostream and noticed that you have a chrome Nikon F with a non-metered viewfinder. You can replace the chrome non-metered viewfinder with the Nikon F chrome non-metered Sport Finder (Nikon product number BCO 11 004-1). I find these sports finders, also called action finders, very useful when I have to shoot wearing goggles or protective eyewear.

 

[fotch]

F3HP

 

[GarageBoy]

I love the F100- I just wish the screen was a bit better for manual focusing (well, it's fine, I just prefer a focus aid)

 

[flavio81]

Out of the inventory of cameras you have listed, the Nikkormat FT2 with its K screen should be good enough. I am 59 with glasses and I'm happy.

I sold my FT2 because the viewfinder was not too good. It had the K screen. You have great eyesight.

Of the Nikons I've owned the best viewfinder was the one in the F2AS and F3. And also the one in the FG, very good indeed.

All of them are good enough but all of them are still inferior to the one inside the allmighty Canon New F-1.

 

[Chan Tran]

I am constantly surprised that no one, AFAIK, has actually tested this.
Rigging up a light meter to the viewfinder and swopping screens and lenses across Nikon bodies with a constant light source. Is it perhaps the actual differences are too small? Not saying there is no difference to the photographer but I do suspect subjective bias. I have opinions on which I prefer but they are based on different scenes and illuminations and certainly the matching of screen to lens can have a dramatic effect, hence those lists Nikon produced when they made the vast choice of screens.
So, to the OP, that depends on the camera (prism performance, deterioration over time? clean mirror?) the screen and lens interaction and maybe the scene brightness as I find different screens are better for low light than strong light and of course vice versa. There is no single best for all circumstances, just IMHO.
Also a very bright screen can be harder to manually focus (without split screen etc aids ) as the contrast change is lower. When Hasselblad introduced the acutte matte there were complaints about focus being harder, they (actually Minolta of course) produced, quite quickly, a second version that was slight less bright to improve the contrast change at point of focus, be careful what you wish for.

I have a Minolta Booster II and it's easy to measure VF brightness but brightest isn't the best as newer cameras tend to be brighter but they are generally worse than the older cameras.

 

[Chris Livsey]

It would be interesting if you could say how much brighter, and you will note I made it very clear that brighter may not be best for focussing but it may be for framing under low light, best is too broad a term, best for what?

 

[cuthbert]

I sold my FT2 because the viewfinder was not too good. It had the K screen. You have great eyesight.

Of the Nikons I've owned the best viewfinder was the one in the F2AS and F3. And also the one in the FG, very good indeed.

All of them are good enough but all of them are still inferior to the one inside the allmighty Canon New F-1.

In my experience the viewfinder of the FM is brighter than the one of the FT3 and F2A/S, unless these have the bright H2 screen.

Still, the Canon F-1n/N, T90 and the expecially the Pentaxes (K2,K2DMD, MX and LX) are better...of course using the same lens (a 1.2 will give you a brighter finder than a 1.8, for instance).

It would be interesting if you could say how much brighter, and you will note I made it very clear that brighter may not be best for focussing but it may be for framing under low light, best is too broad a term, best for what?

It's not just a matter of pentaprism but also screen (the H2 is brighter than the K but I find a little harder to focus) and lens.

 

[kivis]

I am too far down the Nikon rabbit hole to change over. (Been shooting Nikon's for 41 years and counting). By bright VF I mean what ever allows me to see easily in bright sun as I live in Southern Florida, USA. I love the bodies I have but was wondering if there is another Nikon body with a brighter VF. Tempted to give a Nikon F3HP a try.

 

[Chan Tran]

It would be interesting if you could say how much brighter, and you will note I made it very clear that brighter may not be best for focussing but it may be for framing under low light, best is too broad a term, best for what?

I was wrong! I use my Minolta booster II and the flashmeter III to measure the VF brightness. I pointed the camera to my monitor, each one with the 85mm f/2 AI lens mounted. The monitor is displaying a full bright image (255,255,255). It's 100cd/m^2.
I only have a few Nikon and the older cameras are brighter and in that order.
1. The brightest one is the Nikon FM.
2. Second is the F3HP (with a type P screen) which is 0.2 stop darker.
3. Third is the N2020 which is 0.4 stop darker than the FM.
4. Fourth is the F5 which is 1 stop darker than the FM.
5. Last is the newest Df (a digital but well) which is 1.2 stop darker than the FM.

I think the ease of focusing is also in that order with the exception I think the F3 is slightly better than the FM.

 

[ColColt]

Living in FL is like CA when it comes to sunshine and bright days. Why would you need an even brighter finder with those conditions? I find any of my Nikons fit the bill for me and have no problem with the slowest of lens I have and my eyes will soon be 70 years old. That said, I like the F2A best.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I was wrong! I use my Minolta booster II and the flashmeter III to measure the VF brightness. I pointed the camera to my monitor, each one with the 85mm f/2 AI lens mounted. The monitor is displaying a full bright image (255,255,255). It's 100cd/m^2.
I only have a few Nikon and the older cameras are brighter and in that order.
1. The brightest one is the Nikon FM.
2. Second is the F3HP (with a type P screen) which is 0.2 stop darker.
3. Third is the N2020 which is 0.4 stop darker than the FM.
4. Fourth is the F5 which is 1 stop darker than the FM.
5. Last is the newest Df (a digital but well) which is 1.2 stop darker than the FM.

I think the ease of focusing is also in that order with the exception I think the F3 is slightly better than the FM.

Thank you, appreciated, hard facts are most welcome.

On the results we should bear in mind that the Df (sorry I keep bringing it up) and the F5 sap light for the separate autofocus I presume. Nice choice of lens, f2 is pretty representative and I understand the modern screens don't get brighter with an f1.2 for example. I also presume that is why in the Nikon screen tables fast lenses could use alternative screens to some benefit.

 

[Xmas]

A /1.4 lens will be twice as bright as a /2, approximately but under most circumstances your iris will stop down to a comfy light level, and you won't see a difference.
Except when the ambient light level is high and controlling the auto exposure system in your eye, eg because you are not using an eyecup rubber.
Some viewfinders will appear less bright because they transmit less light and this effect is more pronounced in the dark, when your iris is wide open.
Screen brightness is subjective to a degree, falloff off axis different again...
Ease of focusing is a further different problem.
Lots of people used to go to rangefinders in the past when the candles on the cake became a fire hazard.

 

[Les Sarile]

I am too far down the Nikon rabbit hole to change over. (Been shooting Nikon's for 41 years and counting). By bright VF I mean what ever allows me to see easily in bright sun as I live in Southern Florida, USA. I love the bodies I have but was wondering if there is another Nikon body with a brighter VF. Tempted to give a Nikon F3HP a try.

No new Nikons introduced since your previous thread -> (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Maybe you need to venture out of the Nikon confines . . .

 

[John_Nikon_F]

^Maybe time to have Sean merge the threads.

With respect to the F3HP being darker, remember that the F3HP viewfinder isn't as magnified as the FM viewfinder. An FM is about .8x or so, whereas the F3HP is .75x. It also has a dimpled mirror pattern to allow light to hit the metering cell in the bottom of the mirror box. So, pretty much the same as an AF body in that respect. Although, I think the mirror has more silvering than the F5, et al.

With respect to the Nikkormat FT2 screen, I typically wound up switching to a J screen from an older FTn in the FT2 bodies I owned. The K screen just doesn't work as well for me.

-J

 

[George Mann]

I can manually focus better with my F90x than I can with my FT2

 

[PGillin]

I only have a few Nikon and the older cameras are brighter and in that order.

2. Second is the F3HP (with a type P screen) which is 0.2 stop darker.

I think the ease of focusing is also in that order with the exception I think the F3 is slightly better than the FM.

Just curious, is this a Red-Dot screen? I'm curious how much better they actually are than the normal screens, having never owned both Red-Dot and standard versions of the same screen.

 

[etn]

By many accounts, the Nikon S3 rangefinder camera has the brightest viewfinder of them all. Although I cannot verify this with personal experience, as I've never used one.

It is indeed good and bright (the only downside is the undefined rangefinder patch), but if you wear glasses I think the Nikon SLRs are more usable. I wear my contacts everytime I want to use my rangefinders.