Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, May 15, 2011.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2011 10:13:57 -0700, Doug Bashford wrote:

    > Well I've put about 1,500 pics thru my new camera, and I still miss my
    > viewfinder. A viewfinder was one of my must-have bells, along with AA
    > bateries, 10X, and so forth. I got all my bells except the viewfinder.
    > (I got the $200 Canon sx120is with three-inch screen and the CHDK
    > supercharger freeware hack.)
    >


    I don't. Simply because that is the way I take pictures and I won't buy a
    camera without a viewfinder.
    ray, May 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    M-M Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > I won't buy a
    > camera without a viewfinder.



    Agree. And I need an optical viewfinder, not an electronic one.

    Try shooting a moving object in continuous mode without an optical VF.
    Can't be done unless you get lucky.

    There may be some EVF's that don't black out between shots in
    continuous, but I'm not sure.

    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com
    M-M, May 15, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:47:54 -0400, M-M wrote:

    > In article <>, ray <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I won't buy a
    >> camera without a viewfinder.

    >
    >
    > Agree. And I need an optical viewfinder, not an electronic one.
    >
    > Try shooting a moving object in continuous mode without an optical VF.
    > Can't be done unless you get lucky.


    If that were indeed something I needed to do, I would try it. Quite happy
    with the EVF on my Kodak P850.


    >
    > There may be some EVF's that don't black out between shots in
    > continuous, but I'm not sure.
    ray, May 15, 2011
    #3
  4. Neil Harrington <> wrote:

    > In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and I
    > wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But that's a
    > 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.


    Mega-subpixel (i.e. red, green and blue counted separately)?
    As in "a full-HD monitor (1920x1080) has about 6 mega-subpixel"?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011
    #4
  5. ray

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:11:12 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    > Neil Harrington <> wrote:
    >
    >> In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and
    >> I wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But
    >> that's a 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.

    >
    > Mega-subpixel (i.e. red, green and blue counted separately)? As in "a
    > full-HD monitor (1920x1080) has about 6 mega-subpixel"?
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    It has been my experience that about 350k pixels (i.e. about 1 million
    sub-pixels) is quite adequate for most users of an EVF. Much less and the
    display is so pixellated it's very difficult to do much with it.
    ray, May 16, 2011
    #5
  6. ray

    Apteryx Guest

    On 16/05/2011 4:10 a.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "M-M"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article<>, ray<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I won't buy a
    >>> camera without a viewfinder.

    >>
    >>
    >> Agree. And I need an optical viewfinder, not an electronic one.

    >
    > In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and I
    > wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But that's a
    > 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.


    The EVF in my Fuji X100 is also terrific (and 1.44 mega dots). But I
    trade it all the time for the optical viewfinder in the same camera. I
    figure I use the EVF about 10% of the time. Even apart from the
    situations where its just totally outclassed (moving subjects in
    continuous mode - and to some extent just moving subjects in any mode),
    its generally better to see every detail in the subject that simple
    optics can deliver, unless there is a good reason to use the EVF.

    Apteryx
    Apteryx, May 17, 2011
    #6
  7. ray

    Noons Guest

    On May 18, 2:22 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:

    >
    > I'm still basically a Nikon guy; that's what my main system is and where
    > most of my money goes. But I'm tremendously impressed with these little
    > Panasonic G series machines. The G1 I've had for a while, just got a G2 body
    > a couple of days ago. I also bought a good quality (Metabones) Nikon to
    > micro 4/3 adapter and am looking forward to playing with that and some older
    > manual focus lenses -- that's where the G1/G2's viewfinder magnification
    > will come in very handy. (Alas, I've mislaid the adapter before even trying
    > it. That's something that happens a lot in my incredibly messy apartment.
    > But it will rise to the surface in its own time, as all things do.)


    Couldn't agree more. My Oly E-PL1 sees a lot more work nowadays than
    any of the Nikon dslrs. And I'm using it with glass from Leica,
    Nikkon, Canon, CV, Zeiss, Pentacon, Mamiya, you name it! Absolutely
    awesome, with the right adapters. And a LOT of fun!
    Noons, May 18, 2011
    #7
  8. ray

    Apteryx Guest

    On 18/05/2011 4:22 p.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Apteryx"<> wrote in message
    > news:iqt1u0$4p5$...
    >> On 16/05/2011 4:10 a.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "M-M"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In article<>, ray<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I won't buy a
    >>>>> camera without a viewfinder.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Agree. And I need an optical viewfinder, not an electronic one.
    >>>
    >>> In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and I
    >>> wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But that's
    >>> a
    >>> 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.

    >>
    >> The EVF in my Fuji X100 is also terrific (and 1.44 mega dots). But I trade
    >> it all the time for the optical viewfinder in the same camera. I

    >
    > I'm not really familiar with the X100. It has an EVF *and* an optical VF?


    Yep. Look through the viewfinder initially and it is a simple window
    through the camera to look directly at your subject, except with a HUD
    displaying shooting info (most of which can be switched off if you don't
    want it) and a parallax correction frame. Flick a switch on the front of
    the body, and a blind closes in front of the viewfinder and it turns
    into an EVF, seeing exactly what the lens sees. Its handy at close range
    (you don't have to bother with the parallax correction frame) and in low
    light for its gain. Otherwise I prefer the OVF.

    If you get bored with those, there is of course still the LCD viewer on
    the back.

    It's the only camera I know of where the DP Review devoted two pages to
    the viewfinder :) - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page6.asp

    Apteryx
    Apteryx, May 18, 2011
    #8
  9. ray

    Bruce Guest

    Apteryx <> wrote:
    >On 18/05/2011 4:22 p.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> I'm not really familiar with the X100. It has an EVF *and* an optical VF?

    >
    >Yep. Look through the viewfinder initially and it is a simple window
    >through the camera to look directly at your subject, except with a HUD
    >displaying shooting info (most of which can be switched off if you don't
    >want it) and a parallax correction frame. Flick a switch on the front of
    >the body, and a blind closes in front of the viewfinder and it turns
    >into an EVF, seeing exactly what the lens sees. Its handy at close range
    >(you don't have to bother with the parallax correction frame) and in low
    >light for its gain. Otherwise I prefer the OVF.



    The EVF is also very useful in low light. In good light, the OVF
    gives a very bright image, but obviously in low light the OVF image is
    dim. The near-constant brightness of the EVF means that it is almost
    obligatory to use it in low light.


    >If you get bored with those, there is of course still the LCD viewer on
    >the back.
    >
    >It's the only camera I know of where the DP Review devoted two pages to
    >the viewfinder :) - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page6.asp



    It is a sophisticated system that deserves two pages. ;-)
    Bruce, May 18, 2011
    #9
  10. Bruce <> wrote:


    > The EVF is also very useful in low light. In good light, the OVF
    > gives a very bright image, but obviously in low light the OVF image is
    > dim. The near-constant brightness of the EVF means that it is almost
    > obligatory to use it in low light.


    Hmmm. If the brightess is near constant it's too dark in the sun
    (your eye needs to adapt) and, much worse, too bright in the dark
    (temporarily blinding you). Ideally, the brightness should be
    matched to the environmental brightness.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 18, 2011
    #10
  11. ray

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    On 5/15/2011 18:10, Neil Harrington wrote:

    >
    > In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and I
    > wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But that's a
    > 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.
    >


    I ahve a G2, enjoy using it (as my digital toy) and find the viewfinder
    surprisingly good.

    That said, it really doesn't compare to a *truly good* optical
    viewfinder. By "truly good" I mean one not optimised for AF and built
    without cutting corners (mostly very top of the line '70's and 80's SLRs).
    Later and AF optimised viewfinders are terrible for manual focusing
    (being very bright, but without contrast and snap). :-(
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 18, 2011
    #11
  12. ray

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2011 3:12 PM, Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
    > On 5/15/2011 18:10, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and I
    >> wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But
    >> that's a
    >> 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.
    >>

    >
    > I ahve a G2, enjoy using it (as my digital toy) and find the viewfinder
    > surprisingly good.
    >
    > That said, it really doesn't compare to a *truly good* optical
    > viewfinder. By "truly good" I mean one not optimised for AF and built
    > without cutting corners (mostly very top of the line '70's and 80's SLRs).
    > Later and AF optimised viewfinders are terrible for manual focusing
    > (being very bright, but without contrast and snap). :-(
    >


    I shoot only in RAW. The only thing I rely on the viewfinder for is
    composition and focus. I have found the viewfinder unreliable to
    determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking. Therefore, for
    exposure, I mostly rely upon the histogram and do a lot of bracketing. I
    do my adjustments for contrast in post.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 18, 2011
    #12
  13. ray

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    On 5/18/2011 21:53, PeterN wrote:

    >
    > I shoot only in RAW. The only thing I rely on the viewfinder for is
    > composition and focus. I have found the viewfinder unreliable to
    > determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking. Therefore, for
    > exposure, I mostly rely upon the histogram and do a lot of bracketing. I
    > do my adjustments for contrast in post.
    >


    Ehm... I might be a bit old school, but the purpose of a viewfinder
    isn't (AFAIK) to determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking...

    A good spot (or incident, depending on your workflow) meter would serve
    you far better.
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 18, 2011
    #13
  14. ray

    Noons Guest

    On May 19, 12:03 am, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:

    >
    > In the meantime I've just ordered an Oly 9-18 m4/3. That will join the only
    > two m4/3 lenses I have now, Panasonic's 14-45 and 45-200. I really am
    > itching to try out some of that old manual focus glass though.


    It's so easy with these m4/3 cameras! I've set the Oly so a tap in
    one of the custom buttons switches to magnified image. With the EVF,
    it's a no-brainer to get it in perfect focus in no time at all,
    wherever I want in the image. My preferred franken-lens at the moment
    is a Tamron 28/3.5SP with a Adaptall2 N-AI adapter, mounted on the
    Nikon adapter: bullet-proof when it comes to flare and ghosting. With
    the smaller m4/3 sensor, soft edges are not a problem - pinsharp,
    contrasty images across the entire frame. I'm also particularly keen
    on the Canon 200/2.8FD: a very nice lens, small and light, perfect
    bokeh. And the little video surveillance camera lenses found on ebay
    for a pittance also work a charm, with swirly old-Leica-like bokeh!
    The next one I'm after is the famous Oly 20mm from film days: I'm told
    it's a stunner. Also very curious to try out really weird and exotic
    glass like Angenieux, Kern and Schneider.
    Loads of fun, I tell you!
    Noons, May 18, 2011
    #14
  15. ray

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    On 5/19/2011 0:55, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Rol_Lei Nut"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 5/15/2011 18:10, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> In most cases I agree with that. But the EVF in my G1 is terrific, and I
    >>> wouldn't trade it for an optical one even if it were possible. But that's
    >>> a
    >>> 1.4-megapixel EVF -- which makes all the difference.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I ahve a G2, enjoy using it (as my digital toy) and find the viewfinder
    >> surprisingly good.
    >>
    >> That said, it really doesn't compare to a *truly good* optical viewfinder.
    >> By "truly good" I mean one not optimised for AF and built without cutting
    >> corners (mostly very top of the line '70's and 80's SLRs).
    >> Later and AF optimised viewfinders are terrible for manual focusing (being
    >> very bright, but without contrast and snap). :-(

    >
    > I love the G1/G2 viewfinder, but I partly agree as to contrast (comparing
    > conventional VFs). I've been using AF SLRs for so long now though that seems
    > like the norm. I just recently bought a few old MF Nikons (FEs and a bit
    > later), not that I have any intention of returning to film but just because
    > my collector interest has been aroused. It's sort of interesting looking at
    > the old split-image rangefinder with microprism collar again after all these
    > years, but I can't say it's especially thrilling. I'd forgotten how easily
    > the top or bottom half blacks out with anything but a pretty fast lens.
    > Still, there is that nostalgia thing.
    >
    >


    With "truly good" viewfinder, I wasn't thinking of Nikon FE or similar.

    Leicaflexes, Olympus OMs, some Rolleiflexes, some Leica Rs, some Nikon
    Fs with certain screens (though often a PITA to use) and a few others
    had really good viewfinders.

    An often unappreciated quality...
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 19, 2011
    #15
  16. ray

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2011 5:01 PM, Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
    > On 5/18/2011 21:53, PeterN wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I shoot only in RAW. The only thing I rely on the viewfinder for is
    >> composition and focus. I have found the viewfinder unreliable to
    >> determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking. Therefore, for
    >> exposure, I mostly rely upon the histogram and do a lot of bracketing. I
    >> do my adjustments for contrast in post.
    >>

    >
    > Ehm... I might be a bit old school, but the purpose of a viewfinder
    > isn't (AFAIK) to determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking...
    >
    > A good spot (or incident, depending on your workflow) meter would serve
    > you far better.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Did I say anyting different?

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 19, 2011
    #16
  17. ray

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    On 5/19/2011 15:16, PeterN wrote:
    > On 5/18/2011 5:01 PM, Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
    >> On 5/18/2011 21:53, PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I shoot only in RAW. The only thing I rely on the viewfinder for is
    >>> composition and focus. I have found the viewfinder unreliable to
    >>> determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking. Therefore, for
    >>> exposure, I mostly rely upon the histogram and do a lot of bracketing. I
    >>> do my adjustments for contrast in post.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Ehm... I might be a bit old school, but the purpose of a viewfinder
    >> isn't (AFAIK) to determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking...
    >>
    >> A good spot (or incident, depending on your workflow) meter would serve
    >> you far better.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Did I say anyting different?
    >


    Well, your wording implied that at some point you did expect to
    determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking through the viewfinder...

    A bit as if I had said something like "I have found the shutter release
    button unreliable for determining focus and composition"... :)
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 19, 2011
    #17
  18. ray

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/19/2011 9:23 AM, Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
    > On 5/19/2011 15:16, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 5/18/2011 5:01 PM, Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
    >>> On 5/18/2011 21:53, PeterN wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I shoot only in RAW. The only thing I rely on the viewfinder for is
    >>>> composition and focus. I have found the viewfinder unreliable to
    >>>> determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking. Therefore, for
    >>>> exposure, I mostly rely upon the histogram and do a lot of
    >>>> bracketing. I
    >>>> do my adjustments for contrast in post.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Ehm... I might be a bit old school, but the purpose of a viewfinder
    >>> isn't (AFAIK) to determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking...
    >>>
    >>> A good spot (or incident, depending on your workflow) meter would serve
    >>> you far better.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Did I say anyting different?
    >>

    >
    > Well, your wording implied that at some point you did expect to
    > determine highlight clipping and shadow blocking through the viewfinder...
    >
    > A bit as if I had said something like "I have found the shutter release
    > button unreliable for determining focus and composition"... :)


    that certainly was not my intended meaning. In context of the thread I
    thought my meaning clear.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 19, 2011
    #18
  19. ray

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    On 5/19/2011 16:02, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Rol_Lei Nut"<> wrote in message

    <SNIP>
    >>
    >> With "truly good" viewfinder, I wasn't thinking of Nikon FE or similar.
    >>
    >> Leicaflexes, Olympus OMs, some Rolleiflexes, some Leica Rs, some Nikon Fs
    >> with certain screens (though often a PITA to use) and a few others had
    >> really good viewfinders.
    >>
    >> An often unappreciated quality...

    >
    > Unappreciated by me, apparently. I've been using SLRs for at least 50 years,
    > and generally didn't find any that remarkable (but see below). A few were
    > worse than others, to be sure -- my very first SLR was a screw-mount Petri
    > that had no viewfinder embellishments other than a pentaprism (which
    > actually put it way ahead of some others), NO focusing aids of any kind,
    > just a plain ground glass, no Fresnel screen even, didn't even have the
    > usual oversize mirror, so there was a black band at the top when using a
    > 135mm or longer lens.
    >
    > All the others as I recall were pretty much alike, until Minolta developed
    > their Acute Matte screen which was noticeably superior, and probably copied
    > by everyone else. The Leica Rs you mention were (I think all of them)
    > basically Minoltas and I'd be surprised if there was any actual difference
    > to speak of in the viewfinders, though I never used a Leica R. I think it
    > was the XD-11 (in the U.S.) that introduced the Acute Matte screen.
    >


    Well, the amount of time you've used SLRs is pretty meaningless if you
    actually haven't used one with a very good viewfinder... ;-)
    I've been using SLRs for 2 decades less, but have been fortunate enough
    to try and use *lots* of different cameras.

    It's not only the focussing screen which determines finder quality, but
    the *entire* mirrorbox design.
    For example, a Nikon F2 with an H or G screen is very bright and snappy,
    but the image and the ability to focus anywhere still doesn't come close
    to that offered by Leicaflexes. Additionally, those Nikon screens didn't
    work with all lenses and changing lens often meant re-adjusting the
    light meter.

    In the Leica Rs, Leica completely redesigned the mirrorbox and the
    shutter, among other things, so they certainly aren't simply re-branded
    Minoltas, nor do the have the same viewfinder.
    Leica also didn't need to learn anything from Minolta in that parameter,
    as the older Leicaflex SL & SL2 have the best SLR viewfinders ever.

    Anyway, if you happen to be curious, just try some of the cameras I
    mentioned (with a proper screen) - you'll definitely find that the
    Viewfinder is better than the G1 or G2's electronic one.
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 19, 2011
    #19
  20. ray

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    On 5/19/2011 22:18, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Rol_Lei Nut"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 5/19/2011 16:02, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "Rol_Lei Nut"<> wrote in message

    >> <SNIP>
    >>>>
    >>>> With "truly good" viewfinder, I wasn't thinking of Nikon FE or similar.
    >>>>
    >>>> Leicaflexes, Olympus OMs, some Rolleiflexes, some Leica Rs, some Nikon
    >>>> Fs
    >>>> with certain screens (though often a PITA to use) and a few others had
    >>>> really good viewfinders.
    >>>>
    >>>> An often unappreciated quality...
    >>>
    >>> Unappreciated by me, apparently. I've been using SLRs for at least 50
    >>> years,
    >>> and generally didn't find any that remarkable (but see below). A few were
    >>> worse than others, to be sure -- my very first SLR was a screw-mount
    >>> Petri
    >>> that had no viewfinder embellishments other than a pentaprism (which
    >>> actually put it way ahead of some others), NO focusing aids of any kind,
    >>> just a plain ground glass, no Fresnel screen even, didn't even have the
    >>> usual oversize mirror, so there was a black band at the top when using a
    >>> 135mm or longer lens.
    >>>
    >>> All the others as I recall were pretty much alike, until Minolta
    >>> developed
    >>> their Acute Matte screen which was noticeably superior, and probably
    >>> copied
    >>> by everyone else. The Leica Rs you mention were (I think all of them)
    >>> basically Minoltas and I'd be surprised if there was any actual
    >>> difference
    >>> to speak of in the viewfinders, though I never used a Leica R. I think it
    >>> was the XD-11 (in the U.S.) that introduced the Acute Matte screen.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, the amount of time you've used SLRs is pretty meaningless if you
    >> actually haven't used one with a very good viewfinder... ;-)
    >> I've been using SLRs for 2 decades less, but have been fortunate enough to
    >> try and use *lots* of different cameras.
    >>
    >> It's not only the focussing screen which determines finder quality, but
    >> the *entire* mirrorbox design.
    >> For example, a Nikon F2 with an H or G screen is very bright and snappy,
    >> but the image and the ability to focus anywhere still doesn't come close
    >> to that offered by Leicaflexes. Additionally, those Nikon screens didn't
    >> work with all lenses and changing lens often meant re-adjusting the light
    >> meter.

    >
    > All of which seems moot, since who is still using Leicaflexes anyway?


    Me (among others).

    >
    >>
    >> In the Leica Rs, Leica completely redesigned the mirrorbox and the
    >> shutter, among other things, so they certainly aren't simply re-branded
    >> Minoltas, nor do the have the same viewfinder.

    >
    > Hard to see how redesigning the mirror box and (especially) shutter could
    > have any effect on the viewfinder image.


    Very basic physics (as far as the mirrorbox is concerned)...

    >
    >> Leica also didn't need to learn anything from Minolta in that parameter,
    >> as the older Leicaflex SL& SL2 have the best SLR viewfinders ever.
    >>
    >> Anyway, if you happen to be curious, just try some of the cameras I
    >> mentioned (with a proper screen) - you'll definitely find that the
    >> Viewfinder is better than the G1 or G2's electronic one.

    >
    > Seems like a perfectly useless exercise, since Leicaflexes etc. are still
    > moot. Sort of like saying a Pierce Arrow has a better gearshift than a
    > Graham-Paige.


    Might be moot to you. I enjoy using the best mechanical SLR ever made
    (and yes, I've gone through Nikon F, F2, FM, FE2, etc., Canon F1 in
    various versions, Pentax LX, MX, Spotmatics, just to mention a few).

    > The G1/G2 viewfinder is great, and will easily and quickly do things those
    > older cameras' viewfinders cannot do at all, however great they may have
    > been in their day.
    >


    Maybe *you* cannot do a number of things with optical viewfindewrs. That
    doesn't mean that everyone can't.
    As I said, I find the G1/G2 viewfinder surprisingly good, but still end
    up cursing and wish it had a Leicaflex viewfinder.
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 19, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MC

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    MC, May 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    344
    ASCII
    May 24, 2011
  2. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 18, 2011
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
    David Dyer-Bennet
    May 25, 2011
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    239
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 26, 2011
  5. Whisky-dave

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    Whisky-dave, May 31, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    245
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 5, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page