Viewfinders

I remember a while ago, when Subal introduced an enlarged viewfinder and there was a post regarding the merits of Seacam and Subal viewfinders, James Wiseman offered to do an unbiased review of the two viewfinders and to post on Wetpixel.

Now, having just returned from DEMA I see that there are several viewfinders for various D-SLR housings. It appears there are significant differences between them, and I think the UW photo community would be intersted in a comparison of features, price and optical quality.

I can't do it, even though I'd be very interested to do so, because any opinions would be viewed through the filter of my Seacam affiliation. However, I make the offer here that if consensus can be made to come up with a reviewer and a standard camera to use (they should all be the same camera to assure greatest standardization and empirical validity of the test process) I am happy to provide the Seacam housing, as well as the three Seacam viewfinders (pro, S180, S45) for testing. I assume a D200 is the camera and housing most universal.

If the other manufacturers or distributors would like to do the same, please feel free to post your comments here. I'm sure the results would be a service to the wetpixel readership.

great offer Steve and a great idea. I for one would love to see it.

i would love to see it myself as i am really thinking of going that way.. for some reason the viewfinder on my D70 keeps getting smaller... has nothing to do with age and staring at the computer....

.. for some reason the viewfinder on my D70 keeps getting smaller... has nothing to do with age and staring at the computer....

Some comments about alcohol and tunnelvision are quit obvious now......

Love to see an article indeed, although I haven't heard a thing that Ike is designing a viewfinder.

I was just at DEMA and was running from booth to booth looking at the housings for the Canon 5D and 30D. As part of this I was looking at the viewfinders. DEMA is not is the greatest place to really get a truly reflective viewpoint because of all the reflections from the lights. That said here are some minimal thoughts (the emphasis is here is on minumal becasue I am new to dSLR housings so I was focusing on more than just the viewfinders). One other item to note I wear glasses (-3.5 correction) and use Rx mask.

Inon - 45 degree on the Canon 30D

Clear but somewhat dull view, edges a bit hard to see as it really fill the port.

Subal - 180 on Nikon ???

Can not remember which camera, clear view, noticed a lot of reflection which was reduced with the eye cup, edges a bit hard to focus on.

Aquatica - 180 on the Canon 5D

Some what yellowed view - Marice said that this was going to change to clear. It seemed the view was curved I could not tell if it was the viewfinder or the from the lens.

SeaCam - 45 on the Canon 5D

Clear, sharp, and bright. I could see all of the view without any difficulty. It was crsip all the way around. Almost like looking at a mini screen.

Overall I would say the SeaCam is producing the better enlarging viewfinder. It was the only one that I could easily put up to my eye quickly see everything. It struck a nice balance between enlarging and filling the viewfinder.

So there is my above water, in the lights, DEMA review. Someone with much more experience and knowledge should do a true side by side review.

Remember that normally, you would be looking through the viewfinder underwater with a low-volume mask with a black skirt, which would stick out just a bit in front of your face above the viewfinder. In viewfinders that have a closer eyepoint, this may reduce or eliminate glare problems...

Thanks, Steve, for the offer of a Seacam housing and viewfinder for a review.

Does someone here have a D200, easy access to water for diving, and some free time?

I'll coordinate the equipment for a viewfinder round-up review. Just PM me if you're interested!

Hi Steve,

It's funny how timely this is. Obviously to have a crack next year's Cayman Digital Madness I'm gonna need to cram yet more stingrays into the frame!

Seriously though, I'm currently in the process of ascertaining which finders, ideally a 45 degree unit, will retrofit into my Sea&Sea DX-5D.

Hurdle #1 was finding out that unfortunately the Seacam would fit in my back plate. Just too large a bore. A real shame.

I'm now looking at the Inon finder that Hugyfot also fit to their D200 housing, so Udo may be able to roll in some input for that unit.

Good input Allen. I can't wait to see what other people make of this issue. I'm all ears.

Martyn

need to include price in the review, too.

viewfinders will all have a lot of internal surfaces. Bright, clear, non-yellow, means good optical coatings on every surface, and that means $. My guess is we'll see two families of price and performance: one set in a lower price range with uncoated optics and lower performance, and one set in a higher price range with higher performance.

I would be surprised to see anything in the middle range on price and performance.

I'm not sure how you'd get something in the middle. Smaller optics? coatings on only some optics? An overpriced uncoated viewfinder? an expensive housing with inexpensive optics?

Just my wild prediciton to add some interest to the review.

Before producing a review, it would be interesting first to draw up a comparison table of which viewfinders should be available for which cameras (Seacam for example can only supply viewfinders for the cameras that they house so clearly you can't use an S45 with a 400D or D80 as they don't support these cameras).

On another point, I have realised that the S45 probably has a large diameter to allow for a substantial exit pupil - hence the large diameter hole required to fit it (I'm not an optical expert but I suspect there are similarities to binoculars in terms of how the optics inside these viewfinders work). For anyone interested the hole required for a Seacam viewfinder is about 4.8cm diameter and 1.7cm deep - I have now been asked this several times - and no, I don't know of any housing with sufficient machinable area to fit one other than Seacam!!!

It would also be interesting to obtain a light meter reading from each viewfinder under otherwise identical conditions to see how much the brightness of each viewfinder varies - important in dull conditions - which should be simple enough. All these viewfinders will reduce the amount of light reaching the eye to some degree and my suspicion is that the larger (and heavier) they are then the higher their light transmission. Ideally an estimate of off-centre viewability would be useful too and maximum eye to viewfinder distance.

As for bias (I supply Seacam in Britain and Ireland) - well I am often asked for my opinion by people who want to house cameras for which Seacam don't supply a housing, so I'd find this to be a very useful review! I do though suspect that cost reflects design and manufacturing costs although with China producing more, costs may be driven down if enough are built.

I'd be glad to do the testing. I have access to pool. I have a D200. I will be glad to include more testers that live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.

I just got back from Indonesia. Shot some with D200 and Ikelite TTL housing. My results with TTL were mixed. Rather than recount my observations, I devised test procedures on the flight home.

As soon as I get over this bird flu (don't believe what they tell you, do not play with dead chickens) I'll do some Ikelite TTL testing. I'd be glad to do some viewfinder testing.

I have no brand loyalty

I remember a while ago, when Subal introduced an enlarged viewfinder and there was a post regarding the merits of Seacam and Subal viewfinders, James Wiseman offered to do an unbiased review of the two viewfinders and to post on Wetpixel.

 

Now, having just returned from DEMA I see that there are several viewfinders for various D-SLR housings. It appears there are significant differences between them, and I think the UW photo community would be intersted in a comparison of features, price and optical quality.

I would love to see a review, but even a table listing some of the comparisons would be a good start. None of the digital seem as large and bright as my old F100 and it would be good to be able to get back to that level so that might be a good reference camera.