Viewfinder 'view'...

[jakfrost]

or lack thereof...

When I decided to take the plunge and buy a DSLR, after 30yrs of SLR, 10 yrs of Point & Shoot, and now my Canon Xsi...I didn't realize how annoying the viewfinder could be on the digital version of my previous SLR's.

Just came back from taking a couple of hundred images of my grandson's (Atom League, lots of fun..), hockey game last night and realize that I have to find a solution to the issue with the 'inaccurate' view the viewfinder presents.

I had thought the 'live view' might be a way around it when I first bought the camera a few weeks ago but in everyday use it isn't all the practical compared to the point and shoot I was used to, ( Canon SD870IS ), especially in a venue like a sports event.

So I know there are 'full frame' bodies available, or at least something closer to reality than what I am seeing now...but LOTS of people are using the 'entry level' DSLR's with superb results, do they just crop their images in post production? How do you get the bottom of the image that was in the viewfinder but not in the image back???? I can crop out the huge space at the top...but the lower portion is lost.

I have been trying to train myself to crop in the viewfinder to the point where I almost shoot with the top of someone's head half out of the top of the viewfinder just to get them in the center of the image, but it isn't easy. What do other folks do?

I don't want to feel I have to spend another few thousand dollars to solve this, there must be something I am missing here...

Jim

 

[leighonigar]

This isn't normal. Most DSLRs have a slightly smaller view in the viewfinder than they take. You shouldn't have to shoot like you do. What are you using (Edit - ah, canon XSi, I don't have one of those, but it really shouldn't be like this)? Perhaps your prism/some mirror in the finder is misaligned?

 

[ThunderRobot]

that I have to find a solution to the issue with the 'inaccurate' view the viewfinder presents.

Jim,

I can't speak for the Canon Xsi but I shoot with a Canon 50D which is still a cropped body. Everything I see in my viewfinder appears in the saved image.

The edge of the bottom, left and right are bang on my viewfinder, the top captures just a tiny bit more than I actually see.

Anyone using an Xsi can confirm, but this sounds like a fault to me.

 

[wheelhot]

How do you get the bottom of the image that was in the viewfinder but not in the image back???? I can crop out the huge space at the top...but the lower portion is lost.

Wth does this suppose to mean?

Well I understand that the beginner level viewfinder doesnt have 100% coverage, meaning that when you shoot an image, there will be some extra part of the image in it, sometime you dont want this but a lil bit of cropping wont hurt.

 

[Cliff3]

How do you get the bottom of the image that was in the viewfinder but not in the image back???? I can crop out the huge space at the top...but the lower portion is lost.

That is not right. Your viewfinder does not have 100% coverage, but the missing pixels should be evenly distributed along each edge. It is certainly possible that a manufacturing fault caused your viewfinder to be misaligned. Thom Hogan's recent review of the D3x talked about that problem appearing in his sample of that camera. Assuming the camera is still under warranty, I would talk to the seller and ask them to address the problem.

FWIW, full frame usually refers to sensor format, i.e.: 35mm film negative size - 24x36mm. Viewfinder coverage probably describes what you're thinking of. Normally the pro-level bodies all have 100% coverage while lesser bodies have some varying percentage of coverage.

 

[jakfrost]

Thanks for the quick response guys, I thought that when the reviews stated (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page2.asp) that the viewfinder only shows 95% coverage there would be more image captured than what I actually see...but not at the expense of one portion of the image over another.

So it would seem based on your experience that what I have happening where it seems the viewfinder image is actually 'moved' up by approximately 20%, ( the lateral boundaries look good ), is an anomaly that could be addressed by warranty repair. Geez just my luck.

OK at least I'm not crazy .

I was going to condsider returning it for a full refund and looking for a nice 1D Mark ll, now that would solve the problem, no?

And create another, divorce...

Jim

 

[Cliff3]

So it would seem based on your experience that what I have happening where it seems the viewfinder image is actually 'moved' up by approximately 20%, ( the lateral boundaries look good ), is an anomaly that could be addressed by warranty repair. Geez just my luck.

Or replacement. How long have you had the camera?

 

[wheelhot]

I was going to condsider returning it for a full refund and looking for a nice 1D Mark ll, now that would solve the problem, no?

Haha, correct! LOL

And create another, divorce...

Now, we dont want that

 

[jakfrost]

Or replacement. How long have you had the camera?

Less than 30 days...Dec31/08. So replacement would be my first choice for sure.

The camera that is... , gotta keep the big picture in focus .

Jim

 

[Abstract]

Thanks for the quick response guys, I thought that when the reviews stated (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page2.asp) that the viewfinder only shows 95% coverage there would be more image captured than what I actually see...but not at the expense of one portion of the image over another.

That sounds really strange. I suggest you do an "in lab" test. Just shoot walls or door frames at home, and see how inaccurate your hockey photos are.

 

[toxic]

yeah, that's not normal. you should just notice that the final photo has some extra around what you actually saw, mostly on the sides. and speaking of film SLRs, they don't have 100% coverage either, since the edges usually get cut off when augmenting anyway...

live view is more or less only for stationary subjects. only Sony, as far as I know, has adopted the philosophy of turning an SLR into a p&s.

 

[gkarris]

^^^ Wow, didn't really know that.

Still learning about my DSLR...

I thought I was going crazy also... I was taking interior pics of our club airplane, and I *thought* I framed the radio stack perfectly, but there was some extra when I was processing it for the web this morning.

Do P&S digitals exhibit the same problem and what about their "live view"?

Thanks!

 

[jakfrost]

Wow, that was interesting...the trip to the the store where I bought the Xsi that is. Just got back, new body in hand and happy as a clam

I called ahead to see if the sales clerk who had originally served me was working and he was so I described the problem and asked if I could bring the camera in. No problem, in I went.

At the store he took a look and we used my tripod and focused on a computer screen using the viewfinder, checked the result on the camera display, and yesssurrr, it was showing considerably more image above the computer edge...and, had cut off about 20& at the bottom.

He went away with the body only and came back in about 20 minutes, said he spoke to his Canon rep and they determined that the camera was out of 'register' and that the 'prisim-box' must have been disturbed.

Since there was no obvious external damage he was more than happy to give me a new body AND for my trouble, a Hoya circular polarizing filter for shooting in the snowy landscape we have here 8 months of the year...( or so it feels like ).

Guess what I'm doing tomorrow!

Oh, any tips for using this little addition to my camera accessories?

Jim

 

[FX120]

Good to hear that it was resolved.

When I first read the opening post my first thought was that one of the mirrors in the pentamirror assembly had gone out of whack, as in the 3/4xx series bodies they are just glued to a plastic assembly, making it easier to shift durring assembly or transport before the adhesives set. Sounds like that is what happened.