Why its best to have two style viewfinders

[adamhanlon 0]

You may not express opinions about whether a post is valid ("off") or not.  Anyone is entitled to discuss any topic to do with underwater image making within our community. If you do not like, cannot contribute or do not understand a topic, simply do not engage with it. If you feel the topic requires clarification before you can respond, ask the OP for clarification. What you (or I or anyone else) may not do is state that someone's post is in some way invalid ("off"). You may not be critical of people's questions or the way they frame them. Everyone is entitled to ask...

For example, if you think that people must specify what system they are using before posting, please create a topic and we can discuss your opinion. 

Specifically, what you did was to incorrectly state your opinion as a requirement:

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

You can’t make a generic statement ok viewfinders in 2023 without saying what system you talk about

You expressed your opinion as a statement of fact. However, it is not a fact and simply reflects (your) opinion. If you want to engage constructively with members of our community, I think that you should realise that your opinions are not facts and that disagreement and discussions reflect your and others' opinions.

To stress, members are welcome to make generic statements about viewfinders or anything else in any year!



 

[adamhanlon 0]

I agree with the others that fast moving subjects underwater are comparatively rare, but "subject acquisition" does often need to be rapid, even with slow moving subjects. 

I always find that adjusting between different viewfinder options actually slows this down as my muscle memory relearns the correct camera angle!

[Interceptor121 842]

You may not express opinions about whether a post is valid ("off") or not.  Anyone is entitled to discuss any topic to do with underwater image making within our community. If you do not like, cannot contribute or do not understand a topic, simply do not engage with it. If you feel the topic requires clarification before you can respond, ask the OP for clarification. What you (or I or anyone else) may not do is state that someone's post is in some way invalid ("off"). You may not be critical of people's questions or the way they frame them. Everyone is entitled to ask...

 

For example, if you think that people must specify what system they are using before posting, please create a topic and we can discuss your opinion. 

Specifically, what you did was to incorrectly state your opinion as a requirement:

You expressed your opinion as a statement of fact. However, it is not a fact and simply reflects (your) opinion. If you want to engage constructively with members of our community, I think that you should realise that your opinions are not facts and that disagreement and discussions reflect your and others' opinions.

To stress, members are welcome to make generic statements about viewfinders or anything else in any year!

 

 

 

 

We disagree on what is a fact

Sorry about the off

 

But the op post in my opinion is imprecise as written because it is absolute it talks about need not preference (best others are suboptimal is a superlative)

And if you want support such statement you have to be precise

If the title was why I prefer two viewfinder fine whats the problem

But need raises questions and triggers disagreement

An accurate description would have helped at least to clarify that the op is a DSLR user

Then someone is still disagreeing but that’s because it is presented as superlative not preference

Sorry for the blurb off this thread now

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hyp 115]

People will be imprecise on an internet forum. It’s not a scientific paper. 

[oneyellowtang 112]

@Interceptor121

Umm...clownfish as an example?

"As I wrote earlier keeping focus on a static subject while the diver moves to control buoyancy is not the same as fast action so we are aligned"

[Interceptor121 842]

[mention=34353]Interceptor121[/mention]

 

Umm...clownfish as an example?

 

"As I wrote earlier keeping focus on a static subject while the diver moves to control buoyancy is not the same as fast action so we are aligned"

I don’t shoot clownfish with a macro lens or a flat port so maybe yes

are you going to shoot one or many shots?

I see no major problems really with that scenarios and I have no blurred clown fish shots nor I would use tracking

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oneyellowtang 112]

@Interceptor121

Well, it's a good thing that you are "you" then, because:

@Alex_Mustard wrote in his article "How to Photograph a Clownfish" (Scuba Diving, 4/2020):

"An attractive anemone is the cornerstone for any memorable anemonefish photo, in both wide angle and macro."

Many u/w photographers shoot clownfish (anemone fish) with a flat port (actually, it's likely that "most" clownfish shots are macro images, esp. as people first start shooting these subjects).

Separating out opinions vs. "facts" helps here.

 

Edited February 24 by oneyellowtang

[Interceptor121 842]

[mention=34353]Interceptor121[/mention]

Well, it's a good thing that you are "you" then, because:

[mention=713]Alex_Mustard[/mention] wrote in his article "How to Photograph a Clownfish" (Scuba Diving, 4/2020):

"An attractive anemone is the cornerstone for any memorable anemonefish photo, in both wide angle and macro."

Many u/w photographers shoot clownfish (anemone fish) with a flat port (actually, it's likely that "most" clownfish shots are macro images, esp. as people first start shooting these subjects).
Separating out opinions vs. "facts" helps here.
 

And so what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrchen911 16]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:42 AM, rwb500 said:

why is the straight viewfinder better at night??  Couldn't you just use the 45 all the time?  I think once you get used to it, its fine for open water and other non-macro subjects.

I just switched a 45 degree viewfinder and used it for the first time on a night dive last weekend. For me, it was difficult finding the viewfinder. The 45 degree viewfinder has a smaller viewing angle. If I wasn't staring at it just right, I couldn't see light coming from it. I missed out on several pictures because I just couldn't find the viewfinder, then couldn't find the subject (because it moved). With more practice, I'm sure I'll develop muscle memory and find it faster. I would have been happy to have a very low light emitting glow ring which could be put around the viewfinder.

When I could find it, it was awesome. I was able to get lower with the camera, and the larger image made it easier to locate and find the critters. I just posted a few pics from the other night in the other sub.

Edited February 25 by mrchen911

[onokai 20]

Shooting macro with a 45 takes some dive time. I resisted it for some time. Once you commit to it and put in the dives it really opens up shooting macro subjects . Since I shot the 180 (straight thru) viewfinders for over 35 years they always seemed so easy and the 45 was a hard learning curve. Now I need both finders as tey both have applications

If I was shooting blue water subjects or snorkeling the 180 would be on my housing all the time.

[Interceptor121 842]

Shooting macro with a 45 takes some dive time. I resisted it for some time. Once you commit to it and put in the dives it really opens up shooting macro subjects . Since I shot the 180 (straight thru) viewfinders for over 35 years they always seemed so easy and the 45 was a hard learning curve. Now I need both finders as tey both have applications
If I was shooting blue water subjects or snorkeling the 180 would be on my housing all the time.

I would agree on a dslr
On a mirrorless provided the lcd resolution is sufficient there is no real improvement with a straight viewfinder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisRoss 150]

16 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I would agree on a dslr
On a mirrorless provided the lcd resolution is sufficient there is no real improvement with a straight viewfinder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on your eyesight,  the availability of diopter adjustment on the viewfinders is a big plus for them for me, plus shooting through a viewfinder is a different experience to holding the rig at arms length.  Yes I know there are mask based solutions and contacts but if I don't have to use them I'm happier.    Seems like an individual decision to me.

[Interceptor121 842]

Depends on your eyesight,  the availability of diopter adjustment on the viewfinders is a big plus for them for me, plus shooting through a viewfinder is a different experience to holding the rig at arms length.  Yes I know there are mask based solutions and contacts but if I don't have to use them I'm happier.    Seems like an individual decision to me.

Viewfinder £1400
You can buy many contact lenses for the same use case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisRoss 150]

5 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Viewfinder £1400
You can buy many contact lenses for the same use case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I said it's individual, you might be happy to use contacts.  I'd rather not.  For me I just use the 45deg viewfinder I have for all shooting, it works pretty well for me.

[Interceptor121 842]

7 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Like I said it's individual, you might be happy to use contacts.  I'd rather not.  For me I just use the 45deg viewfinder I have for all shooting, it works pretty well for me.

45 degrees yes

Straight vs contact lenses -> no

[phxazcraig 123]

My 2 cents.  I have both 180 and 45 viewfinders now, having bought the 45 recently.   I've only used the 45 for part of a dive trip, trying to use it for macro.

Right now I'm going with the 180 for wide angle and the 45 for macro.   45 for macro seems pretty obvious as it allows the camera to get into more awkward positions.  Maybe a better way to say that is to say it allows me to keep my body more out of awkward positions.

But then there is the 180.  I should note that I'm now using a Z9 (37 dives with it so far, most wide angle), and I previously shot DSLR's (850 and D810) since 2015.  Before that various point-n-shoots.

So I have 7 years experience with the 180 and under 2 weeks with the 45.    It does indeed take some time to get used to positioning my head to look through the 45.

Besides being used to shooting the 180, it does one thing noticeably easier than the 45, and that is when I take both a landscape and a portrait oriented shot back-to-back.  With the 180, I just rotate the camera, fix the strobes and shoot.  The 45 requires me to rotate it as well, which is just a bit slower.

Now the Z9 gives me the option of simply using the rear monitor to compose, and so I don't even need a viewfinder at all then.  I've made some use of that, but it introduces another issue that the 180 kind of solves, and that is camera stability.  I very much like pushing that viewfinder against my mask to add a 3rd point of stability, especially if I'm also fighting the strobe arms pogoing after some movement to get into position.

Anyway, I have both viewfinders, plus the monitor to use, so I feel pretty lucky.  I intend to keep using the 180 the way I have for now.

[onokai 20]

ALL my comments are all with a DSLR as I have zero experience with a mirrorless but do have over 4 decades  shooting with a DSLR

remember in the grand scheme of cameras mirrorless are brand new

As Chris pointed out  (the availability of diopter adjustment on the viewfinders is a big plus for them for me)

This has really helped many especially with older eyes like me

 

[Draq 135]

On 11/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, onokai said:

In a Subal or Nauticam housing I use Nauticam viewfinders.  Both have advantages and you really need both.

The straight thru (gunshot) is great for finding fish on the move or also a night dives to locate things faster.

The 45 is my go to in most daytime situations shooting macro for example. You can get on the same eye level as subject and it easier to frame the view from above looking at subjects.I

Its not one or the other its both are needed for the best results for me..

Maybe what we need is an articulating viewfinder?  I would buy one of those.

I use a 45 and so long as I am not shooting down for some reason, I like it better than my former straight viewfinder.  Occasionally I have trouble getting lined up on tiny things.  Luckily, most tiny things don't move much so I can usually take my time.

 

[JohnLiddiard 31]

As everything is moving to mirrorless with an EVF, why not a remote EVF that can be articulated where you want? Could such an EVF actually be cheaper to manufacture than the complicated optics of housing viewfinders?

(Similar to how most video shooters work with a separate monitor)

[phxazcraig 123]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:06 AM, Interceptor121 said:

When you move to mirrorless you will no longer need a straight viewfinder but you will still need an angled one
 

Agreed.  I have used a 180 degree viewfinder on my D810 and D850 rigs since 2015, and I recently got a 45 degree one for macro.   I had never used the stock viewfinder in any of those housings.  So it seemed natural to continue to use it with my Z9 rig, and I did so unquestioningly last September in Roatan.   Fought with the viewfinder/monitor switching.

Last couple of weeks I was shooting in Truk, and I was just not using the viewfinder at all, instead just using the back LCD monitor.   And I realized that the 180 viewfinder was just getting in the way, both underwater and on a crowded dive boat and while carrying the rig.   So I took it off and put in the standard Nauticam viewfinder (which I didn't use).   It was all easier without the viewfinder, though I've found in the past that it was helpful to have a third point of support having the viewfinder pressed against my mask.

I didn't shoot macro, so I haven't really got a feeling for the angled finder.

[divegypsy 23]

I will add a few comments on this discussion about viewfinders, and include a comment or two about DSLR vs Mirrorless in the Nikon system.  Like Onokai, I currently shoot with a Nikon D850 and Ikelite 161 strobes.  And like Onokai I use two viewfinders, the 180-degree and the 45-degree.  I also choose my viewfinder depending on the dive conditions and also subject matter.  When shooting at night with only a small pool of light provided by my spotting light, I can definitely find a subject faster with the "gunsight" view provided by the 180-degree finder and even moreso when the subject is more mobile like an octopus. And like Onokai if I expect to shoot mostly faster swimming fish, small or large, even in full daylight I find the 180-degree finder lets me find the subject and keep it framed better with the 180-degree finder. 

A third type of subject that I find the 180-degree finder better for is when I get into higher magnifications, close to 1:1 and greater. In late 2022 in Bali I tried one dive with the 105mm Micro-nikkor combined with the Inon wet diopter which is very similar to the Nauticam CMC-1.   The subject was a less-than-cooperative pompom crab who wasn't willing to just sit in one place for shot after shot. On my first dive, which was with the 45-degree finder, I found it much harder to keep the crab in the picture than with the 180-degree finder on several subsequent dives. 

For general daylight shooting I usually use the 45-degree finder because it allows me to more easily shoot more easily with the housing right the substrate level. 

I would make the following comments about shooting with a mirrorless camera and using the rear LCD rather than a 180-degree finder.  Since you have to hold the mirrorless system at some distance out from your body to see the rear LCD, I would wonder if you get quite the magnification of view that you get with the 180-degree finder and also wonder if the water is less than very calm, whether you hold the system as firmly as a DSLR held right against your face.  This is only conjecture since I haven't tried a mirrorless camera underwater, which is the same inexperienced conjecture that Interceptor121 is working from since Sony has not made a DSLR for years. And to whoever made the point that Sony's auto-focus was much better, especially when shooting 10fps, I would respond that since no underwater strobe can shoot at 10fps, this is rather irrelevant. Nikon's new Z8 (and Z9) are very equivalent in auto-focus to the Sony A1 according to independent testing.  But none of the mirrorless cameras can use Nikon's 70-180 Micro-nikkor zoom which is the most versatile professional-quality macro lens you can shoot with.  So like Onokai, I'll stick with my D850 for the foreseeable future. And with the Nauticam viewfinders since they allow you to adjust the viewfinder to your eye underwater

Fred

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Interceptor121 842]

No conjecture I am on mirrorless since 2015 and in fact I shot everything with the LCD until now
With regards to the LCD the only issue is your eyesight as clearly the LCD is six times at least bigger than the evf lcd on a mirrorless and even the magnified viewfinder is not as big
In addition you still have the viewfinder on the back of the housing where you can use the dioptric correction
While for dslr two view finders were more usual I have not met one person with a mirrorless that regularly uses two
In fact I know a few that had two and sold the straight one
If there was no HDMI lag the best solution is a nice 5” monitor that can be angled as you like is very bright and has many other uses however the lag kills it as I have experienced myself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTH 5]

It has been really interesting to read about peoples opinions of 180 vs 45 viewfinders. I've only just moved to a Nikon D500, having been using a D80 and then D7000 since 2007. I got a 45 viewfinder with my current housing but at the moment I've chosen not to fit it (it came as part of a package). I've always been happy just looking through a standard viewfinder. So, what are the major advantages of the 45??? What am I missing out on? I guess I don't need to lie flat on the floor to take a low down shot. I've always shied away from doing that when abroad because of worry of damaging the reef. However, in the UK I've not really had a problem. Not that I damage the dive site in the uk :-). 

As for mirrorless - I'm not changing to mirrorless any time soon, if ever. I've used my D7000 for ten years and I could have stuck with it longer, but got a great deal on a D500 and a new housing. I'm happy with my previous pictures, I'm happy with my lenses. I'm nearly 60 and I'm not sure that I'll need a new camera before it becomes too much hard work??

I totally get that people are moving over to mirrorless, and going forward it is going to be the only option. I get that many on the site will be mirrorless now or very soon. I just want to know from a dSLR point of view as that is what I've got :-).