Z-Finder makes it harder - am I nuts?
- Thread starter Jester2138
- Start date
Today I was filming some bands with three lenses, all canon's, 50 1.4, 28 1.8, 85 1.8.
I used the z-finder for the first song and it was the only time I used it.
No way I could get accurate focus on it, everything was just too soft, the lcd might be small but at least I can see the focus.
Somewhat at a loss with the z-finder, cost a lot of money and loved by everyone...except me.
I used the z-finder for the first song and it was the only time I used it.
No way I could get accurate focus on it, everything was just too soft, the lcd might be small but at least I can see the focus.
Somewhat at a loss with the z-finder, cost a lot of money and loved by everyone...except me.
curious why 2.5x and not 2x. seems like having more seperation from the 3x would keep a lot of people happy having another option. is the one you speaking of the Zfinder Junior? just really curious why the 2.5x and not just a little lower.
im a happy user but obviously there are others here in this thread that want less magnification.
thanks
david
www.davidprobst.com
most recent music video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4sQfHD_b_E
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I have the Hoodloupe and I can't imagine how the z finder is worth over 300 bucks more. Maybe if it had a varifocal lens on it, I could see it. The Hoodloupe offers no magnification at all - it's a 1 to 1 magnification ratio and has a really wide diopter range. So wide, I can use it with or without my glasses and I have a pretty healthy correction with my glasses.
In just the few minutes I spent messing around with the Hoodloupe, I seemed to be able to focus accurately and I imagine once used to the screen, it'll get even easier to judge focus.
I'm not sure magnification is the way to go with these devices but it seems to make a lot of sense to use a lens that allows a moderate range of magnification ranging from 1 to 1 up to maybe 3 to 1.
.
In just the few minutes I spent messing around with the Hoodloupe, I seemed to be able to focus accurately and I imagine once used to the screen, it'll get even easier to judge focus.
I'm not sure magnification is the way to go with these devices but it seems to make a lot of sense to use a lens that allows a moderate range of magnification ranging from 1 to 1 up to maybe 3 to 1.
.
Last edited:
i think the only fair conclusion to draw from all of this debate over eyepiece loupes is that different things work for different people. some like it big, some want a little less magnification, some want that 1 to 1 thing, some just like the to use the LCD, some dont like anything at all and they all suck, some like rubberbands to hold it on, some like stick on thingys. its almost as pointless as discussing politics of dem vs repub vs indie...but
for those of us that have settled on a paticular loupe i guess were lucky because we now have perfect focus. the only thing left is the poor guys/girls that havent made up their minds yet and have to sift thru our blabber...lol!
good luck to those people!
david
www.davidprobst.com
now go and buy the Zfinder because ITS THE BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
only kidding...really!
for those of us that have settled on a paticular loupe i guess were lucky because we now have perfect focus. the only thing left is the poor guys/girls that havent made up their minds yet and have to sift thru our blabber...lol!
good luck to those people!
david
www.davidprobst.com
now go and buy the Zfinder because ITS THE BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
only kidding...really!
Jester2138
Well-known member
I bet you 10 bucks I can get just as accurate focus on the bare LCD screen as you can get with your $400 piece of plastic
And for 600 bucks you can get an ikan 5600 to focus at HD resolution 
A rig is best to mount something like that on though, so not so good an option for bare shooting. For looking cool, having it mounted on a redrock microshoulder mount with matte box impresses the ladies.
A rig is best to mount something like that on though, so not so good an option for bare shooting. For looking cool, having it mounted on a redrock microshoulder mount with matte box impresses the ladies.
Yeah that's why I'm hoping the firmware upgrade for the 5d increases the resolution when recording to 1080i, like the 7d. I was all ready to sell my z-finder and try the lcdvf but have decided to wait and see if the res changes for recording. In the meantime I got in on the group buy at cinema5d and have one of those cheap monitors on the way to give a go, at least I can articulate it!
I bet you 10 bucks I can get just as accurate focus on the bare LCD screen as you can get with your $400 piece of plastic
ill bet my dad can beat up your dad! :nads:
:2vrolijk_08:
i think this thread has run its course.
its been sooooooo fun though!:grin:
david
www.davidprobst.com
ZFinder
Carbonite Member
Just got the z-finder last week, very excited about it hence my username 
But initially I too find it difficult. It's not that the pixels are too large in my eye, it's the gaps between the pixels. I find it distracting.
Great optical quality, I just hope I can find it as useful as others. I think I'll get used to it.
If future camera LCDs remain at 3inch but increase the res and pixel pitch, then it will become a lot more useful.
For now I feel that even 920,000 res screens look too low on the z-finder. God help anyone using the GH1 with one!!
But initially I too find it difficult. It's not that the pixels are too large in my eye, it's the gaps between the pixels. I find it distracting.
Great optical quality, I just hope I can find it as useful as others. I think I'll get used to it.
If future camera LCDs remain at 3inch but increase the res and pixel pitch, then it will become a lot more useful.
For now I feel that even 920,000 res screens look too low on the z-finder. God help anyone using the GH1 with one!!
Jester2138
Well-known member
Why? Are you afraid there are more people with less than stellar experiences with the Z-Finder?
:huh::grin:
We aren't saying it's bad, we're just stating our experience - that it hasn't helped one bit with focusing. Maybe other people find it helps, but we sure don't.
if there is more to add to this thread then please keep posting. for anyone that hasnt purchased a loupe yet and cant test one in person to try, all they can do is read internet threads to try come to conclusion of which one to buy...or not use one at all.
there are back to back threads here right now with good info on all the loupes and good cases of people preferring to use none at all. these two threads have probably been the best balance for all of the options that i have seen so far. everyone made a case for their preference which gives people that have no experience with loupes something to think about from all side.
the fact that you dont like the Zfinder is quite alright with me. everyone should use what works.
david
www.davidprobst.com
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I'm good with the Hoodloupe for now, and only plan on using it when shooting outdoors in bright ambience hand held if I cannot use an onboard monitor with a hood which I think will be far superior even at SD resolution.
I'm not convinced a pixel enlarger is really helpful since it's groups of pixels that show unsharpness, not the pixels themselves.
I'm hopeful the new firmware will have some good things.
.
I'm not convinced a pixel enlarger is really helpful since it's groups of pixels that show unsharpness, not the pixels themselves.
I'm hopeful the new firmware will have some good things.
.
I just got my LCDVF. I'm relieved to say the pixels don't seem huge or distracting as was reported about the Z finder earlier. It really seems just right in that regard.
I have a little trouble seeing things up close (perfect vision otherwise) and was hoping the LCDVF would work, but it seems just a hair off for my vision. This was easily overcome. I went to Wal-Mart and bought a $7 pair of +1.00 reading glasses and popped out one of the lenses and tucked between the supplied red eye cup cushion and the black rubber eyecup of the LCDVF. I'm surprised at how well this stays in place. If you do this, I would look for reading glasses with a bigger lens as I think it will stay in place better.
One of the things I really like about the LCDVF is that when the viewfinder is removed, the metal bracket that the LCDVF attaches to isn't really noticable and certainly doesn't get in your way when using it as a still camera. I haven't tried it but the bracket on the Z Finder seemed like it could get annoying when used as a still camera. Just a little detail but it was a consideration.
So, for me 2X is better than 3X magnification and the attachment mechanism is better and less intrusive than the Z Finder.
I have a little trouble seeing things up close (perfect vision otherwise) and was hoping the LCDVF would work, but it seems just a hair off for my vision. This was easily overcome. I went to Wal-Mart and bought a $7 pair of +1.00 reading glasses and popped out one of the lenses and tucked between the supplied red eye cup cushion and the black rubber eyecup of the LCDVF. I'm surprised at how well this stays in place. If you do this, I would look for reading glasses with a bigger lens as I think it will stay in place better.
One of the things I really like about the LCDVF is that when the viewfinder is removed, the metal bracket that the LCDVF attaches to isn't really noticable and certainly doesn't get in your way when using it as a still camera. I haven't tried it but the bracket on the Z Finder seemed like it could get annoying when used as a still camera. Just a little detail but it was a consideration.
So, for me 2X is better than 3X magnification and the attachment mechanism is better and less intrusive than the Z Finder.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
They say it has "about 2.8x" magnification and there's no diopter correction.
For $160., I'm not so sure about that configuration...
.
For $160., I'm not so sure about that configuration...
.
They say no diopter correction but it's still usable fom +1 to -4. It only cost me an extra $7 to get the optics to where I need it.
Just wanted to add a quick update to my LCDVF experience for those that may not have perfect vision.
I decided to bump the inserted lens to a +1.50. It seems pretty sharp and then if I lift the loop maybe a 1/4 inch or so away from the LCD screen, it gets even sharper. I'm still fiddling with it trying to decide if bumping lens up to +2.00 would help. I think it would help if LCDVF made a bracket that actually shimmed the view finder just a little further away from the screen. I think Zacuto is already doing this with their Z Finder.
I decided to bump the inserted lens to a +1.50. It seems pretty sharp and then if I lift the loop maybe a 1/4 inch or so away from the LCD screen, it gets even sharper. I'm still fiddling with it trying to decide if bumping lens up to +2.00 would help. I think it would help if LCDVF made a bracket that actually shimmed the view finder just a little further away from the screen. I think Zacuto is already doing this with their Z Finder.
wearing glasses with the Hoodloupe didnt work for me because then i couldnt press in close enough to see the full LCD frame. when i tried by pressing hard to get close id end up with oil and persperation from my skin on my glasses from muching it all together. glasses suck.
even though my vision isnt the best without my glasses when using the Hoodloupe i was able to get good focus so the diopter is very effective even for vision that is far from perfect like mine.
ive seen a few people put a different eyepiece cushion than the one that comes on it. that could change the result? an important thing to consider with the Hoodlooupe is that the diameter of the Hoodloupe glass is not very big which is why you need to get as close as possible to see the full frame.
david
www.davidprobst.com
Last edited: