Anonymous
Is there any real advantages or disadvantages to an SLR's viewfinder and such being off to the side versus in the middle?

Pic kinda related.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Seems like it's in the middle :P

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 10-11MCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2006:02:22 10:31:16ISO Speed Rating100Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width300Image Height328
>> Anonymous
>>60218
There are no inherent disadvantages, but the only camera I know with the viewfinder to the side is Olympus E-300, which sucks.
>> Anonymous
>>60220
That and some other derivative DSLRs are the only DSLRs like that, but didn't some old film SLRs have the viewfinder off to the side?
>> Anonymous
>>60221
As far as this anonymous is aware all SLRs have their viewfinders directly in line (looking top down) with the lens. Rangefinders have their viewfinders off to one side.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60220
Inherent disadvantage: The offset viewfinder means that the light has to have an extra 90 degree bounce to get to your eye, which means that it's gonna be somewhat dimmer. And viewfinders nowadays are already pretty dim.

>>60223
This Anonymous is wrong. For examples, see the Olympus E-300 and E-330 (mentioned in THIS VERY THREAD, ya dumbass) and the Panasonic DMC-L1/Leica Digilux 2. All of which sport a tiny, dim viewfinder, according to a quick google search of reviews for 'em.
>> Anonymous
>>60234
I thought the 4/3rds cameras had shit viewfinders because they were shitty, not because of an inherent problem with the design. If you imagine the light path of a classic style SLR, an offset one is exactly the same, just with the entire thing rotated 90 degrees around the axis of the lens and raised a bit. There shouldn't be any extra bouncing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60246
It's that "Raised a bit" that gets you. It's not just off to the side, it's off to the side while being at the same height as a normal SLR viewfinder. That means it needs an extra bounce to get where it's going.

At least, that's what I think. It's possible it's too early for my brain to comprehend the optics involved in getting a right-side-up image to come out of a hole in the top left of an SLR. The diagram of the Olympus cameras' optical path backs me up, but they might just need the extra bounce to throw some light onto the auxiliary imaging chip.

In any case, even if there's no inherent disadvantage to an offset viewfinder, all of the *current* cameras with an offset viewfinder are teh suck.
>> Anonymous
>>60246
They might be shitty not because of the position compared to the lens (that is irrelevant), but because of the amount of light that's absorbed by the mirrors (or prism) while the image gets from the lens to the vf. That and the percent of the lens captured image you're able to see in the vf.
>> Anonymous
>>60234
>>60246
It's a bit more complicated than that.
- All 4/3 cameras have small viewfinders because 4/3 sensors and mirrors are smaller than APS-C/DX sized ones. This is an inherent disadvantage of the 4/3 system and little can be done.
- E-300's viewfinder is usable, but dimmer than E-500 because of the extra bounce and/or poorly engineered prisms.
- E-330's viewfinder is very very dim, but that has little to do with the optical path; it's more because they split half of the light to the useless (IMO) auxiliary CCD.
- Panasonic/Leica used the whole viewfinder assembly from E-330, but without the auxiliary CCD, so half of the light is just lost. The reason why did they leave such an obvious design flaw in a $2000 camera escapes me.
- All other Olympus cameras (E-1, E-4x0/5x0) have quite bright and clear viewfinders, they're just too small.
>> Anonymous
Were there any off-to-the-side film SLRs? I thought there was.
>> Anonymous
>>60283
Did I fuck up my grammar there? Is it "were" or "was" and where?