No DSLRs have Removable Pentaprisms

[quadibloc]

As the title says, as far as I know, there are no DSLRs that let one
remove the pentaprism, so as to change the focusing screen. Why is that
a problem?
Well, on my web site
http://www.quadibloc.com/
I recently added a page about the history of some cameras, mainly 35mm
SLRs;
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/camint.htm

And I asked the question... why are DSLRs even a thing? After all, with
a digital sensor, you can see exactly what you're shooting on a digital
display on the back of your camera. So why bother with a moving mirror
and a heavy pentaprism?
My answer was that given the resolution of the screen was lower than
that of a ground glass finder, manual focusing would be better on a
DSLR. Plus, the focusing screen can have split-image prisms and
microprisms as aids to focusing. That was the technical reason that made
the DSLR superior.
But if the DSLR is all about the finder screen... wouldn't the ability
to change the finder screen for one's use case be important?

John Savard

[danny burstein]

Post by quadibloc
As the title says, as far as I know, there are no DSLRs that let one
remove the pentaprism, so as to change the focusing screen. Why is that
a problem?
Well, on my web site
http://www.quadibloc.com/
I recently added a page about the history of some cameras, mainly 35mm
SLRs;
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/camint.htm
And I asked the question... why are DSLRs even a thing? After all, with
a digital sensor, you can see exactly what you're shooting on a digital
display on the back of your camera. So why bother with a moving mirror
and a heavy pentaprism?

If you can't see up close without glasses, watching the
rear screen is painful. A viwefinder is much easier, esp
if you wind up needing additional diopter correction.

[Geoff]

Post by quadibloc
As the title says, as far as I know, there are no DSLRs that let one
remove the pentaprism, so as to change the focusing screen. Why is that
a problem?
Well, on my web site
http://www.quadibloc.com/
I recently added a page about the history of some cameras, mainly 35mm
SLRs;
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/camint.htm
And I asked the question... why are DSLRs even a thing? After all, with
a digital sensor, you can see exactly what you're shooting on a digital
display on the back of your camera. So why bother with a moving mirror
and a heavy pentaprism?
My answer was that given the resolution of the screen was lower than
that of a ground glass finder, manual focusing would be better on a
DSLR. Plus, the focusing screen can have split-image prisms and
microprisms as aids to focusing. That was the technical reason that made
the DSLR superior.
But if the DSLR is all about the finder screen... wouldn't the ability
to change the finder screen for one's use case be important?
John Savard

A few reasonss are :
1 - Was you see through the viewfinder is real (colours etc). On my
mirrorless I find it a constant distracting needing to change the
colour-balance so as to not be distracted by the difference between TTL
and TTE (through the eyes !).
2 - You can play around to your heart's content (focusing, composition,
etc) without even needing to turn the camera on.

And you don't need to change focus screens - you can assign all sorts of
aids (grids, virtual-horizon etc) to display in the viewfinder.

On my D800 at least . Lesser DSLRs may vary ...

geoff

[Alan Browne]

Post by quadibloc
As the title says, as far as I know, there are no DSLRs that let one
remove the pentaprism, so as to change the focusing screen. Why is that
a problem?
Well, on my web site
http://www.quadibloc.com/
I recently added a page about the history of some cameras, mainly 35mm
SLRs;
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/camint.htm
And I asked the question... why are DSLRs even a thing? After all, with
a digital sensor, you can see exactly what you're shooting on a digital
display on the back of your camera. So why bother with a moving mirror
and a heavy pentaprism?
My answer was that given the resolution of the screen was lower than
that of a ground glass finder, manual focusing would be better on a
DSLR. Plus, the focusing screen can have split-image prisms and
microprisms as aids to focusing. That was the technical reason that made
the DSLR superior.
But if the DSLR is all about the finder screen... wouldn't the ability
to change the finder screen for one's use case be important?

My Minolta 9 definitely had a removable focus screen. (film). No need
to remove the prism to change the screen.

Don't recall if my Sony A900 has a removable screen. Too lazy to go look.

For the vast majority of shooters, the LCD view is the way to go - a
sort of what you see is what you'll get approach. And the resolution of
the display is more than fine enough for most uses.

Drawback of course is that all that requires power to operate whereas a
DSLR VF can be used with the camera off.