Repacement eye piece cover for 50D

RJL2005

RJL2005

Messages
3,222
Name
Rhod
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm trying to find a better option for covering the view finder on my 50D than the rubber cover that comes with the camera. I find the damn thing too fiddely on cold nights. Anyone know of a better option?
 
It really is cheap and crappy isn't it? :gag:

Seriously just stick your hat or your glove on top of the camera - anything that covers the viewfinder.

EDIT

or just shoot in Manual Mode.
 
Ben - he doesn't mean the eyepice hood thing, he means the rubber bit that you stick over the viewfinder when you don't have your eye to the viewfinder. It's usually attached to the camera strap. He's looking for an alternative arrangement.
 
He means one of these, :gag:

canonvf3.jpg


1 Series bodies have proper blinds built into the viewfinder. All other models get this piece of crap.
 
I wack a Marigold on top of mine. Might make my 50D look like Feathers McGraw, but fharquar it.
 
Nifkin said:
I wack a Marigold on top of mine. Might make my 50D look like Feathers McGraw, but fharquar it.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol: love the image

I just cover it up with whatevers to hand if I don't use the rubber cover
 
Thanks for the input guys. Looks like a DIY job then, suprised no one has made an alternative though. Now were's the gaffer tape........:thinking::lol:
 
Just shoot in Manual mode in which case exposure isn't affected by light entering the viewfinder anyway.
 
CT said:
Just shoot in Manual mode in which case exposure isn't affected by light entering the viewfinder anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks CT. I thought that light entering the viewfinder may affect the image and not just the metering when taking long exposures.
 
RJL2005 said:
Thanks CT. I thought that light entering the viewfinder may affect the image and not just the metering when taking long exposures.
Click to expand...
There's no danger of that - the mirror is up -totally sealing off the viewfinder from the path of the light from the lens to the sensor. Viewfinder blinds were totally unecessary in film SLRs before the introduction of the first aperture priority cameras.
 
CT said:
There's no danger of that - the mirror is up -totally sealing off the viewfinder from the path of the light from the lens to the sensor. Viewfinder blinds were totally unecessary in film SLRs before the introduction of the first aperture priority cameras.
Click to expand...

Thanks again! Goes off to put away gaffer tape..........:lol:
 
LOL. What did we do before gaffa tape? :thinking:
 
CT said:
There's no danger of that - the mirror is up -totally sealing off the viewfinder from the path of the light from the lens to the sensor.
Click to expand...

But the mirror's not totally reflective, it has a transmission/reflection ratio of around 40:60 Given this fact, I would assume that around 40% of the light reaching it through the viewfinder will get beyond it into the mirror chamber.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
But the mirror's not totally reflective, it has a transmission/reflection ratio of around 40:60 Given this fact, I would assume that around 40% of the light reaching it through the viewfinder will get beyond it into the mirror chamber.

Bob
Click to expand...

Well it's a thought Bob, but 40% of the light entering the viewfinder really isn't going to be very much, and the OP is talking about long night exposures. Interesting nonethless, but as I said earlier, viewfinder blinds were never deemed necessary on SLRs prior to the first auto modes appearing, when obviously light through the exposed vierwfinder could influence (in fact change) the actual exposure settings.

Has the nature of mirrors changed signmificantly since then?
 
Page 108 of the 7D manual is the only reference I can find to the eyepiece cover Bob where it says' During Live View shooting and movie shooting attaching the eyepiece cover is unecessary'.

Obviously because the mirror is up in both those situations. Not mentioning that Manual mode is the same is I think an error of omission rather than suggesting that the cover is required.
 
LOL. I was expecting a fast return ball there, but anyway try removing the lens, locking the mirror up, and pointing the viewfinder at a powerful light -see if you can seen any light entering the mirror box.
 
CT said:
LOL. I was expecting a fast return ball there, but anyway try removing the lens, locking the mirror up, and pointing the viewfinder at a powerful light -see if you can seen any light entering the mirror box.
Click to expand...

I'll give that a try. Maybe I'm being a little too logical here but I'm assuming that 40% passes through the mirror when it's down therefore 40% must pass through it when it's up too. It may be that reversing the direction through the pentaprism scatters the light too much for it to be an issue.

Bob
 
I did try it Bob. With a powerful torch right up against the viewfinder, you see light around the edges of the mirror rather than through it. Move the torch back an inch or two and there's no visible light at all, so I can't see a 'real life' shooting situation likely to duplicate those conditions?
 
CT said:
Fair point - but pellicle mirrors were being used in some SLRs as far back as the 60s.
Click to expand...

Canon Bob said:
....Maybe I'm being a little too logical here but I'm assuming that 40% passes through the mirror when it's down therefore 40% must pass through it when it's up too.
Click to expand...

Mission accomplished :)

The pellicle substrate can be formed such that it is partially transmissive at one angle of incidence whilst fully relective at another. I can't find specific details of the substrate for SLR mirrors but it seems likely that the substrate is formed such that it is transmissive (40% for Canon) at 45 degrees but totally reflective at 90 degrees....hence it reflects all light back into the pentaprism when is up.

I guess that the 40:60 ratio is a balance between providing enough light to the AF sensors without darkening the viewfinder too much

Bob
 
Cheers Bob. It's damned clever stuff for sure. :thinking:
 
Guys now I'm just confused now:thinking: If I'm shooting say a street scene at night with a street light behind me at say iso 100, 30sec, f11 in manual should I cover the eye piece.....Prehaps I should just do the experiment myself;)
 
No you needn'y worry unless there's a huge light virtually pressing up against your viewfinder. But do the test yourself and you'll see it's a none issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top