Do any of you never use the LCD on your digital cam?

Of course the M8 saga goes on, and it makes me revisit lusting after an RD-1s,

but if I could spare 5k, I'd probably enjoy being right in the middle of the

worrying, love and hate that seems to go along with the unique relationship we

Leica M users have with a camera and a camera company, but here is my question.

 

When I think of using either an M8 or an RD-1, I always imagine myself

enjoying being able to use it exactly like a film camera, meaning I don't

think I'd want to be distracted by using the LCD at all. Of course I realize

that this would negate one large benefit of digital which is near instant

review of the image result, but for some reason that doesn't interest me. It

makes me return to thinking I'd be better off with a really good scanner

because then my digital camera-system would be a highly reliable mechanical M

camera with a second stage being the scanner, which would be the part of the

package I would expect to upgrade eventually.

 

So do any of you use your RD-1 (or other digital SLR or point and shoot or

whatever) without the LCD and find that the ability to easily download your

images without needing to scan is, by itself, still enough of a benefit to

justify using a digital camera?

The only digital camera that I have at the moment is my Panasonic Lx-1. I have to use the LCD to frame the shot (no viewfinder), but I find that this is really the only use I have for the lcd (except of course for navigating the menu to change some settings. I don't really ever look back on a shot that I have made using the lcd. I prefer just to edit when I get back to the computer. If I think a shot might be tricky or something, I will shoot another shot changing the appropriate setting and save both. Shooting RAW helps greatly with this too.

 

I still like black and white film though, I prefer to develop my own and print in my darkroom. I would love to get a good film scanner for myself, but just haven't done it since I have the darkroom. I find the film digital thing different enough with regard to look and to the process of post processing to justify using both.

The LCD is your friend, not your enemy. On cameras without live view LCD, you can use the LCD to check exposure (histogram), composition, etc. There are often situations where you do have an opportunity to re-calibrate and re-shoot with the added instant feedback. With a digicam such as LX2 without an optical viewfinder, you have little choice regarding LCD use.

 

I would be shooting digital even if there were no LCDs on my cameras.

<i>...without needing to scan is, by itself, still enough of a benefit to justify using a

digital camera?</i><p>Sure. There are other things as well, like being able to

decide if you want the shot color or black and white after the fact, or changing ISO at

any time between shots. You can still shoot black and white film too with your other

cam for the look that gives.

<p>Mark, if you don't have a DSLR, try one, they're great, and you can get what

you need to start with kit zoom lens and all you need for less than 1K. Even $400-

$500 will get you a good used D70, because people are trading up with these after a

brief time. And the cam is as comfortable or more so than handling a Leica.

if you want to shoot RAW ... you use the LCD.

 

Histogram display is the single most important feature for perfect pictures

I have been (and still am) a devoted Leica user for sixty odd years. I have a digital camera that I use for situations where the use of film would be inconvenient or otherwise problematical. The digital has all kinds of annoying operations and options that I could easily do without but the LCD is not one of them. It is for me one of its most attractive features. I can swing it out to just about any convenient angle to suit the situation and in particulat use it as a vewing screen similar to the way I use my Rollei, and it is an instant indicator of whether I get the image I am after. If I had that feature on a Leica I would consider it the best of both worlds.

I am very conservative in my purchases because although its fun to experiement, it can get expensive, and I don't like a bunch of un-used stuff around me-I hate clutter of all kinds. I like smallish, durable, intuitive cameras with good options for about 20 to 24mm to a portrait 75 or 105. I already have a lot of other stuff (video, SLRs, zooms, APS cams, classics etc), and the M was the end of my camera quest about 5 years ago, and I feel like I have no where else to go now, but that seems kind of sad.

 

I guess more on topic to my own post is the realization in myself that even though I like the idea of an M8, it is expensive, and the problem is that, unfortunately, I am not really open minded to any change whatsoever, so I box myself in on ways to upgrade, which is essentially impossible without some change and exploration of utilizing new approaches.

 

Ray, you are probably right. I have an N70 and a 28-105 Nikon zoom, which would probably be a fun starter lens on a D70 or D50, but I just don't like using the N70 except for the occasional birthday party where I am doing someone a favor. I keep the N70 because it will meter with my AIS lenses, but I could see a Nikon D as a good substite for what I do with the N70 although I wouldn't have anything nearly wide because my 20 ais won't meter on the intro level Ds, but maybe that would be o.k.

 

...but that takes me back to my post; maybe I just need to get a good slide/neg scanner and save the rest of my money for another decade.

There are those photographers who turn off the LCD and just shoot - because constantly

reviewing images on the LCD breaks concentration and takes you out of the moment.

Chimping is for chimps.

It would be foolish not to use the LCD. Best to use the LCD to judge the image composition, but NOT the exposure. For exposure, use the histogram instead....LCD's lie about contrast, color, saturation, and sharpness, but the histogram is very powerful in regard to determining blocked up shadows, and blown highlights.

 

To suggest that the LCD is a "distraction" is most peculiar...a very strange statement. On the other hand, like anything, the LCD can be misused, in regard to chimping too long, and expecting to determine exposure by glancing at the image on the LCD...again which can often lie.

 

These days, with digital's narrow dynamic range, the histogram is an absolute must, and can prompt you to apply exposure compensation + or -, in order to dial in the best exposure possible. The histogram pretty much obseletes light meters because at the end of the day, it is the histogram that is going to tell you the effect of a particular exposure set up...taking a test shot is not going to cost you anything like in the film days...when shooting digital, if you want to know the effect of your set up, simply take a test snapshot and view the histogram, apply EC and delete the shot, then retake.

For me the issue is whether an LCD would make me OCD.

 

I can understand its value for, say, portrait photographers, for whom it is replacing the Polaroid; and for landscape photographers, for whom it might replace bracketing and special development of the film.

 

But for other types of photographers, perhaps the added value of an LCD screen is somewhat lower. I'm thinking of fire-and-forget snapshooters, or street shooters capturing moments that should be, ideally, decisive but are, in any event, unrepeatable.

 

As an aid to exposure, as opposed to composition, I can see its value. But since the brightness recording range of digital is about equal to that of slide film, I wonder how transparency shooters have functioned for all these decades without this feature.

 

For the type of photography I do, the aspect of an LCD screen that would be most valuable is, as Dan Flanders points out, as an alternative viewfinder. But isn't this a feature that is more generally available on the amateur-oriented cameras rather than the flagship models?

 

A large part of the M Leica's appeal is based, I think, on its simplicity. New features open up new possibilities, but they also run the risk of making the picture-taking enterprise more complicated than it has to be.

I never NOT use the LCD screen on my Digilux 1. I find it great to compose on. But you can't compose on the LCD of the RD-1, though. It doesn't get a streaming video signal to watch during shooting. It's only for review.

Nope.

I guess I've just been trying to figure out why if I don't want to use an LCD anyway, even for review, then why do I feel a desire to go digital. It's probably for those times when it would be cheaper and convenient to turn around some images quickly, so I start looking at the affordable options and getting enthusiastic, whether really good point and shoot or dslr, and when I realize again that I'll have no high quality wide angle option (except the P&S add on lenses) or a giant expensive wide for Nikon, and I continue studying and remembering how I don't enjoy carrying around an electronic AF film P&S or a big AF film SLR, then I'm back where I started and just thinking about a good scanner.

 

A digital FM3a would be a compromise, but I think I could stop whining for that.

I use the LCD at the beginning of a shoot in the studio. To check for exposure, but only

with

the histogram (sometimes a flashmeter can go wrong) and the blinking blown-out

highlights. That's when I'm not shooting tethered to a computer, of course. In the street,

again, I will

check the histogram from time to time, and, if shooting jpegs, the WB. That's about it.

Confirming the exposure with the LCD only can lead you to disaster.

We are adults. We should have the self control to look at the screen if we want to, or not look at it if we don't.

Use it to watch the pulse of a TV remote - you just have to be really bored. It seems, (now get this really weird part) sensors can perceive IR light.

"maybe I just need to get a good slide/neg scanner"

 

What's your tolerance for boredom? Scanning slides and negatives is only slightly better than watching the defragging progress on a huge disk drive. IMX, it's worse with negatives than slides; it's harder to tell the keepers from the garbage than it is with slides so you end up watching the thing toil away only to hand you lots of files to delete.

The LCD is just a tool, it is up to the photographer to make the best use of it. What is best for me, is not best for others, of course.

 

At the most simple level, using the LCD is lots of fun, and I like having fun while photographing with my digicam. After all, digicams are great tools to have fun with.

Piotr... The sensors in most digital cameras are quite sensitive to IR light, and the manufacturers routinely install hot-mirrors to correct for this. You can actually get interesting results photographing IR with a digital, provided that enough IR light slips past the hot-mirror.

 

Pablito... You could always just superglue the box flap from a roll of T-Max on top of the LCD on your digital so that you can retain some of the analog mystique. Seriously though, there are plenty of photographers that can handle the LCD. If a chimp can manage it...

All three of my digital cameras (RD-1, Rebel XT, Canon S50) have viewfinders, which I always use. The LCD screen is turned off for immediate review. Once in a while, I'll review to see that I'm not really goofing something up.

I try to use the RD-1 as I always used my Leaica M's when walking around. Usually I use the aperature priority, preset the aperature, depth of field and ISO and take my pics. If I have to change white balance or ISO, it's on the top of the camera, not the screen and is quickly done. This ability to change ISO and white balance is one of the very big advantages of digital.

I regard the removal of optical viewfinders on digicams as a bad byproduct of the manufacturers trying to make cameras as cheap as possible, good for the company, bad for us.

I admit to some chimping but mostly I don't use the lcd until later (say at my hotel or home or when I've stopped shooting) turning off the lcd speeds things up and saves battery life

I turn my LCD off 100% of the time on my Olympus E-1. I use it just like a film camera most of the time.

 

I use the LCD panel only to check lighting balance, open/closed eyes on group shots, or to check the histogram for fine art photos.

 

I'm amazed at how many people spend more time looking at their cameras rather than taking photos!

 

Skip

Thanks again for the responses. The reason for my post was to weigh the use of the LCD for its role in making digital photography appealing and useful by canvasing you all, with the idea that if it is of little importance to those of you who may shoot the way I do, using Leica M and R manual focus cameras, then perhaps digital is of less importance (to me), and perhaps motivated in me only by a motivation to stay "current", but obviously there is more appeal to digital than that even for me. I won't detail the other obvious benefits of digital. I know that most of you would agree with me in saying that there is relevance and usefulness to both digital and film. I just have not yet found affordable digital hardware to satisfy my need for wide angle photography in a high quality compact package with an intuitive durable control interface. I would enjoy learning to use a 16mm motion picture film camera, but somehow, I have accepted video cameras, perhaps because I didn't grow up shooting film movie cameras. I am just having difficulty making that transition for photography. (My video camera is a 15 year old high quality s-vhs camera without a swing-out LCD-they were not offered then, and I don't intend on replacing it until it's dead.)