Compact digicam with viewfinder?

<p>My daughter said she wants a camera for her birthday (she's turning 10). Knowing how she is, I think she will get a lot more use / fun out of it if it's compact or ultracompact, that is, it will fit in the pockets on most of her clothes. Now I have a big bias in favor of cameras that have some kind of viewfinder, because I find composing on the screen tough if you're trying to follow moving subjects and/or you're in the sun. Did I miss any camera(s), or is the Canon Powershot A1200 the <em>only</em> current compact digicam that has any sort of viewfinder? Its other specs are less than promising. Is there something else? I would even settle for an EVF, as long as the camera was still compact (a think a bridge camera would get much less use).</p>

<p>More generally, I have pretty much ruled out the super-digicams like the Canon Powershot G12 and competing Nikon Coolpix P7000 because they are (1) fairly large / bulky, (2) somewhat more complicated (or at least intimidating, with all of the physical controls), and (3) significantly more expensive (I just can't justify giving a $500 camera to a complete beginner who is not super-responsible).</p>

<p>So: your advice?</p>

<p>If I have to give up the viewfinder to get a good compact, so be it. I would still like it to have real image stabilization (lens shift or sensor shift), a fairly good video mode (720p24 is the minimum, up to 1080p30 or 1080i60 would be better), and hopefully manual exposure, aperture priority, and shutter priority modes. A relatively fast lens and image quality at higher (at least ISO 400 or so) sensitivities are significant.</p>

<p>At the moment, I'm leaning toward a Canon Powershot SD4000 IS or maybe the Casio Exilim EX-FH100 (which won DPReview's compact travel zoom comparison).</p>

 

<p>[[ Now I have a big bias in favor of cameras that have some kind of viewfinder, because I find composing on the screen tough if you're trying to follow moving subjects and/or you're in the sun.]]</p>

<p>[[so: your advice?]]</p>

<p>Does your daughter share your bias? I'd be willing to bet (if she's anything like the young children I know who use digital cameras) she has no qualms about using the LCD only. </p>

<p>[i just can't justify giving a $500 camera to a complete beginner who is not super-responsible).]]</p>

<p>You could buy a more expensive ruggedized camera that can take the abuse or buy a cheap one that you won't care about replacing when it's broken. </p>

<p> </p>

Do you want my Canon SD800? (Free, you pay shipping. LCD scratched, some dust on sensor.) It has optical viewfinder and was pretty good in its time. Database search shows there were 11 Elph models with viewfinder, but this was the only one with wide-angle lens.

<p>I believe the SD800 is the one my girlfriend has as well. If it is, that was also the last Elph to have an optical finder in addition to having the wide angle lens.</p>

<p>It's also a camera where she has scratched her glasses when using because the frame around the optical finder does not have a rubber guard.</p>

<p>Unless she has specifically asked for it, she does not want or need an optical viewfinder. She is from a different generation. She will treat the camera as an object that allows her to have fun just like you or I feel about our cameras but our sense of fun is so very different to hers.</p>

<p>Ask her what her favorite color is, and get her a camera in that color. :-) I'm serious. Kids and teenagers (and some adults!) really appreciate that kind of thing. Cameras come in every color of the rainbow nowadays. And, much like cell phones, they're considered almost a fashion accessory.</p>

<p>Blue: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749652-REG/Canon_PowerShot_A2200_Digital_Camera.html</p>

<p>Violet: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750294-REG/Panasonic_DMC_FH5_Digital_Camera_Violet.html</p>

<p>Pink: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750299-REG/Panasonic_DMC_FH2_Digital_Camera_Pink.html</p>

<p>Red: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673605-REG/Fujifilm_16007397_Z700EXR_12_MP_Digital.html</p>

<p>Purple: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729141-REG/Nikon_26224_CoolPix_S5100_Compact_Digital.html</p>

<p>Green: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/671992-REG/Sony_DSCW370_G_DSC_W370_Digital_Camera_Green.html</p>

<p>Orange (waterproof!): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750000-REG/Olympus_228055_TG_310_Digital_Camera_Orange.html</p>

<p>Yellow: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731399-REG/Casio_EX_Z800YW_Exilim_EX_Z800_Digital_Camera.html</p>

<p>Chrome: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/758150-REG/Pentax_15906_Optio_S1_Digital_Camera.html</p>

<p>Lime: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/734916-REG/Pentax_16841_Optio_RZ10_Digital_Camera.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would save my $500 until I knew she wanted to be bothered about PASM etc and simply buy her one of those plastic toy cameras and forget about what you think should be in a camera ... I think they have a viewfinder and don't have an LCD :-) She will have a lot of fun, as I did with one as my first digital, and you will not be worried about the $500.<br>

Your apparent aversion to the EVF suggests you have not used one to any great degree, I wouldn't buy a camera without live view as a viewfinder :-)</p>

<p>RT: don't forget about yellow, white, red, blue, green, pink, purple, and orange all in one: <br>

<a href="http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/11/pentax-unleashes-rainbow-dslr-on-japan/">http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/11/pentax-unleashes-rainbow-dslr-on-japan/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think all the " ADVISORS" have substuted their ideas fior a father's understanding.<br>

Personally, and this may be MY BIAS, a camera without a viewfinder is as useful as a car without a steering wheel.<br>

We were given a functional but flawed Canon Powershot G2<br>

A 4.0mp camera with a great lens. it has both a vf andf a swileing lcd.<br>

we looked into the canon loyalty program for a low cost trade-in / upgrade<br>

however the model with the most bang for the buck only has a lcd.<br>

I asked my wife who will be the prime user and she doesn't care<br>

I guess I will keep taking photos 36 at a time.<br>

Hey take the free deal, your daughter will be happy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...a camera without a viewfinder is as useful as a car without a steering wheel."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are completely entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, that is a very misinformed opinion to have.</p>

<p>Obviously a car with no means of controlling its direction is pretty useless, but to say that a camera without a viewfinder that one presses against one's eye is equally as useless is totally false. Would you say the same thing about a classic medium format film camera with a waist-level finder? They're really not that different than today's LCD-only cameras -- in both scenarios, you're viewing the image from a slight distance instead of holding it up to your eye. I don't see how that can possibly be compared to a car without a steering wheel.</p>

<p>Bottom line, if the kid doesn't like the camera, she's not going to use it. If she's already into photography and wants a serious camera, get her a serious camera. If not, get her something small and cute, in her favorite color, and hope for the best. She may take off and become a great photographer, or she may simply use it to take video clips of her friends being silly and post them on YouTube. The great thing about kids is that they tend to have birthdays once a year; you can always upgrade her to a more serious camera if she outgrows this one.</p>

<p>Just so that you know, the optical viewfinders in today's digital point & shoot cameras are a lot different to the optical viewfinders found in film point & shoot cameras. Don't expect the same coverage or accuracy. I've looked through a Canon G12 and a Nikon P7000 and found their optical viewfinders to be mostly useless. Not only is the coverage area small but the offset from the center was terrible. I've read that cameras with electronic viewfinders fare better. Check out cameras with an EVF and see for yourself.</p>

Baloney, S. Viewfinder coverage was < 90% for most low-priced film SLR cameras, and film P&S models were much worse. It's just that nobody noticed because prints were cropped by the lab, and slide mounts covered edges. I noticed, because I scanned.

 

If nothing else, the optical viewfinder saves batteries. That's why I bought an SD800 - a trip to the Grand Canyon, where the only place with electricity is Phantom Ranch.

There are three benefits from an optical viewfinder over any LCD, it helps to see the framing in bright sunlight, a place where some

80% of images is normally made; it helps to greatly reduce power consumption, LCD is the single biggest consumer of power in digital

cameras and completely unnecessary for framing as such; and it helps with holding the camera more steadily, tight against one's

body, instead of at arms length. Old medium format cameras achieved these same three benefits but the finder needed to be shaded

in bright sunlight (either by Han or by using the loupe and holding the camera close to face) and the strap was used to steady the

camera against the neck when holding it down at arms length, something that is never done with today's digicams. Some people

mistakenly think that holding a camera at arms length is okay, but 100 years of photographic history is not wrong. View cameras are

held that way, but used on a tripod. Press cameras of old would be the only exception and they were used with a flashbulb

oftentimes.

<p>This is a highly interesting thread for me. But we should differentiate between two basic factors. One is what a camera would fit a today's kid of 10. The other is a discussion about the place of viewfinders in current popular cameras, within the historic evolution of the camera industry.</p>

<p>Let's start with the last. Dave is absolutely right. A camera without a decent viewfinder is not a decent camera. But it not the only undecent consumer camera along the history of camera evolution.</p>

<p>Alongside the first Leicas, or somewhat later, manufacturers had the nerve to through to the market cameras without any device to help the eye to meter the distance. This nerve continued afterwards with the depht of field cameras like the Olympus Trip 35 and so many others. They were nice for landscapes but an absolute disaster for close distances, unless you developed a precise skill. Alongside this deviation, small compact cameras, used to bear no manual control of aperture and shutter speed. Later they did.</p>

<p>The sinn of manufacturers towards the consumers, continued with those absolutely unpossible to view miniature viewfinders, extending up to the compact film AF consumer's cameras. The lack of viewfinders in consumer cameras today is not so much of a surprise. It is not about the consumers becoming smarter, but camera industry trying to enlarge profits, reducing costs. This is marketed as if it were the New Fashion. After all what the millions do know ?</p>

<p>It is of interest as well that the same process took place in its own way with the most pro cameras too.</p>

<p>The SLR camera was no doubt a much more evolved camera than the rangefinder one. It enabled a comfortable extension of the lens range. But the pro manual focus SLR camera was objectively harder to focus than a pro rangefinder. Besides, it seems that manufacturers didn't invest too much in quieting that sort of earthquake inside the camera, each time you triggered the shutter. The OM 1 started to try changing this trend, remaining to day the most relatively quiet manual focus SLR, but later models left the issue aside.</p>

<p>The AF film camera came to rescue both pro and consumers. But the depht of field marks were unnecessary left out, on behalf of nothing else. Most of the consumer level AF viewfinders continued to be trash.</p>

<p>Now with the age of digital, and the highly advance of LCD, manufacturers "educate" the masses in that viewfinders are obsolete. Try it under the sun and it will feel the same as trying to elucidate a phone LCD screen under the sun. Dave is pointing to a real problem no matter if for 1 billion consumers it is for granted they cannot enjoy this feature. The problem is there, no matter if you ignore it.</p>

<p>A totally different issue is what camera will fit a 10 years old kid. Here I do agree with those proposing the same viewfinderless the other kids have. Why ? Not because of the fun, or the age, or any of the arguments forwarded here, although the support mine.</p>

<p>My argument is that it is part to learn how to live in an unperfect world. I have relative who because of the meterless device cameras learned to meter distances by eye. I was astonished.<br>

- "Pa, how I can make a picture under the sun?"<br>

- "Sweety you will have to guess, point and shoot". That's how youngsters learn what we do not know. That's how some of us got the skill of measuring exposure t by eye, without light meter.</p>

<p>From this viewpoint Dave will not make a favour to his daughter if he buys her a $500 ~ $1000 camera with a good viewfinder. Dear Dave you will be miseducating your daughter in the problems of her generation to solve, like we have solved the crappy issues of the camera industry at our time.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p> </p>

<p>[[some people mistakenly think that holding a camera at arms length is okay, but 100 years of photographic history is not wrong]]</p>

<p>Hundreds of millions of uploaded to photo sharing sites taken with your supposed "incorrect" method prove your argument pointless and wrong. </p>

 

<p>Up until recently I thought that having a camera with an optical viewfinder was essential. That taking a photo with your arms outstretched was absolutely the wrong way to take a photo. That changed when I started using my point and shoot camera for taking macro shots as the optical viewfinder is absolutely useless in macro mode. I became more comfortable using the LCD and the Nikon P7000 that I use has an optical viewfinder that is so off-centered that it renders it almost useless. Holding the camera at arm's length was a bad idea in the film days because it was impossible to avoid camera shake. Today's digicams have vibration-reduction built-in to counter any camera-shake. I also use a tripod when I can and only use the LCD for composing and checking foucus accuracy. It took me a long time to be converted to using the LCD. The only time I use the optical viewfinder is when I'm out in very bright sunshine and I cannot see the image properly on the LCD. When using the optical viewfinder I have to recognize that what I see in the viewfinder is not what I'll get as the recorded image.</p>

<p>Well said, Alex.</p>

<p>A few years ago my mother (who is in her 60s and grew up with film SLRs and film rangefinders) purchased a point-and-shoot digital camera with an optical viewfinder. At first she used the optical viewfinder exclusively; she was entirely uninterested in using the LCD for anything other than showing friends the pictures she had taken.</p>

<p>Well, long story short, eventually she stopped using the viewfinder and started using the LCD to compose and take pictures, because the viewfinder was so off-center that she had been cutting off people's heads, feet, arms, etc.</p>

<p>Thanks to the fact that most point-and-shoots have image stabilization now (including all of the ones I linked to on the previous page), holding the camera at arm's length really isn't a big deal. I'll be honest and admit that my hands are shakier than they used to be, and yet I'm able to get sharp, shake-free photos 90% of the time with my viewfinderless P&S held at arm's length.</p>

<p>And it's wonderful for macro!</p>

<p>I agree. LCD is better than a very bad viewfinder, or no viewfinder at all. But one should not deduct that an LCD is superior to a good viewfinder. Image stabilisation gives 2-3 stops. What if you need more? Hundreds of millions of posted images don't mean a thing. Anybody care to guess how many percent of National Geographic's images, for example, have been shot at arms length on LCD? Why? If the LCD is so good, why the pros have not realised it yet? Sure. LCD is handy on tripod, a bit like composing with a view camera. And it helps to use a dark cloth, so that you can actually see what you are aiming at, unless it is dark anyway.</p>

<p>OK, let's not get silly here. We're talking about a 10 year old child, not a National Geographic photographer! (Sure, she could someday be a National Geographic photographer, but we don't know that yet, and I don't think dad should buy her a D3x at this point just in case she might turn out to be the next Steve McCurry!)</p>

<p>For the record, though, there seem to be quite a few accomplished professional photographers who are willing to use LCD-only cameras such as the LX5 and S95 when they don't want to lug their DSLRs with them.</p>

<p>I absolutely agree that an LCD is not better than a <em><strong>good</strong></em> viewfinder. Keyword here is "good." I've yet to find a compact, affordable point-and-shoot, in the OP's price range, that has a <em><strong>good</strong></em> viewfinder. They've all been frustratingly bad.</p>

<p>Ilkka, how do you know that the pros who use DSLR's only use the optical viewfinder? I've read of many who use the LCD because they can see 100% of the image (most OVF's on DSLR's show under 100%) and because they can fine tune focusing much better on the LCD. Times have changed. So have people's techniques.</p>

<p>There are two discussions going at this thread. One is about what fits a 10 years kid. I agree with those that oppose a viewfinder camera.</p>

<p>The second debate is about LCD vs Viewfinder. No doubt at all that the LCD is a great advance with multiple advantages. But with an LCD-only camera you cannot make a photograph under the sun.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Ruben </p>

<p>[[but with an LCD-only camera you cannot make a photograph under the sun.]]</p>

<p>The above must be in the running for the most absurd thing written on photo.net in at least the past month, possibly for all of 2011 thus far. </p>

 

<p>I used an LCD-only camera in extremely bright sunlight today and was able to successfully make a photograph. :-) Yes, it would have been a bit easier if I'd had a nice viewfinder, but it wasn't that difficult and it certainly wasn't impossible. The good news is that LCDs are getting brighter and more glare-resistant all the time, which helps a lot.</p>

<p>For what concerns the kids getting into photography i think that considering the fact they are not used to have a viewfinder has its importance, ive see that with my nieces, i couldnt distinguish a fig with the glare on the LCD and they could. So i receive the reply "you need new glasses"...<br>

Point is: i got used to the viewfinder, i got used to hold the camera in a certain way, i was used to heavier cameras that are not that easy to hold steady at arm lengh, kids arent used to it and adapt quite easily to the system they have now.<br>

If we were giving a 35mm reflex to one of the first photographers i would wonder if he would complain about taking pictures with a camera that doesnt need a tripod. Would he be shaking all over because he has to hold it and press the shutter instead of aiming his old big wooden box and take the cap off the lens?<br>

if someone really needs a viewfinder retrofitting an LCD viewfinder could be a solution, the camera is held like usual.</p>