Live view VS viewfinder

<p>Besides the slow focussing in the live view, is there any other reason to use the viewfinder instead of live view, I like the idea of seeing the exposure changing on the screen as I adjust it, rather then clicking and see maybe it didnt turn out quite as I expected. (Im a beginner, hence me posting in here, so I am always adjusting and trying again until I get it right) Can someone please educate me :)</p>

<p>This depends entirely on your subject matter. If you're using Live View, you should use the histogram to judge exposure, not the brightness of the LCD. </p>

<p>Right. Do <em>not</em> trust what the image <em>looks like</em> in the LCD display as a gauge for the exposure. In most cases, you'll be overestimating the brightness of the results unless you've taken steps to turn the displays's brightness down.<br /><br />Get the metering right for a scene, and then consider locking in that exposure manually as you recompose. Lots of ways to approach this.</p>

<p>The reason to use live view for most people is to get the focus exactly right. Since you are seeing what the sensor sees you know exactly where the focus is. With the view finder there is always a chance it will not be focused exactly where you want it.</p>

 

<p>In the previous posts, there is no (other) reason to use the Viewfinder, only more reasons NOT to use it<br>

Even though many people prefer using livewiew for focusing. The problem is you are only seeing what the sensor <em><strong>saw</strong></em> (in less than perfect resolution and less than perfect refreshing rate of only a small part of the scene) and you only know where the focus <em><strong>was</strong></em>. With the view finder there is always a chance to see the focus immediately and take the shot at the right time where the focus is exactly where you want it. Also with the focusing screen of the viewfinder, you can check focusing at <strong>ALL</strong> points of the scene at the same time. However, that requires some good viewfinder and some practicing. That's why many people prefer using livewiew for focusing</p>

 

<p>Unless of course you have a Panasonic G3 which adjusts the EVF/LCD for three stops either way before compensating the way lesser live view systems work.</p>

<p>If you are concerned with the refresh rate of the EVF then frame with one eye and time the shot with the other looking around the camera ...I learnt this trick years ago when photographing kids who mimmiced me closing one eye :-) I am quite sure the refresh rate is wrongly blamed for the slow reaction of the human operators.</p>

<p>I never use Live view for focusing becuase even the best are comparing mush with mush and I have learnt to do it the modern way .. AF working off a small target area ... which the G3 has the smallest I've discovered to date. It also can be positioned anywhere on the screen if working with a tripod by means of the touch screen.</p>

<p>I kind of feel sorry for DSLR users trying to find focus with their dim viewfinders and antiquated systems :-)<br>

Newbies .. please note I am ribbing DSLR users with these comments even though they are true:-) </p>

<p>Another reason to use the viewfinder vs the LCD is if you're shooting handheld, it's much easier to hold the camera steady to avoid camera shake when the camera is at your eye, close to your body, then held out in front of your body. It may not matter so much when you're shooting in bright sunlight, but if you don't develop a good technique for holding your camera steady, you're likely going to be limiting yourself in low light conditions.</p>

For rank novices live view is a tremendous help with composition. With the viewfinder they are just looking through a large rectangular hole. With the LCD panel they are looking at a small picture. For waist to head shots with the viewfinder, the novice will place the head in the middle of the viewfinder. Then there is a lot of space above the head and it looks like the person is sinking out of the photo. On the LCD panel the person would see that and raise the head up to the top third of the photo. It also helps for straighter horizons and perhaps also for the telephone pole growing out of the subject's head.

<p>That holding the camera to your eye is superior to holding the camera at bent arms length is one of the popular mythologies of the photographic world. I prefer to hold the camera to my eye from long term habit but I know far more important is how you press the trigger.</p>

<p>Having an LCD is not that much different from the LF camera user setting up his composition on a ground glass screen ... though most using the LCD omit the black cloth ... there is so much habit and custom advocated as good practice it is hillarious if it wasn't so sad. Along with practices supposedly based on proficiency in the craft.</p>

<p>The newbie has been placing the face centre screen since adam was a boy irrespective of what viewfinding system they use, it comes of the average persons narrow angle of vision. It is normal practice that the more proficient photographer avoids when they think about it but if they were honest with themselves they would admit they have to conscientiously think about it to avoid doing it themselves ... LOL</p>

<p>Using the LCD has an important convenience of adjusting the distance of the lcd to the eyes easily and manually (or armly). This decided the choice of LCD over viewfinder</p>

<p>Your meter and "good" AF system are in front of the mirror. When you're in live view, the mirror is flipped up, so your camera is crippled. Plus, your camera is exponentially more stable pressed up against your face instead of held out in front of you like a cell phone, especially a DSLR, which is much heavier and bulkier. JC, it is absolutely not a myth, you have an additional axis of pitch to worry about when you don't have the stabilization of your face, plus your arms aren't as steady held out a length in front of you as they are close to your body, elbows bent, with the additional assistance of your neck muscles to provide a counter-force. Anyone is free to plainly test this with a glass of water. For partly the same reason, this is why a string monopod provides so much stability.</p>

<p>Really, your best bet for adjusting the brightness of your image is instead of using live view, just to trust your meter and understand how photography works. For example, 1 EV is double as much light. So, compared to a "perfect" exposure of a scene, +1 EV exposure compensation makes it twice as bright, while -1 EV makes it twice as dark. You'll make mistakes, but practice will quickly make this a moot point. Everyone, even the most successful, celebrated photographers in the history books messed up photos. That's how you learn; it's only a failure if you don't learn anything from it. Large format photographers had two things going for them using live view: first, they largely shot off of a tripod, or they at least weren't holding the camera out at arm's length. Second, 4x5" has about a 40 times larger capture area than the OP's sensor. Using an LCD for composition isn't bad; in fact for landscape SLR users, something like a Hoodman loupe is probably one of the most useful tools after the tripod. However, I doubt the OP is talking about using live view for careful composition work, but just for general shooting.</p>

<p>If you wanted a primarily live view camera, you should have gotten yourself one made for it like the Sony SLT-a57, not a Canon DSLR. I'm assuming that you don't have a very large investment yet, so it isn't too late to change. Check out the Youtube reviews of the camera. Sony makes cameras just as good as Canon, and so do Nikon and Pentax. You need to buy based off of what features work best for you; it sounds like the Sony would have been a better option in your case. You don't have to go for Canon just because that's what all the banners say at your local electronics store; there is no right answer when it comes to choice.</p>

<p>You could get something like the Panasonic G3 that JC mentions (I have a G2), but I wouldn't recommend one as their only system, and I bought mine on the downslope, right as the various products were being discontinued and were found at heavy discount. As much as JC feels sorry for DSLR users with their "antiquated" systems, I feel sorry for people that invest just as much money for noticeably inferior image quality and for a system that is wonderful for focusing and composing, as long as your subject is dead still. My D200 viewfinder (which the D80 and D90 share) is far far better than my G2 viewfinder in any light, bright or dim, although the difference is wider the darker it gets.</p>

<p>How do you manual focus using live view?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How do you manual focus using live view?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question! It looks like when someone uses LiveView, (s)he does not care about manual focus or like JC said, he ...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do it the modern way .. AF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even when talking about manual focus, that's mainly about the choice of focusing point only as in</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AF working off a <strong>small</strong> target area ... G3 has the smallest ... can be ... anywhere on the screen ... by means of the touch screen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In fact, that way is more "manually" because the man behind the camera chooses the focus (point) by hand, not by eyes</p>

 

 

<p>I only use live view when the camera is on the tripod, and in a position too inconvenient to look through the viewfinder (cranked up too high, or too close to the ground for a macro shot).</p>

<p>When you manually focus with a DSLR or SLR you select the part of the scene you want to be your primary focus and focus on that...I see little difference placing the focusing target on that point and letting a very competant machine do it for me, quicker than I would do it even though I <strong>only</strong> have contrast detection. <br>

What I do miss is the ability to use AF and then change to MF by way of a switch rather than menu and maintain that focus for subsequent shots. I have this with my FZ50 but sadly Panasonic dropped this from the G3. Being probably old fashioned I like the idea of being able to set focus manually and if that is not available by markings on the lens then I'm quite happy to let AF find a focus and then use it for subsequent shots. That removes the continual waste of time as AF finds focus for shot after shot at basically the same distance as for instance when I covered a series of presentations. Somebody with better eyesight probably could manually focus but I have got out of the habit after using bridge cameras with poor resolution EVFs for the past few years.<br>

Still designers cannot cater for evrybody :-)</p>

<p>Thank you John Tran,<br>

I could live with live view as washed out under bright light, slow refresh rate, very small screen etc...<br>

BUT It's useless for me when I can't use it to manually focus. The viewfinder for me is more important to manually focus than framing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I kind of feel sorry for DSLR users trying to find focus with their dim viewfinders and antiquated systems :-)<br />Newbies .. please note I am ribbing DSLR users with these comments even though they are true:-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't feel that way! I don't have a DSLR but with my 30+ year old SLR I can manually focus easily and quickly in very dim light without any problem and with my 50+ year old eyes and also at any point on the focusing screen too.</p>

<p>Me personally I use the live view when doing moon shots. I goto live view then magnify and manually focus to get it as crisp as possible</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When you have a mirrorless camera you don't have the mirror raised in live view :-)<br>

I f you follow me when I suggest the DSLR is a make-over of the 1950's design whereas bridge cameras are the true digital camera, except they sadly have not been developed to their true potential for all the effort going into flogging off the make-overs.<br>

After tonight I am muttering dark thoughts at panasonic designers for hiding 'review' in the menu of the G3 instead of having the button to press of the FZ50 .... steps forward and steps backwards ... URRRGH! If I'm wrong on that I would love to know :-)</p>