Who needs a viewfinder anyway?

<p>I don't automatically put No OVF as a con, and I don't automatically put small size as a Pro.</p>

<p>However, I automatically put mirrorless as something less than the normal, as a con</p>

<p>[[The camera is more stable when you're bracing it against your face]]<br>

<br /><br>

It's a wonder how anyone with a waist-level finder ever managed to make an image at all! <br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a wonder how anyone with a waist-level finder ever managed to make an image at all!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is silly, I'd hardly equate shooting with a WLF with shooting by viewing through a LCD on the back of a camera. Look how people physically pose themselves when shooting with a WLF, its a much more stable posture as you can brace the camera against your body, use a neck strap to pull down on and give extra inertia. I don't see how you can accomplish anything like this with a LCD viewing screen.</p>

<p>I think it's odd no one has touched on this but with a viewfinder the composed image takes up 99% of your FoV. This has always been the advantage of a viewfinder to a waist level finder since your increasing magnification.<br>

Also, people are repeating that bright days are bad for live view. Low light (In my opinion) is far worse as most sensors aren't bright enough to render an image. At least at the speeds required for live view (or an EVF) on a dark night.<br>

My 0.02C</p>

<p>I think being able to preview how various exposure settings, art filters, B&W mode, etc will look before the photo is taken is a huge advantage whether viewed in an electronic viewfinder or an LCD screen. I used my old Nikon D50 with an AIS lens today (no metering), and it was an unpleasant experience. I missed my mirrorless cameras.</p>

<p>One more variable - a tripod. With an M43 on a tripod, I see (pun intended) no problems with a screen rather than a viewfinder - indeed it seems easier to compose and check for junk round the frame edges etc, and easier to shade the screen in bright light. But at eye level, with the neckstrap taught to add stability as Sanford says, and a bit of wobble, and bright light, things get harder. But far from impossible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I managed to squeeze in 31 photographs today between pointless threads.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You started this thread yourself - is it one of the pointless ones?<br>

It seems so to me. A lot of people took time to explain their reasons, dismissing them makes the whole thread a rather rethoric question. Why just not agree to disagree, and enjoy whatever solution you prefer? Some people prefer viewfinders for their own reasons, others do not for their own reasons. Easy as that.</p>

<p>A few days ago I was taking some photos of a railway car being put back on the tracks after an accident. The only position I could be in was facing directly into the sun. It wasn't a problem as I was using the LCD viewfinder on my Canon SX30. A guy next to me with a small point and shoot was complaining that all he could see in his rear LCD was his face. Glad I had the viewfinder on mine!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do need a viewfinder but let me make it clear that I need a real, good viewfinder. The kind that came with the Sony A900, Nikon D3. not other kind of viewfinder. With the lousy optical viewfinder I think I would agree with the OP that the LCD is fine.</p>

If I spot a scene I would like to photograph I would then have to put on my glasses to be able to see the LCD screen clearly. I also like the steadiness of having the camera against my face.

<p>I didn't call it pointless, Bruce did. I don't think it is at all. I use a G2 with a viewfinder and a GF1 without and sometimes I like the results of the GF1 better and I'm trying to deduce why. My conclusion is that shooting without a viewfinder produces different, if not better results. Same lenses, same sensor, I'm just holding it differently.</p>

<p>The correct term for the LCD screen is "vanity mirror".<br>

I missed so many shots trying to shoot into the sun with my E-P2 because my sunlit face completely blocked any detail of the framed subject. The VF-2 overcomes that and has higher resolution, making focusing more accurate for many subjects, especially close-ups where DOF is minimal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who needs a[n] [optical] viewfinder, anyway?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone who prefers having an <em>optical</em> pathway from his subject to his eye rather than an <em>electronically mediated</em> one.</p>

<p> </p>

I think the key for me is that a high quality optical viewfinder offers a more clear and larger view of the subject, allowing

me to react better to subject expressions while photographing. I've tried current electronic viewfinders and it was a

disaster, the expression in the photo was completely different from what I thought I had in the evf. Thus my mirrorless

cameras will most likely be of the Fuji style, with both optical and electronic viewfinders integrated into the camera. I am

just waiting to see what the X-Pro1 will be like in terms of handling and user interface. It's promising that key controls

(shutter speed and aperture have their own dials). A drawback seems to be that the 60mm viewfinder image is not magnified fully but is only marked in the VF, much like with a Leica M. Most likely I will also buy the X10, it has a surprisingly good zooming optical viewfinder and I like the unassuming looks and fast zoom, and of course the mechanical zoom control. But above all the viewfinder stands out.

<p>WNAVA?</p>

<p>I do!</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00a7Th"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=499641">Bruce Rubenstein</a>, Mar 09, 2012; 07:08 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When the sun is hitting the LCD such that you can't see anything on it, the desire for viewfinder is more than just a personal bias.<br>

If people spent less time staring into their belly button and actually went out side and took pictures with their cameras, there would be fewer pointless threads... Maybe.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00a7WT"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=278185">Christopher Thompson</a>, Mar 09, 2012; 11:02 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's a wonder how anyone with a waist-level finder ever managed to make an image at all!<br>

This is silly, I'd hardly equate shooting with a WLF with shooting by viewing through a LCD on the back of a camera. Look how people physically pose themselves when shooting with a WLF, its a much more stable posture as you can brace the camera against your body, use a neck strap to pull down on and give extra inertia. I don't see how you can accomplish anything like this with a LCD viewing screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some LCDs tilt. BAM! There's your answer. Since I would otherwise be using a Yashicamat as a walkaround camera, viewing on a tilted LCD is more natural to me. Plus it isn't backwards, so I can occasionally photograph moving objects without the desire to vomit!</p>

<p>I think the factor that most of these 'no OVF' discussions leave out is the reasonable alternative. When looking at any compact camera with an LCD, how many of those cameras could actually support a good-quality OVF while still being about the same size? Clearly it's impossible with a mirrorless SLR, unless you want a viewfinder that only works with certain lenses. If you look at a new Canon Elph with a 7x zoom or whatever they have now, and compare it to an older one with 3x zoom and an OVF, the finder is so small that even in bright light it's barely better than the LCD.<br /><br />The reason I buy small cameras is because I want small cameras. If I need to give up a good OVF to make the camera smaller, that's fine. Good OVFs do not lend themselves to small cameras ... so if you want an OVF, don't buy a small camera. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, complaining that a small camera doesn't have an OVF is the same thing as complaining that a little tiny lightweight car doesn't have a V8 engine. The two things just don't go together.</p>

 

 

<p>I thought I did. I don't. It's actually even a bit liberating to shoot without one. It also helps that my Samsung NX200's display is an OLED.</p>

<p>"As far as I'm concerned, complaining that a small camera doesn't have an OVF is the same thing as complaining that a little tiny lightweight car doesn't have a V8 engine. The two things just don't go together." Just as well that did not occur to the designer of the Olympus OM series! :)</p>

<p>It's a pity that no-one wants to produce twist head cameras, like the Coolpix 990 or S10 models, any more. They provide the widest range of options I've found for hand-holding. Then there's the Sony R1 with its EELV and top mounted LCD combination, which is even better. None of the cameras, which I've tried, with hinged rear screens seem anything like as convenient as those two approaches.</p>

Shoot a Leica and you will understand. Of course this is an outstanding viewfinder - some compact bodies like the Canon

G series have a very poor optical viewfinder. In terms of stability I actually think this is most important for keeping a

constant subject distance with fast lenses. I can shoot a Canon FD85 F1.2 wide open handheld on my G1 with the EVF

but not using the rear screen unless I use a tripod. The problem is that with a DOF of an inch or so the LCD does not

allow me to keep the subject distance constant enough but the EVF does. This is not due to me holding the camera at

arms length just the fact that it is harder to stay still and upright using the LCD. I suggest that you try this with a fast lens

and you will see what I mean. Of course if you only plan to shoot slower AF lenses then this is not a consideration

<p>Hopefully I didn't miss someone already pointing this out, but I got a Hoodman device that is more or less a Loop. I can put it on my LCD screen and look at it through a viewfinder to better see what my camera sees while I'm out in the field. With the sun at your back, this little additional product helps with being able to see your composition. Its a little pricey at $79.00, but works great. You can't attach it, but if you drape it around you neck and use it when necessary, it's the perfect tool. However, if your camera has a hot shoe, they do have an attachment.</p>

<p>The biggest advantage of using a LCD screen instead of a OVF or EVF is the ability to be part of the event while you shoot the picture. The moment you put you eye into the EVF/OVF, it is like putting blinders on. You only see what you are capturing. Works if you do not want to be part of the party, and are attending only as a photographer. But as an enthusiast, I want to take pictures without taking myself out of the activities. Think about it.</p>

<p>Interesting, looking back on this thread almost two years after I posted my anticipated preferences. Since then I've had the opportunity to extensively use both rear-screen-only digicams and a mirrorless model with a good EVF, the Nikon V1.</p>

<p>Turns out I still appreciate having a viewfinder for the reasons I gave in 2012. But I adapted to the rear-screen-only method more readily than I'd expected. It's handy for candid snaps where I'm more concerned about timing than precise framing. And I still appreciate the EVF for the 25% or so photos that depend more on precise framing.</p>