The Viewfinder-less Camera

I have a few viewfinder-less cameras. I hold them high, low, overhead, street level, stretch out my arms or bring them them in close simulating a zoom lens. The one thing I don't do is keep them at eye level like I would a viewfinder camera. My point is, I believe a viewfinder-less camera offers more compositional possibilities when you're are not tied to a viewfinder.

Had to use one - Tough camera - for work due to harsh weather conditions. That was enough - wouldn't give one houseroom. Anytime the light was wrong, the screen was virtually useless. Apparently there are people who like them and can make them work - count me out. A meal without meat isn't a meal - a camera without a finder in the same class of things. To each his or her own!

The old cardboard box cameras had small miniature right-angle prisms for "viewfinders". That;s not the least of the reasons that so many heads and feet were cut off in the resulting negatives. That's also the reason so many amateurs stood WAAAAY back to make sure they got the whole thing in.

I like the additional bracing that my face gives to the camera. My two hands alone seem to be less steady in addition to be maybe fighting each other.

My point is, I believe a viewfinder-less camera offers more compositional possibilities when you're are not tied to a viewfinder.

I can agree to that, as far as wide lenses are what we are supposed to shoot with them. As soon as lenses become "portrait" & narrower things get pretty nasty, at least for me. And I honestly don't understand why modern flippy screens don't come with the collapsible hoods we might recall from 6.5x9 - 9x12cm "consumer" cameras' ground glasses or even preferably with MF style metal hoods offering a chance to flip a loupe in, to use them as regular EVFs.

I'm usually using a 14mm (28mm equivalent).

My Nikonos VA's viewfinder was absolutely useless under water. It came with an add-on frame assist for macros and a box-type sight that worked, more or less, for everything else. The flippy screen on my D5100 was hoped to be a useful option for the atypical hold positions (a la Sanford), but it hasn't worked out as well as I had hoped, mostly due to too-dim an image on the screen. Still, it's more flexible than a fixed screen and has proven useful in certain situations. (Of course I made it more complicated by mounting an L bracket to the camera.)

 

I honestly don't understand why modern flippy screens don't come with the collapsible hoods

My associate bought one (with included loupe) for use with our Nikkor 19mm Tilt-Shift on his D850. It's absolutely essential so we can set and confirm the weird focus options available with the tilt-shift lens.

I have a few viewfinder-less cameras. I hold them high, low, overhead, street level, stretch out my arms or bring them them in close simulating a zoom lens. The one thing I don't do is keep them at eye level like I would a viewfinder camera. My point is, I believe a viewfinder-less camera offers more compositional possibilities when you're are not tied to a viewfinder.

 

That is shooting from the hip (more or less.) Yes, go ahead, no permission required. I shoot lot of my pix from the hip. (unframed)

 

If you are stuck to your viewfinder, shoot a shot before you get it to your eye for street work. Some times the shot is gone before you can eye it. One thing is for sure, no photo if you don't click.

 

You can't shoot 'in your face' shots like this and eye the subject. This was shot while walking by as I got up off the bench.

 

Staten Island Ferry NYC (Candid)

 

shooting from the hip

Slightly different issue - everyone who has been around photography for a decent length of time shoots from the hip on occasion - nearly all, I would wager without use of either finder or what Nikon calls the monitor. Most practical with wide lenses, but after enough practice can be done with anything up to a short tele. That irrespective of what features the camera may have for general use.

Can't you have a camera that does both? Like the cameras many use do? Some stuff seems to go well with a view finder, just one other "angle".

Can't you have a camera that does both? Like the cameras many use do? Some stuff seems to go well with a view finder, just one other "angle".

This is what I was thinking.

Given a camera with both I will alway default to the viewfinder. Its my Panasonic point & shoots that force me to try new angles.

Unfortunately, many of the small convenient, high quality cameras are without a finder. A few have one and others a relatively expensive add on EVF. The closest I could find to what I need, and it is excellent, is the Ricoh GXR. With the EVF added and one of the more capable lens modules, it is no longer "pocketable." The Leica D Lux, also excellent , but also just a bit large for convenience. If I can only have one of the two, the finder.is the important one. I could easily do without the monitor, as I did down all the film years.

My camera has both. I often do not use the eye level viewfinder. The screen suffices except when the sun washes out the view. Then the eye level viewfinder comes in handy.

"flippy" screens, I find that finny somehow.:rolleyes:

My first camera was a Yashica Matt camera. Since then I have never had a problem looking at a screen. Indeed, I found escaping from the traditional viewfinder gave me a sense of freedom,; no longer were all my photos...well, viewfinder fixed.

 

A sense of freedom to explore different angles in my photography.

 

Common on, the viewfinder, old timers thing. If the sun is too bright to see on the screen it is often too bright to see in the viewfinder.

 

I can see the screen on my Fuji in any light, and yes, bright sunshine.

If the sun is too bright to see on the screen it is often too bright to see in the viewfinder.

Bunk! Not down all the years - film or digital, have I been unable to see the viewfinder because things were too bright - on rare occasions, too dark can be an issue.

I cannot say the same for Sony, Nikon, Canon or Panasonic/Olympus screens.

 

Have you used a Fuji, Sandy.

 

Just given you a clear demonstration in the real world of photos.

Camera brands were not part of the original post- the issue was value of screens / monitors- some prefer them, others require viewfinders and have little use for them. A matter of preference and possibly, style.

You mostly use Nikons. I also use Nikons.

 

They are useless screens in the slightest amount of sunshine.

Everyone to their own.

 

Just adding a few thoughts.

 

That is a really good photo, invisibleflash.

My Sony RX100iv allows adjustments to make the eyefinder and screens brighter when the sun interferes.

"issue was value of screens / monitors- some prefer them, others require viewfinders" Sandy.

 

The quality of the screen to be able to see it in sunlight I would have thought relevant to the discussion. My bad if I'm wrong.

 

"Bunk! Not down all the years - film or digital, have I been unable to see the viewfinder because things were too bright - on rare occasions, too dark can be an issue" Sandy.

 

Sandy, I'm talking about electronic viewfinders....The image on the screen is a reflection of the image in the electronic viewfinder.

 

"My Sony RX100iv allows adjustments to make the eye finder and screens brighter when the sun interferes". Alan.

 

So do most of them. I can only talk of my practical experience, as a contribution to this post, having used various brands of cameras including a RX100 although not the latest version.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Allen Herbert