dslr with flip screen?

<p>Is there a canon that has a flip down screen for waist level viewing BUT that isnt articulated so that it has to fly out to the side like a wing ? It should just stay behind the camera like on the 4/3 Nex or OM-D ?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>All Canon DSLR screens are hinged on the side of the camera body (to date). </p>

 

<p>Thanks for confirming that - I havent found one but I'm not familiar with all of them hence my post/question. I am already invested in canon (5D, lenses, accessories etc) so I was hoping to stay in the system<br>

Slightly off topic but does anyone know of any dslr body (nikon, pentax or any other) that complies?<br>

As I said in my original post that the Sony Nex bodies and the Olympus OM-D do so but they're smaller (sensor)</p>

Sony Alpha slr/slt. I like this type of design more as well.

<p>[[As I said in my original post that the Sony Nex bodies and the Olympus OM-D do so but they're smaller (sensor)]]<br>

<br>

The Sony NEX cameras have the same size sensor as the Canon 60D, 650D, 7D, etc. The Olympus sensors are smaller. <br>

</p>

<p>My preference for waist level viewing is a left over from my Rolleiflex TLR days (actually Hasselblad too).<br>

For candid shots I also find it less obtrusive than bringing the camera up to my eye. I think subjects find the top of my head less intimidating than eye level shooting :-)</p>

<p>While it provides another way of shooting, I don't think one should rely it overly. It's just another way of seeing...the seeing part is the difficult part of street shooting... </p>

<p>I believe that newer Canon DSLRs let you plug in an external monitor. You can get small monitors for this use. But mounting a monitor at your waist, even a tiny six inch one, could get cumbersome.</p>

<p>Youngsters can just kneel or squat down to take the picture, or even lie face down as if shooting a rifle. I guess you could also rotate the camera 90 degrees, then the flip-out screen will be pointing upward.</p>

<p ><a name="00ae5S"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=482130">Rob Bernhard</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 23, 2012; 11:02 p.m. said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>All Canon DSLR screens are hinged on the side of the camera body (to date).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't true. The prosumer and pro bodies don't have this feature. The screens are not articulated at all.</p>

 

<p>[[This isn't true. The prosumer and pro bodies don't have this feature. The screens are not articulated at all.]]</p>

<p>It should be obvious that the answer was given within the context of the question, David. </p>

 

<p>Sorry Rob, but you've lost me too - "hinged on the side of the body"?</p>

<p>I've just checked every camera I own - no hinged screens...</p>

<p>Rob, the question was about DSLRs. You said "All Canon DSLR screens are hinged on the side of the camera body (to date)." That IS NOT true. I was merely pointing out an incorrect statement.</p>

<p>I own three Canon DSLR bodies at the moment and none have hinged displays.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All Canon DSLR screens are hinged on the side of the camera body (to date). ...</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>[[This isn't true. The prosumer and pro bodies don't have this feature. The screens are not articulated at all.]]<br />It should be obvious that the answer was given within the context of the question, David.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect, Rob, the context of your first response wasn't obvious to me either. When you answered the OP's question with "<em>All</em> Canon DSLR screens ..." - that created its own context.</p>

<p>That being said, your response was <em>not</em> true.</p>

<p>[[is there a canon that has a flip down screen for waist level viewing BUT that isnt articulated so that it has to fly out to the side like a wing ? It should just stay behind the camera like on the 4/3 Nex or OM-D ?]]</p>

<p>It was obvious to me that the OP was talking about DSLRs with screens that rotate. As the OP already narrowed the scope of possible choices with his question, the word "all" is perfectly appropriate.<br /> <br /> If you decide to take the response out of context, well that's your problem, not mine. Whomever believes I actually thought that every single Canon DSLR has a screen that rotates are being willfully ignorant at best.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rob, why did you have to make it personal and call me "willfully ignorant at best?"</p>

<p>When someone uses an absolute, I think the reader has the right to assume that the writer meant it. We corrected you and now you defend you extremely weak position like a cornered wild animal and start calling us names. I think that you need to be more careful in your writing and not be so sensitive when you make a mistake.</p>

<p>What on Earth are you talking about, Rob?</p>

<p>The OP narrowed the scope of his question to "a Canon", and the only Canon DSLRs <em>without a fixed screen</em> are the 60D, 600D and 650D.</p>

<p>We're not being wilfully ignorant, you're failing dismally to communicate clearly. You said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All Canon DSLR screens are hinged on the side of the camera body (to date)...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And there's simply no context in which that statement is true.</p>

<p>If I came up to any of you and said: "Does Canon make a DSLR with a screen that's hinged like a NEX?" you could very easily answer: "No, all their screens are hinged on the side" and communication would have occurred. You knew exactly what I was asking and I knew exactly what you meant in your response. </p>

<p>While the OP did not word his question in the same manner, it was very easy, and obvious to see, that he was interested to find out more about Canon DSLRs with rotating screens. That is the basis of the question, and that is the reason for my answer. The answer is correct within the context of his question. </p>

<p>If you skimmed the question and made an assumption about the OP's intention, then the fault lies with you, not with me. I knew right away what he was asking and answered the question. </p>

<p>[[Rob, why did you have to make it personal and call me "willfully ignorant at best?"]]</p>

<p>When did I call you, personally, willfully ignorant? </p>

<p>[[now you defend you extremely weak position like a cornered wild animal and start calling us names]]</p>

<p>I am defending my position because it is defensible. I am not the one getting upset over this. For some reason, you are. </p>

<p>[[i think that you need to be more careful in your writing and not be so sensitive when you make a mistake.]]</p>

<p>You should practice what you preach. </p>

<p>[[The OP narrowed the scope of his question to "a Canon", and the only Canon DSLRs <em>without a fixed screen</em> are the 60D, 600D and 650D.]]</p>

<p>The OP does not know what Canon cameras are available nor what types of screens they may have. This is the whole point of his question. He does not know the 3 you mentioned, at all nor does he know if there are any others, maybe an older model.</p>

<p>[[is there a canon]]</p>

<p>Yes, he's talking about a Canon camera.</p>

<p>[[that has a flip down screen for waist level viewing BUT that isnt articulated so that it has to fly out to the side like a wing ?]]<br /> <br />The crux of the question is, for Canon cameras that have rotating screens, where is the hinge? Do they all rotate out to the side (as we all know they do)</p>

<p>[[it should just stay behind the camera like on the 4/3 Nex or OM-D ?]]</p>

<p>And this is the comparison. This is the clue to tell you his experience thus far is only with NEX or 4/3rds.</p>

<p>My answer is perfectly reasonable within the context of his question. His question was <strong>not</strong> about all Canon cameras. His question was about Canon cameras with rotating screens. He knows there are some, but he does not know which or how they rotate.</p>

<p>Anyone who feels the need to take my response out of the context does so willingly and purposefully. I fail to see why this is such an important topic to you but I've made my position abundantly clear. You are free to continue to enjoy making a mountain out of mole hill.</p>

 

<p ><a name="00aeEb"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=482130">Rob Bernhard</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 24, 2012; 02:55 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... Anyone who feels the need to take my response out of the context does so willingly and purposefully. I fail to see why this is such an important topic to you but I've made my position abundantly clear. You are free to continue to enjoy making a mountain out of mole hill.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect, Rob, all you had to do to clarify 'what you meant' was to write something like "my apologies for the miscommunication, what I meant was ..." instead of your stubborn self justification for your original post - which is still wrong, by the way.</p>

<p>YOU are the one making a mountain out of a mole hill. </p>

 

 

<p>LMAO - Bob's right, anybody who was <em>not</em> willfully ignorant (at least about Canon EOS DSLRs) would have understood the context - given this is an EOS forum. Heck even the OP knows that well and good. I originally thought David's comment was tongue in cheek, not serious, but... I was obviously wrong! </p>

Some major anger here...

<p>We have three levels of Canon's DSLR in home, 500D, 20D and 5D (fitting any context), but somehow none has a hinged screen.</p>

<p>In all fairness, Rob's last shot, posted on the Canon Thursday thread, was shot with a Rebel XT, which doesn't have an articulating LCD. I suspect he realizes his own camera doesn't have an articulating LCD. So perhaps we can give Rob a pass for having made a clumsy statement?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So perhaps we can give Rob a pass for having made a clumsy statement?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Probably - if he wasn't the only one not prepared to accept that fact, and then being so hell-bent on defending what he said as some ineffable pearl of wisdom too subtle for us even to grasp...</p>

<p>Normally I am just a lurker here but I just had to say something this time around. As an English teacher it really bothers me that it appears the general public does not have a grasp of basic reading comprehension. Apparently everyone has forgotten what context is. When they say the average person today reads on a 5th grade level I was thinking they were joking, but apparently they were quite serious. <br /><br />Rob was definitely kinder than I would have been especially when the offenders became offended after their snide and witty comments. Typically behavior of internet bullies. </p>