Touch Screens

Touch screens----I hate them , but it seems that all the (better) newer camera's have them.

Are there any exeptions to this ?.

 

Another pet peeve of mine is the inclusion of video capture capabilities in what SHOULD essentially be "Stills" cameras.

 

Does anyone else feel as I do ?.

 

:D :D :D :D :D.

 

Cheers.

.

Agree about video - my K3 has it, but I've never used it. Only time I might do is if something 'newsworthy' (such as Avocets hatching) occurred in front of me. Touch screens - never tried. Only one I have is on my phone - and since I need to remove my spectacles (nurse) to see that, I feel that on a camera it would be of very little assistance.

My Canon 6D has video, which I've used a few times, but no touch screen. The newer model Canon 6D ii does have a touch screen and, from video's I'v seen, changing focus and other settings does look a lot faster and more intuitive via a touch screen. So I'd seriously consider a touch screen for my next camera.

 

An increasing number of people are now completely used to using touch screens on their phones, tablets and in their work environment. So it makes sense that camera brands offer the same kind of "user interface" too. From what I see on the Canon 6D ii, you don't actually need to use the touch feature for the screen at all. Though I'm not sure whether this applies for newer models or will in the future.

 

Modern digital cameras still are designed primarily designed for stills photography. Just as Camrecorders are designed for video recording. However some 'visual storytellers' want to use both photos and video. And some video photographers just prefer to use a DSLR/Mirrorless for better quality in low-light situations, greater DoF, interchangeable lenses, etc. Video has become the 'preferred'online medium, especially by young people. One Market research report says that the consumption of on-line video grew by 60% between 2016 and 2019. Basically, people are demanding, getting and sharing much more video on-line than in previous years. So it seems natural that camera Brands would want to include - and continue to improve - video photography.

 

There have been a couple of events at which I've shot both stills and video. Some situations - notably where 'sound' or 'movement' are important - are just better expressed in a video clip than in a still photo. A speech, interview, music or dance for example. Others are better expressed in a still photo instead of - or in addition to - a video clip.

 

Over the years, my local ''photo exhibition' has included more and more video and mixed media installations. This reflects IMHO a trend in which photographers see themselves less and less as either stills or video photographers but both. Of course, many will come to specialize in one or the other.

 

 

 

Touch screens----I hate them , but it seems that all the (better) newer camera's have them.

Are there any exeptions to this ?.

 

Another pet peeve of mine is the inclusion of video capture capabilities in what SHOULD essentially be "Stills" cameras.

 

Does anyone else feel as I do ?.

 

:D :D :D :D :D.

 

Cheers.

.

A significant number of both prosumer and professional videographers--especially those targeting the online streaming and 'episodic' markets are using DSLR and mirrorless cameras for their work. Containing equipment cost is a significant factor in why this is--as well as the incredible scope of affordable additional equipment and gear to use with them for this purpose. In the DSLR realm, Canon seems to lead with the better functionality and acceptance.

 

I do a bit of this with my Nikon D7100. The focus response is not as good as Canon's, but it works for me. Ultimately, the video functionality does not affect the still capture abilities of the camera. If someone does not want to use it, ignore it...

 

Most everything is moving or has moved to touch screen. Not having used it on the size of display incorporated into most cameras, I cannot comment. But the text generations have no trouble--and that is the dominant market focus these days. Time marches on... :)

Edited February 8, 2021 by PapaTango

You can turn off the touch screen control in the camera and just use the regular physical dials and buttons. Personally I like having the option of using the touch screen when it's convenient.

I find that in conjunction with using Live View on my D500 the touch screen facilitates focusing, both manual and auto. Also, when reviewing shots it helps a lot to be able to move the magnified view to different parts of the frame. In the menu it was most noticeably helpful when I wanted to change the name of something. To date I haven't said "darn that touch screen." What about the touch screen has been a practical hindrance or annoyance to you?

 

I don't use video on my DSLRs. I'm a little perturbed that it's something I end up paying for when I buy the camera and when Live View isn't working right the first thing I check is if the Still/Video switch got bumped to video, and that usually is the culprit. I guess I should tape that switch on the outside of the Live View button down so I don't have this problem.

Edited February 8, 2021 by tonybeach_1961

I changed cameras last year, and my new one (Canon 5D Mark IV) has a touch screen. To my surprise, I have found it useful.

 

I'm new to the EOS stuff and believe the 5D IV could be operated with disabled touch screen? -

 

I haven't found any functions on the 5D IV that require use of the touch screen. I access functions via the touch screen when it's convenient and use the buttons and dials when it's not. You can simply ignore the touch screen functions when you don't want them. I haven't even looked to see whether they can be turned off.

 

Re video: I also have next to no interest in it. However, given the small size of the camera market (even the market for ILCs has shrunk, albeit not anywhere nearly as much as the market as a whole), it makes economic sense for the manufacturers to have only one variation of a camera rather than two, one with video and one without. Moreover, to the extent that the video functions are integrated into the camera's electronics, it would be expensive to have two versions. So I'm resigned to having a camera that does things I don't care about.

Edited February 8, 2021 by paddler4

Touch screens----I hate them

They are like people; i.e. yes, I hate some of them too: The ones on work's coffee maker & my hiking GPS are absolutely horrible. I'm getting along with my Android tablets.

I'm new to the EOS stuff and believe the 5D IV could be operated with disabled touch screen? - At least it seems to have enough dials & buttons to do so but the touch screen felt nice to have, especially on an unfamiliar camera without brand specific muscle memory.

I don't get the appeal of DSLR video, without EVF and a rigid rear screen. But I guess if I'll get asked to tape something and deliver the 5D's unwieldy 4K files, I'll safe a spare lens cap's worth in razor blades by never getting asked again :)

 

Maybe buy two more seasoned good cameras, instead of a single new one?

It is possible to find cameras without all the fancy features, by the way.

Uses the popular 3.25x4.25" 124 Film

What about the touch screen has been a practical hindrance or annoyance to you?

Nothing really, on my cameras that have touch-screen capabilities, I have turned them off. There's no need for them on the D500 for me (hardly ever use live view and don't do video). Haven't found a reason to activate the feature on my Sony A7R3. Neither did I bother with the plethora of its video settings - even if I wanted to do video, I wouldn't know how to choose the proper ones.

it makes economic sense for the manufacturers to have only one variation of a camera rather than two, one with video and one without. Moreover, to the extent that the video functions are integrated into the camera's electronics, it would be expensive to have two versions. So I'm resigned to having a camera that does things I don't care about.

+1

Thank you all for your responses.

 

Yeah-----"kicking and screaming" won't work.

 

:D :D :D

 

Cheers.

Does anyone else feel as I do ?

Some have it even worse!

 

"I don't have pet peeves like some people. I have whole kennels of irritation."

—Whoopi Goldberg

Sony cameras have had touch screen controls for focusing for at least one generation of cameras. It was introduced to the Sony menu with the A7Siii, and continued with the A1. While the menu organization is greatly improved, I'm not convinced the ability to touch in additition to using hardware controls is a great advantage. My fingers are not especially fat, but still span at least two menu selections. I have to be very careful. On the other hand, manual controls work every time.

It is possible to find cameras without all the fancy features, by the way.

[ATTACH=full]1375350[/ATTACH]

Kodak No. 3 Folding Camera

Uses the popular 3.25x4.25" 124 Film

 

Lovely camera, perhaps you can suggest where I can find the BIG 122 film... :rolleyes:

The only touch screens I have to endure are on my old Paperwhite, and newer Kindle fire - the newer book is so quirky, that I use the older one most of the time. Video on DSLRs is no problem - I obviously don't have to use it. The only place it is mildly irritating is in the camera manuals where it takes up a great deal of space. I'd pay extra for a manual without the video and Liveview material.

I guess young people have learnt how to use a touch-screen at the same time they were learning to read. It's not surprising they might want to control their camera that way. It only bothers me on my only modern digital (EOS M50) because I can accidentally move the focus point. It doesn't happen often, because I mostly leave the screen folded away; I like a viewfinder.

This laptop has a touch screen, and I love it.

Touch screens----I hate them , but it seems that all the (better) newer camera's have them.

Are there any exeptions to this ?.

 

Another pet peeve of mine is the inclusion of video capture capabilities in what SHOULD essentially be "Stills" cameras.

 

Does anyone else feel as I do ?.

 

:D :D :D :D :D.

 

Cheers.

.

 

Yes for touch. Hate them

 

Used to think as you do for video as well. But once I got into it I liked the option.

 

...so 50% agree.

Get yourself a Ricoh GR3, the touchscreen can be turned off and the video button can be preprogrammed (I’m sure this is true of a lot of modern cameras).

 

Having said that, I actually like touchscreens especially for focus point placement.

Though I usually turn mine off on the cameras I had it on, I did find it useful on a Panasonic GX7 when messing with video to use the touch screen to move the focus point. Also a little different but when controlling a camera remotely with your phone and moving focus. Usually I leave it off as my nose always hits the darn screen and changes things :)

My Sony has a touch screen option, which I've turned off and ignored so far.... but I could see its usefulness for positioning an AF or magnification point. So I may train myself to use it.

 

Same with video. It's not my goto medium, but I've used it where sound & vision together are essential to the subject. In fact it offers challenges that I've found interesting once I got into it.

 

I'm really not seeing an issue with having additional features in a stills camera. If you don't want to use 'em - don't use 'em.

 

Ignore those features and pretend they're not there. It's that simple!