Sanford Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Every mirrorless camera review always puts "lack of a viewfinder" under the "cons" column. We are already predisposed to think we are shooting with an inferior tool if there is no viewfinder and we are relegated to composing on the LCD screen. I never found this a problem, and may even be an advantage allowing for much more versatility. We are not stuck at eye level, we can hold the camera overhead, down low, are arms length, and so forth. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Perhaps the point is that cameras that <em>do</em> have a viewfinder (and an LCD) let you do it whichever way you like. Cameras without ... don't.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_klaffenbach Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I've assumed that it's not generally possible to hold a camera as still at arms length as it is when holding it tight to your face, so that would put it in the "cons" column. Also, as I get older, and start to "play the old trombone"*, it's even worse. On the other hand, I haven't seen a good experiment on this - it would be interesting to know how many stops are lost.</p> <p>* become presbyopic and have to hold the LCD even farther away in order to focus on it</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosvanEekelen Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Holding a camera at eye level may be more stable than holding it at arms' length. I don't think you can hold an EF 100-400 IS lens or its equivalent stable in the latter position. OK, David beat me with this one :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>A finder is easier to us than an LCD when the sun is at your back.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>They also automatically put "small size" in the "pro" column - even though depending on what lens is attached, the small size of the body makes it harder to stably hold the camera/lens combo. And that doesn't have to be a lens as huge as a 100-400mm.</p> <p>As to the lack of a viewfinder - clearly a "con" for me; for the same reason that David and Jos mentioned. So much so, that I will not buy a mirrorless unless it has a useable optical or hybrid viewfinder built-in - not an attachment.<br> Sure, one could also attach on of those hoods to the LCD and use that as an eyelevel finder - though I wouldn't call this a "compact" solution anymore.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltflanagan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I have a Nikon V1 which is mirrorless and has a pretty good electronic viewfinder. I've read posts from quite a few people who have taped over the sensor that switches between rear LCD and EVF so the EVF is always on. I absolutely hate composing on the rear LCD but I have no problems if you are others enjoy it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcuknz Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I held off buying Olympus until I discovered that the attachable electronic viewfinder gets its signal from the sensor [ or something :-)] rather than like the imprecise attachable viewfinders of past years.<br />I would be reluctant to buy a camera without a viewfinder though in the right situation I quite enjoy working with the LCD [ like a LF camera's ground glass screen, we could equip ourselves with black cloths like the old-timers used ] <br />It was established with 'normal' lenses it made little difference to the result if you hold camera out or to your eye. The critical factor is knowledge of how to press the trigger without introducing camera shake. But hand holding a large lens like the 100-300 mentioned earlier out from the body would I think be an exercise to be avoided :-)<br />But for record snapshots the lack of a viewfinder didn't unduely hinder me when I took the below with my cellphone Nokia VGA in bright sunshine ... it was like shooting film, I didn't know what I had got until the signal was 'developed' at home :-)</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_yves_mead Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I need one. An LCD (especially a tilt'n'swivel screen) is a great additional viewing device, but I still vastly prefer an eye-level finder that lets me hold the camera close to my face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I find this whole "I don't like to have to shoot at arms length" concept difficult to understand. Unless you're far sighted suppose. Just because John Q. Novice shoots that way doesn't mean YOU have to shoot that way. I see using the rear LCD like using a Nikon F3 with a DA3 sports finder...on steroids! OK, direct sun can affect it, but mostly your head acts as a shield, even in bright sun. I simply don't have much problem with it. Lot's of people use pop-up shades or LCD magnifiers but I don't see the need for them. Personally, I've always hated squashing a fist full of camera against my face. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltflanagan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I find this whole "I don't like to have to shoot at arms length" concept difficult to understand.</p> </blockquote> <p>The camera is more stable when you're bracing it against your face. I also find it easier to track action when it's at my eye. As I said, I don't really care how you compose or take pictures. Whatever works for you is fine.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>And I really just don't like shooting with an LCD at arms length. Not only for the stability, I like peeking through a viewfinder, and excluding myself a bit with the image I try to make. It makes me feel much more engaged in actually taking and making the picture. Sure, it's a matter of my (lack of) discipline maybe, but to me, it's just not working as well with a LCD at distance. Same goes for the small size. In my hands, it just is a disadvantage. I like the size of my current camera perfectly fine, even if the weight is a penalty to take. There is a trade-off in everything.<br> If you like mirrorless cameras better, and get great results with them - fine. Great. I tried a NEX in a store. Hated how it handled, I'll stick to my DSLR, for now. Does not mean I think all NEX models are bad cameras, they're just not for me.</p> <p>But agreed reviews should be a bit more neutral on this. Size and handling are personal preferences, so they don't fit in either the 'pro' or the 'con' column.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>You missed my point, Walt. I understand why photographers hold the camera to their eye. What I don't get is why folks think when they use a mirrorless camera that they have to hold it at arms length.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Strap pulled tight, elbows braced against sides = fairly secure stable, shooting stance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'd *much* prefer a viewfinder. Maybe someday for cameraphones... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Melia Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>To use an LCD screen requires using my reading glasses unless I hold it out at arm's length vs an optical finder. <br /> I recall a post by Brad quite awhile ago (when he was using Sony F 707) about an advantage of screen being the scene is translated into two dimensions. I can certainly acknowledge this as this visualization is not an inherent talent, and is a major challenge for many of us.</p> <p>ps Brad your post came in while I was composing mine</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p><em>I've always hated squashing a fist full of camera against my face</em></p> <p>You don't have to squash anything with a well designed camera and viewfinder. For example, the Fuji X10 viewfinder will touch my glasses when I view through it, but no part of the camera touches my face. With my DSLRs, the viewfinder protrudes behind the back of the camera even more.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>We'll trade eye glasses and see, Ilkka :o). From my Canon FD's, Nikon FM2n's to the Olympus OM series, I've had to ensure the eye piece had a rubber ring of some kind because I couldn't see the entire viewfinder. Heck, I still can't see the whole OM ground glass even at full jam. The Nikon F3HP was the first camera I didn't need to do that with but by then it was just habit. And I do agree there is a sense of increased stability with the box against your face. I just didn't like it. To each his own.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crow0806 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I shoot outside at high altitude under post card skies much of the time and the LCD is about useless unless I can stand under a tree. There are times I can use it and really like it, but given a choice of one or the other I would choose the view finder.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 > The camera is more stable when you're bracing it against your face. This doesn't say more stable than what, but compared to bracing your arms against your ribs, I doubt it is true. I recall a test (years ago) where eye-level holding was no better than arm-length holding, based on the number of jiggled images with a point light source. Can't find the test now. Probably it depends on the person. You can always brace an elbow on some surface. For me the viewfinder is mostly useful for telephoto work, because it's hard to locate birds (and so forth) on an LCD. I could live without it, because I really don't give a damn about birds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>One of my main uses for this type of camera is for snaps at the theater, ballet and opera. Besides needing a virtually silent camera - which most P&S digicams do well - I also need an optical finder to avoid distracting people with the glowinky preview/review screen.</p> <p>Much as I'd like the Olympus XZ-1 for the small size and fast zoom I'd also need an accessory finder to make it really useful, which offsets the allure of the small size.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_rubenstein Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <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.</p> <p>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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I managed to squeeze in 31 photographs today between pointless threads. And, one of them is actually pretty good.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtk Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Sanford,<br> I see your point. Here is my real world scenario. I have trifocals. I shoot with a D90 (which also has live view) and an F3. I finally gave in after hours of research and over analyzing the whole thing and bought a G-1 Panasonic...largely because it had the EVF and I am planning on using it eventually with an adapter and some vintage Nikon lenses. I have found in the week that I have had it I actually seem to be using the LCD more than I thought....and not always "at arms length" either.<br> I find it interesting in all of the "reviews" of all of the Pany and Oly cameras they make it sound like they aren't "quite as good" as a full size DSLR....and like you observed the negative comments about the viewfinder thing. It might be the whole attitude that for some reason "if it ain't a DSLR with an optical viewfinder it just isn't quite a camera"<br> After getting comfortable with it so far I have not been using the D90 nearly as much. I have been totally satisfied with moving into the mirrorless system to compliment my current Nikon system and look forward to shooting more yet. So far the ONLY limiting factor for me is my checkbook....which then translates into big coins for fast wide angle glass (considering the 2x factor)<br> Anyhoo...Just my 2 cents worth....<br> Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Howard Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Lex, the XZ-1 is wonderful with the VF-2, no problem at all for size/usefulness. I love it so much I am about to sell my entire Pentax kit and go small m4/3 + XZ-1 as my whole digital kit.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now