Would you buy a digital camera without an LCD screen?

<p>I'm curious for reactions to the following two "virtual products":</p>

<p>1) Would you buy a DSLR that did not have a rear LCD screen (i.e. imagine a Nikon Df without the screen).</p>

<p>2) Would you buy a mirrorless digital camera that had an eye-level EVF but no rear LCD screen?</p>

<p>Why even entertain such thoughts? Often in product development subtracting an essential component is, paradoxically, an existing product is a route to innovation (an iPhone is like a Blackberry without the keyboard; a mirrorless camera is like a DSLR without the mirror box). Specifically, getting rid of the rear LCD screen might have some direct benefits (e.g. lower cost, lower weight, lower battery consumption, more room on the rear of the camera for direct manual controls, such as switches for focusing and metering modes) as well as some indirect effects (e.g. preventing "chimping", forcing the cameras to be coupled wirelessly to smartphones to set custom settings, improving the user interface so that all needed functions could be accessed without resort to menus, etc.) Clearly, there'd be some disadvantages, such as the inability to review exposure and framing, check live histograms or focus via liveview and more. In a mirrorless camera with an eve-level EVF but without a rear LCD screen some of these disadvantages are removed, while the benefits of simplifying the user interface might remain.</p>

<p>Other than some Minox digital cameras and the Japanese lineage of very small USB keychain cameras, of which a recent iteration is the Fuuvi Pick USB Mini Camera, I can't recall a digital camera without a rear LCD screen. Even the diminutive Sony Qualia 016 had a diminutive LCD screen!</p>

<p>As you might be able to tell, I would like something like a Nikon Df without the rear LCD screen. I realize that would be a gutsy move for a manufacturer, but would also open up interesting opportunities, both for forcing more integration between the camera and smartphone (I already carry around a nice LCD screen in my pocket, why do I need another one on my camera?), for adding more room on the camera for more mechanical switches and buttons, and for changing the way we interact with the camera in use. Just wondering what other people think.</p>

In a word, no.

 

The rear screen is too useful, even just for accessing all of the menus needed for camera setup and

options. Doing that through an EVF, while possible, would be awful. I've tried it with my camera that has both

EVF and rear screen.

 

Also, a rear screen is the ideal viewing/framing option in many situations. That's not something I would

give up.

<p>No. Not only is a screen important (whether live view or not; evaluation of exposure, point of view. etc.) but a movable one also. My camera doesn't allow it, but I would love a highly orientable screen for various live view angles of view and for the additional possibility of closing it against the back of the camera for protection.</p>

If it was a digital Pentax LX or Nikon FM2 or some other camera with a mechanical gestalt, then yes I'd be willing to forgo the LCD. If it's just another piece of consumer electronics then no, you might as well go all the way.

<p>If the price was right, and the basic controls worked like rangefinder cameras (shutter speed, aperture, and an ISO button instead of inserting film), interchangeable lenses and the optical (not EVF) viewfinder/rangefinder was coupled to the lenses as in Leicas...I'd buy it in a flash. Not for everybody...but having grown up with magnificent rangefinders and SLRs, I'd love a reasonably priced digital one without all the pizzazz. Personally, I'd have loved to have had the reputed digital film cartridge one could insert into their rangefinder and SLR film bodies....except that it turned out to be a vaporware product.</p>

<p>I don't use live view or chimp, but the LCD screen is vital for controlling the menu options. I don't know how that would be possible without the screen...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you buy a DSLR that did not have a rear LCD screen (i.e. imagine a Nikon Df without the screen)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No! Can't imagine any circumstance where not having a rear LCD screen might even remotely be construed as being an advantage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you buy a mirrorless digital camera that had an eye-level EVF but no rear LCD screen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even though most of the information would be available in the EVF, it would be rather inconvenient to have to move the camera up to the eye to change menu settings or review images. So the answer here is also a very definite No!</p>

 

<p>If it had a heads-up display that projected onto the air in front of me and was controlled by gestures, definitely. Otherwise, it's about as exciting as a car with manual choke.</p>

<p>I don't like or need a rear LCD or display. But as others already mentioned it is almost impossible to access all the menu options without a LCD. Fortunately, I can turn it off completely during shooting, or just turn off the display for the current shot to prevent chimping.</p>

<p>In my case the rear LCD distracts far too much. I prefer a handheld light meter, because the histogram on the screen is just a lousy resemblance of a lousy jpg on a lousy, low res and uncalibrated screen.</p>

<p>Maybe you can remove the LCD if you have a wireless transmitter that lets you set the menu options on a display of a smart phone. But to be honest, I don't even have a smartphone.</p>

<p>However, there is one situation that comes into my mind where I would buy a camera without a rear display: If someone would manufacture a Rollei 35s D, that means a full frame 35s camera where you have dials for ISO, exposure time and aperture and no other gimmicks.</p>

<p>I wouldn't make it a major factor but having a fully articulated LCD is a definite plus to the camera I have along with its touch screen ... particularly so when working with tripod in 'studio' situation with my old eyes and old back :-)<br>

I have had the fully articulated screen available to me since I started with digital a decade ago, along with live view of course. Most DSLRs are way behind in the development stakes which why I don't have one now MFT gives me ILC. I had one before as a bridge camera user but rarely needed it or used it ... gave it away to a good cause in the end when MFT proved itself. </p>

<p>I have always assumed that my LCD switches off when it is folded back into the 'off/hidden' position when I am using the EVF most of the time. I rarely 'chimp' being happy with a one second review of the shot taken so there is no wasteful use of power.</p>

<p>Sounds horrible.</p>

<p>Years ago, when I was highly competent with special formatting on the Compugraphic typesetter for complex layouts, I worked briefly for a small printing company that pinched pennies by assigning one monitor to be shared between two Compugraphics and operators. The owners expected the operator without the monitor to enter all text, data and formatting codes without on-the-fly proofing, then proof it later when the monitor was available. This wasn't merely touch typing. There's a lot of specialized formatting that went into properly using a Compugraphic of that era. They wanted to use then-state-of-the-art equipment like a decades out-of-date Linotype machine. It was one of the worst working experiences of my life and I left in less than a week. Months later I bumped into the other employee - she'd quit a week after I did.</p>

<p>The entire concept, design and interface of a visually oriented tool - whether a typesetter or camera - <em>*is*</em> visually oriented. It makes absolutely no sense at all to hobble a tool that's intended for visual output. Would you make darkroom enlargements while wearing a blindfold? Why not follow this concept to the logical conclusion and remove all markings for shutter speeds, apertures, ISO, etc. After all, a real photographer has memorized the controls and knows the number of click stops or increments to count.</p>

<p>Get some low-tack temporary masking tape and cover up your LCD. Try it for a month or two. I'll bet you won't last a week before it drives you daffy.</p>

<p>Not a mirrorless as I don't want a mirrorless in any way.<br>

I have a Nikon Df and if it doesn't have the rear LCD screen it would be great. It would make the camera thinner which is the biggest complain I have about the Df. Being thick, it can not be handled like an old film SLR. <br>

While shooting I don't need the LCD screen. All the function you need the LCD screen for can be implemented as an app for the PC, Mac, IOS or Android device. These devices are larger and so easier to navigate thru the complex menus. They can have better color accuracy for ocasionally chimping. Now if you are the kind that chimp every shot then it won't work. </p>

<p>Most EVF cameras don't route everything to the EVF but even if it did, it would be kind of a pain in the buns and I hate a camera with a serious fault. I don't think anyone would manufacture one. Not a good idea.</p>

<p>Would I buy one without an LCD on back? In hot minute I would. It's nothing but a crutch and in my way, makes the camera too fat even for me. Never have liked them. Would I buy a mirrorless? Nope.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Given a choice between a rear LCD or a viewfinder (op0tical or electronic) I would have a viewfinder every time.</p>

<p>I remember the Compugraphic machines. Mine had a monitor and 8.5 inch floppy disks. Lex's boss was out of his cottonpickin' mind.<br>

You could buy the interface to hook it up to a PC for $75,000. We got Macs instead. Them "good ole days" were not always that good.<br>

I suppose you could build a digital camera with a screen like my old film Nikon F70 had, and you could do the menu thing with it. Don't think it would sell though. But Kodak wasn't that big on the digital camera which they invented.</p>

<p>No I would not buy a camera without a rear LCD screen.</p>

<p>Nor would I buy a car without a dashboard that has real-time information - both are important, for similar reasons.</p>

<p>No LCD might make sense in a very compact camera as long as it would have an EVF. Even the EVF might not be necessary if the purpose of the camera was monitoring. Or if you could use it in conjunction with another device that has its own LCD screen (like the Sony QX lenses).</p>

<p>Or maybe you can use such camera as a teaching tool in photography courses instead of old Pentax K1000s :)</p>

<p>Because I don't shoot in bursts or bracket, I can and do look at every shot on the LCD screen and check the histograms before moving on, just to be sure I don't need to take another. I also use Live View for maybe 50% of my photographs, so for me a LCD screen is essential and I wouldn't even look at a camera that didn't have one. I get the stuff about the LCD image being a jpeg, the screen being uncalibrated etc but its still more than useful to check an actual picture before you move on, and once you recognise that you can rescue a small amount of clipping and slight lack of screen accuracy becomes pretty irrelevant. Its certainly a lot better than relying on any meter - whether in camera or hand-held - and not being able to run a check on what you've actually done. Even after a dozen years relying totally on a hand-held spot meter, I'd now feel really strange over preferring to trust a process blind rather than checking out a decent approximation of my real photographs right after I've taken them. .</p>

<p>I also use the LCD screen to get rid of the most obvious wastes of space before I load them to my computer. </p>

<p>I'm curious for reactions to the following two "virtual products":<br>

1) Would you buy a DSLR that did not have a rear LCD screen (i.e. imagine a Nikon Df without the screen).<br>

2) Would you buy a mirrorless digital camera that had an eye-level EVF but no rear LCD screen?<br>

I haven't bought the Nikon Df nor any MILC but mainly because I dont agree to their prices (which does not mean I cant afford). However, I'd say these two options are not "virtual" and may be very realistic and I would buy them. Why? because rarely anyone would buy them and the prices would be much lower, lower to where I can agree to.<br>

I say it's realistic because some one may buy a Nikon Df new and hit the LCD on a rock so hard that the LCD is broken and somehow it's not repairable so it is on sale at a very low price and I buy it. I can use it fine without the LCD only that nobody is dumb enough to pay full price for a broken camera. The same thing goes for option 2 only that I have to consider a mirrorless as less than the one with a mirror<br>

By the way, even though I like the Df very much, I thought it would be dF or DF, not Df. I also think it's more like the FM than the F</p>

"Often in product development subtracting an essential component is, paradoxically, an existing product is a route to

innovation (an iPhone is like a Blackberry without the keyboard;"

 

The lack of a separate keyboard is not what made iPhones successful. The integration of a touchscreen that could take

over multiple functions and a well-designed user interface made it successful. This change greatly improved and

expanded the functionality of the product; removing the LCD from DSLRs would do the opposite.

<p>Would I buy a camera without an LDC? </p>

<p>Hmmmm... Would you buy a car without an instrument panel?</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I use the rear screen for adjustments, composition and focusing when using a tripod. And I use a tripod very often. So no, I would not like to have a camera without a rear screen. If I thought it was better to look at the screen through a small hole (aka a screen inside a viewfinder) I would have made or bought a small hole and looked at the screen through it. But I don't. I would rather have a camera with a larger screen.</p>

<p>Best wishes,<br>

Frode Langset</p>

Maybe. My first VW beetle didn't have a gas gauge, but did have a gorgeous large vinyl sunroof. A much

better tradeoff.