Digicam P&S ovf accuracy vs film P&S accuracy (epic, t4..)

[dg1]

While we all tend to bemoan the fairly dismal optical viewfinders that most

non-dslr (and some dslr) digital compacts have, I wonder if it's partly just

that it is now so easy to compare the framing of these things to the actual

image that makes for the discontent. I don't recall that much was said about

such things in the pre-digital days when the Yashica T4 and Oly Stylus Epic, and

Ricoh GR1 ruled the pocket camera world. Does anyone recall ovf framing

accuracy tests for these cameras? I still have a Rollei Prego 30 and a Ricoh R1

film compact but I can seldom (ok, never) remember exactly what the viewfinder

was showing me by the time I get to see the print.

 

Or how 'bout the Leica III viewfinders, were they actually accurate for framing?

I ask this trying to rationalize my preference for using my digicam's ovf over

the LCD.

[michael s.]

I know what you mean.<p>

 

But I think the moaning -- my moaning, at least -- about the optical finders on p & s digitals isn't so much about framing accuracy. What frosts me is that so many of these cameras don't have <i>any</i> optical finder, and some offer one so tiny I can barely see through it. Didn't we used to get optics like that free ... in cereal boxes ? :-) <p>

 

For me, a partial "solution" has been the tilt/swivel lcd (available on several Canon p & s digitals) -- helpful for off-angle and low-angle shooting and inconspicuous snaps of nearby people. And by bracing the camera on my own stomach -- or if I'm seated, sometimes on my thigh -- I have a better chance at steady hold than I'd otherwise have.

[Nowhereman]

I have two small sensor cameras, the Ricoh GR-D and the Leica D-Lux 3, and prefer using

the LCD for framing because it leads to a more fluid and looser shooting style. I look at

the scene directly and only use the LCD to establish where the edges of the picture fall,

the framing, if you will: when I press the shutter my eyes are looking at the scene itself,

not at the LCD display.

<p>

With the GR-D, you can use the flash shoe for mounting an external viewfinder. When I

first got this camera I thought that I would be using my VC28 and Leica 21 viewfinders;

but the few days that I had an external viewfinder mounted on the camera, I found that I

never used it, continuing to frame with the LCD. Then, when I bought the D-Lux 3, I had

no qualms at all about only having the possibility of using the LCD.

<p>

You can see the resulting pictures <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/

10268776@N00/"><u>here</u>.</a>

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

<p>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

<p>

[dg1]

You do nice work Mitch. I like to use the LCD in a similar fashion to you, particularly with the Sony R1 at waistlevel, but lately with my little cameras I've been turning it off all together and just using the OVF, or at times not using anything (sort of like Mr. Eggleston's "shotgun" approach?). Also I've turned off any auto review so I don't induce the latency connected with shooting then reviewing, etc. For me it seems to help promote more attention to the present moment. So I was just thinking back on the small film cameras and it occurred to me that, at least in my case, while I consciously framed my shots, I never really recalled the exact intention by the time I saw the photo. And I was wondering if anyone knows of any testing of the OVF framing coverage of those little film P&S cameras.

[savas_kyprianides]

G7 has a poor optical viewfinder framing. There is a parallax error that does not give you

what you see through it. It's OK in certain ranges; others it's not useful at all.

[dg1]

Yes, I know about the G7. And the ovf's all suck, but my question is/was: did the ovf,s on our favored film compacts suck less?

 

How would we have known by the time we got the prints back? Not talking about brightness, just framing.

[don_e]

"...did the ovf,s on our favored film compacts suck less?"

 

Not that I ever noticed.