P&S Digital Cameras w/o view finders.. a little rant

[sandra_schaffer]

It is nice to have a little P&S pocket camera for shooting digital along side

my film cameras.. and sometimes alongside the big digital SLR. Prices have

dropped a lot and megapixels have increased a lot.. so you can get some nice

jpeg captures.

 

However, the trend I am really hating is the elimination of the view finder in

favor of framing with the LCD screen. This screen becomes somewhat useless in

bright light and I find it a misery to use in stead of a simple view finder.

 

Now, I am sure the REASON for this is that losing the VF allows for a smaller

design and saves the manufacturer money. I also suspect a lot of the snapshot

folks out there are happy with the LCD.

 

I am ranting here.. and I admit it. I will not purchase a digital P&S camera

w/o a view finder.. but the pickin's are getting slim for the less expensive

models.

 

Geeeze Loueeeze.. if I am going to buy a little inexpensive pocket P&S at

LEAST give me a view finder....

[waltflanagan]

I got a Canon SD800 and it has an optical viewfinder. It also has a 28mm equivalent lens. Works for me.

[charles_stobbs3]

I agree with you, Sandra. The LCD screen on my Powershot S30 no longer displays an image, only menus, and without the optical viewfinder the camera would be useless.

[phule]

The 80% view the optical finders afford the user is pretty lousy already. But I agree it's nice to have for backup though.

 

Canon still makes most of their point and shoots with optical finders (I count 18 with and 5 without, along with 1 EVF). You should be able to find a model that works for you.

[JDMvW]

Among the many reasons I wouldn't want a camera without a viewfinder is that you steady the camera as you hold it against your face with folded arms. I got a older Canon P&S and find the live LCD screen to be hard to hold level, still, and compose (of course, the fact that my old eyes, even with their new lenses, are either focusing real close or real far away--neither of which works very well for the LCD).

[conrad_hoffman]

I like an OVF, but that's what I'm used to. As far as I can tell from observing my snapshot friends, *none* of them has any interest in an OVF whatsoever, and I suspect the manufacturers know this and simply don't waste money on an unwanted feature. No matter how dumb it may seem to us for people to hold a camera out at a wobbly arms length and frame on an LCD, that's what the masses want. Ask any small child today to pretend to take a picture, and that's the stance you'll see.

[steve m smith]

I don't understand why people with cameras without optical viewfinders hold them at arms length. Would it not be better to hold them with folded arms, like a traditional camera, but just far enough away from the face to get a good view of the screen?

 

Steve.

[jeffpolaski]

I'm looking for a P&S digital that will be a rough equivilent of the small range/viewfinder film cameras I have. One of the things I have run into is a typical camera review that trashes the optical viewfinder. The when I go out, find a sample, and look through the viewfinder, it is no worse (perhaps a bit better) than the viewfinders on my Kodak Retinas and Voigtlander Perkeo, through which I have composed some darned decent photographs.

 

80%, no exposure information -- it's OK with me. I really do use my face to brace both the camera and the hands holding it when I shoot pictures.

 

Welcome to the 21st Century.

[phule]

<<Among the many reasons I wouldn't want a camera without a viewfinder is that you steady the camera as you hold it against your face with folded arms.>>

 

A false assumption.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=17501274

[JDMvW]

Rob,

 

Maybe so, but with my eyes the camera is out at arm's length and there's no way that you can convince me that's as good as braced against me rosy cheeks.

[phule]

I have never seen anyone hold the camera at "arms length" except in situations where they're putting the cameras over their head. Everyone I've seen shooting with the LCD, has their arms bent. Many people I see bracing their arms against their mid-sections.

 

<<there's no way that you can convince me that's as good as braced against me rosy cheeks.>>

 

Why let a few pesky data points get in the way of a good healthy dose of ignorance?

[JDMvW]

I guess you don't have many older friends,then, since we generally are far-sighted and can't focus our eyes up close with those supposedly bent arms of the test. In my particular case, this is made worse by cataract replacement lenses that do work up close, but up really close, as well as into the distance. Frankly, those data points at the website, aren't all that conclusive, but I was not saying that the situation described was not true for me, simply that in my case, the conditions described did not hold true. Next you might try actually reading the post before you flame off.

[phule]

I read the post, and my statement still stands. Your assumptions are based on ignorance or inexperience. The data points are not gospel, they are data points and nothing more. No two photographers are a like, but plenty of people use LCDs to frame image every single day and get photos as sharp those who don't.

 

And yes, I have a number of "older" friends who have no problem using their LCD screens despite aging eyes. They wouldn't own the cameras if they did. But that's completely off-topic.

 

The facts

[phule]

I read the post, and my statement still stands. Your assumptions are based on ignorance or inexperience. The data points are not gospel, they are data points and nothing more. No two photographers are a like, but plenty of people use LCDs to frame image every single day and get photos as sharp those who don't.

 

And yes, I have a number of "older" friends who have no problem using their LCD screens despite aging eyes. They wouldn't own the cameras if they did. But that's completely off-topic.

 

The fact of the matter is that most of the people I've seen claiming what you claim have no experience with any other method. They simply assume without actually testing.

[dangoldman]

I have heard from more than one person asking why there is still viewfinder. Personally though, i dont care, as i dont want anything to do with a P&S. I need some degree of control over my equipment...

[JDMvW]

I repeat, my original statement referred solely to my own particular situation. What part of "my eyes" don't you understand? I am simply very surprised to find out that I am ignorant and inexperienced in using my own cataract lens replacements. I did not say that the cheek-to-cheek hold was better universally, but certainly it's no worse than using the LCD. Of course,my original point was precidely that I, me, personally, would therefore NOT buy a P&S without a separate viewfinder. A lot of those "older" folks, like me, can use the LCD if they wear reading glasses.

[phule]

Which makes your original response even more curious. Why would you choose to respond to the link regarding stability of LCD vs viewfinder when you can only use the viewfinder to begin with? I did not post the link to convince you personally to use the LCD. I posted the link to respond to the idea that pressed-against-the-face is inherently /more/ stable than other methods.

 

Yes, I get it, you /can't/ use an LCD. I'm sorry manufacturers have not yet figured out that people with imperfect eyes like to use point and shoots as well. My eyes will be where yours are soon enough and I will deal with the same thing, but this has drifted far enough off-topic.