Compact digitals, Where'd all the viewfinders go?

[vaantique]

I've been noticing that all the compact digitals, for the sake of simplicity, cost cutting, or compactness, have

done away with the viewfinder. I think that this is ridiculous for many reasons.

 

1- camera shake, yes cameras have image stabilization now, but the best way to steady the camera is hold it to

your face with your arms bracing it, not holding it in front of your face with your arms shaking.

 

2- power consumption, having the viewing screen on to compose your shot wastes battery life unnecessarily when

you could look through a good old optical viewfinder.

 

3- difficulty viewing subject- glare on screen/ harsh lighting, if back light malfunctions or screen cracks you

cant see what your pointing at.

 

Anyone else noticed this trend or have any other comments to add?

[thomas_hardy1]

I especially agree with #3.

[steve torelli]

They were either useless or next to useless on a P&S, no info in the VF and most people that buy 'em wouldn't know what all those numbers meant anyway.You have to remember that the VAST majority of P&S buyers just want to press a button and be done with it. The people like us who may want one as a small backup to their main camera system are a very small minority. The best VF you could put on a P&S would be junk compared to what we're used to anyway.

[phule]

[[1- camera shake, yes cameras have image stabilization now, but the best way to steady the camera is hold it to your face with your arms bracing it, not holding it in front of your face with your arms shaking. ]]

 

This is an oft-repeated and incorrect statement. It is incorrect because it's over-reaching and makes too many assumptions. The best way to steady it is the way that works best for you. This comes from practice and technique. For some people this does mean against your face, for others it does not.

[lex_jenkins]

Manufacturers are simply responding to the way most people actually use their cameras. Over the years I've had three Olympus P&S digicams, all of which have optical viewfinders. I almost always prefer the optical finder. But when I handed the cameras to someone else they invariably used the LCD.

 

To their credit, manufacturers are addressing some of the flaws you've mentioned, including some form of stabilization to offset camera shake and LCDs that are easier to see in most lighting, even in daylight.

[david_henderson]

The viewfinders weren't big enough to be good, mostly did not give even an indication of actual framing, and as a result most people used the lcd, which despite being themselves inadequate for a number of reasons, win the vote by a landslide. So in a competitive market where a better way of viewing a scene/photograph needed to be developed, and where price competition is intense, its not really surprising that manufacturers only want to improve one viewing method and that the lcd won the vote- on the basis I'd guess that it is dual purpose as well as a majority of users' chosen tool.

 

Sadly in cost- and price - conscious high volume markets the user with a slightly different need set very often is sacrificed for the majority. Another example is the articulated screen, which to me is extremely desirable but has been largely sacrificed to the grail of screen size and is now quite hard to find. The world is generally not up in arms about that either.

[vrankin]

I read in a review that people want their P&S cameras smaller and their LCDs larger. This leaves less room for

viewfinders. Besides, it's very hard to see into a small viewfinder, and most of them are inaccurate which causes

complaining to the manufacturer and in the reviews. Most of us don't want a viewfinder that shows only 85% of the image

perhaps off center or a degree or two off level. That's what I had, with two major brand P & S cameras. The viewfinders

ended up being little better than just lifting the camera to eye level, squinting over the top and shooting. It's probably better

from the manufacturer's standpoint to just leave them off.

[charles_stobbs3]

I recently bought a Coolpix P50, the viewfinder being a major part of the decision to buy. I usually turn the LCD off to save the batteries.

[robert_lauder]

I'm all for optical viewfinders, I'm glad I got it in my Canon SD800IS.

I need reading glasses so the LCD is almost useless to me.

Also it doesn't take much brain power to extrapolate framing thru the optical viewfinder.

[summitar]

My main criteria for a P&S digital are: (1) AA batteries, preferably 4. Lithiums seem to last forever. (2) flexible LCD. (3) optical viewfinder. These criteria were all met by my Canon Powershot A80, A95, A620 and A650IS. I spun off the earlier ones to relatives as I upgraded.

 

The quality of the optical viewfinders is adequate, not great. I use the LCD for a viewfinder only when doing macro photography. The optical viewfinders on each of these cameras tend to truncate the actual area being photographed but that is an error in the right direction, since one can always crop.

 

I like eye level viewfinders because I have used them for over 50 years, it is more steady for me, and I don't have to worry about glare on the LCD.

[keith selmes]

I have a Ricoh GX100.<BR>

It has a plug on VF with a full readout.<BR>

Its not great, but its easier to use than the early Leica rangefinders, and better than many compact film cameras

were.<BR>

Its live view, with all the readout info - or none if you prefer.<BR>

Also it rotates, so you can use it like a TLR with the magnifier up. I often prefer cupping the camera in my

hands this way - even more stable I feel, and sometimes less confrontational as well.<BR>

Batteries last well - supposed to be 290 images using the LCD. fine in practice anyway.<BR>

It can take AAA batteries in place of the DB60 rechargeables - don't last as long though.<BR><BR>

 

As you can set the zoom lens to step through 35mm equivalents (24,28,35,50,72), I had wondered about adapting an

old leica style turret viewfinder - but actually there's no point. <BR><BR>

 

Prior to using this camera, I was getting pretty frustrated, precisely because new compacts were coming out

without a proper VF. <BR>

I've been reading bad things about the eyelevel VF on Canon G9, which is optical, but not much use.<BR>

Maybe they are simply difficult to do well, and as most people just do the arms length thing anyway, same as they

do with their mobile phone, the manufacturer doesn't gain a lot by including it.<BR>

[dkm]

Just bought the spouse a P&S, and one of his biggest requests was to have a viewfinder. He swears he can't see well enough with the LCD, so there simply wasn't any point in trying to persuade him otherwise. If it hadn't been there, the camera would have become tabletop art and no more ...