Viewing LCD display image in sunlight

[kaliuzhkin]

<p>This question is not limited to Nikon digital cameras but applies equally well to other digital cameras.<br>

The camera in question is a D300. When I'm in sunlight trying to view the image I just shot, I can't!<br>

Any suggestions, products, techniques?<br>

Thanks.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Turn so that your body blocks the light? (If the sun is directly overhead, bend over. Or put your left hand over the screen.)<br />

<br />

There are brightness settings that you might like to look at, and people make loupe-like devices (though a loupe on a VGA screen doesn't seem so clever to me) and simpler screen shades. I've always found the one attached to my left arm to be sufficient.<br />

<br />

Alternatively, you could try living somewhere with worse weather. I find the UK is very good for letting me see the LCD perfectly. :-)</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Look at the Hoodman shades. They incorporate a plastic shade with a loupe specifically to address this issue.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

A hat.

[ShunCheung]

<p>I had a Hoodman shade for my D2X. While it worked great to shield stray light from the LCD, every time I wanted to go back to the optical viewfinder, I had too close the hood so that it would not get in the way. After a while, I got tired of it and stopped using that hood.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I use the Hoodman -type folding covers, but I usually don't chimp anyway. I look through the camera viewfinder, except to check exposure, histograms, etc.</p>

<p>The "loupe" type Hoodman (and others) type may work better, but is even more awkward when you want to use the actual viewfinder.</p>

[alan_williams6]

<p>I never shoot outdoors without my Hoodman Loupe - the most useful accessory I own<br /> </p>

[jonb]

<p>The display is much improved on the latest Nikon cameras (D7100, D810) with their brighter, higher-contrast RGBW LCDs. But the Hoodman loupe is a really good solution for the older models.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Also, I think if you wear polarized sunglasses it makes it worse, because the glass on many electronic displays is polarized. That's true of my iPod, is it true of digital cameras? Just a thought.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>FYI, all LCD/TFT displays work by means of polarisation Peter.<br>

Light from the backlight (or a reflector) is plane polarised by a filter layer and passes through a Liquid nematic crystal cell that twists the plane of polarisation in proportion to the voltage applied to the cell. Light from the LCD cell matrix then passes through a further polarising filter. The result is that each LCD element can regulate the amount of light reaching the eye of the viewer. But obviously quite a bit of light is absorbed by the polarising filters involved, which is why backlit LCD displays are a bit dim and power-hungry devices.</p>

<p>OLEDs and similar technology might eventually give us better displays. Until that sunny day you know darn well baby...... Ooops, sorry, slipped into the lyrics of an old song.</p>

 

[phule]

<p>[[This question is not limited to Nikon digital cameras but applies equally well to other digital cameras.]]</p>

<p>Sometimes it can be as simple as making sure you have set the brightness on your camera's LCD to its maximum level. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ: Speaking as an employee of a company who seems to have bet the farm on (AM)OLEDs, I feel obliged to raise an eyebrow at "eventually". Though I admit that Nikon only seems to be using them for the through-the-finder view at the moment. In theory, with a shiny screen, polarising sunglasses ought to be your friend in cutting down reflections (so long as you view the screen off-centre). I've actually been a little surprised not to find the effect of sunglasses on many devices to be worse - I wonder if there's a circular polarising layer invoved.<br />

<br />

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the polariser should only be losing a bit over 50% of the light - maybe 70% depending on your polariser quality, maybe less than 50% if the light path resulted in light that was already favourably polarised. A bigger problem is the colour filters, which are almost always throwing away around 2/3 of the remaining light - which is why RGBW helps somewhat. OLEDs have their advantages, though there's some cool stuff you can do with LCDs and tensor displays which don't really work on an OLED.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>You seem to be the guy to talk to on the subject of OLEDs then Andrew. Some years ago I bought a small MP3 player with a blue matrix-type OLED display. I went to use it the other day only to find that the display had totally faded to near invisibility. Is this limited lifetime still an issue with OLEDs or AMOLEDs?</p>

<p>I don't want to get you into trouble with your employers if the answers is a resounding "YES" BTW. Your silence might speak volumes!</p>

<p>Edit: After looking at the rear display of my D800 through a polarising filter. It appears that the plane of polarisation varies across the display. I get a black line that "wipes" across the display as I rotate the filter. Incidentally there's really no such thing as circular polarisation. A so-called circular polariser is simply a plane polariser combined with a 1/4 wave plate that de-polarises the light again in one direction. So a circular polariser fitted backwards simply becomes an ND filter.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I carry a spare Hasselblad folding finder, which also has a 5x magnifier. It's not as convenient as a Hoodman, which attaches to the camera, but it doesn't get knocked off or in the way either and fits in a shirt pocket. I have a large loupe too, with a neckstrap, but I never remember to bring it.</p>

<p>KEH has Hasselblad "stovepipe" hoods for under $70, which have a focusing eyepiece. They make an excellent 4x loupe and shade an LCD screen better than anything else I've tried. Unfortunately they are bulky (but light). The folding hoods cost three times as much. but I happen to have several not attached to cameras.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>My poor D300 screen is now so 'used' that it's tricky to see in sunlight. It seems to show reflected 'flare' from everywhere and have very, very low contrast.</p>

<p>After some gentle experimenting, I found repeated wipes with an IPA moistened lens tissue removed most of the grub. I then applied one of the peel-off and stick on protectors and the transparency of the screen seems to have been greatly improved.</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether the actual surface is glass or very hard polycarbonate coated with an AR coating or what?</p>

<p>If it's uncoated glass I'd be tempted to re-polish it.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Addendum. The apparent variation in polarisation across my D800 rear screen was caused by the plastic protector. I had an "Aha!" or maybe "Doh!" epiphany last night and tested the theory this morning. With the plastic protector removed, the entire screen is dimmed by looking through a polarising filter and rotating it. I guess the manufacturing stresses in the plastic protector cause it to act as a variable wave plate.</p>

<p>Phew! The laws of physics still stand firm I'm relieved to say.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ: Interesting! I tend only to look through my plastic protector (because I'm a careless idiot and don't want to hurt my camera), so I'd assumed there was an extra layer on the display!<br />

<br />

I'm not directly involved in displays, although I used to write some articles for Veritas et Visus and the PenTile RGBG layout perpetually annoys me, especially at lower resolutions. I know technology for OLEDs has improved significantly over time regarding longevity, but I can't tell you the extent of the improvement. Any information that's not already in the public domain, I probably couldn't share even if I could find it! I'd hope that anything from the last couple of years, at least, would have a respectable lifetime. I think there's still a limit, just as there is for write cycles to solid-state drives, but unless you're making a point of buying something that you still expect to be your primary camera in a decade's time, I'd be surprised if it became completely unusable. But I'm software - not my department!</p>