I'm in the same boat as you (near sighted) and prefer the LCD over the viewfinder but honestly I don't see what harm it has for it to be there. It's not like the LCD would be bigger or we are missing out on some other feature because it exists nor does it detract in any significant way from the fashion of the camera if thats what you are into. If anything it has the advantage that if your running low on battery you have an option or if you don't want to disturb others in a dark environment taking a picture the LCD doesn't interrupt them. Would I miss the viewfinder if it was removed. No not really but it doesn't bother me if it's there all the same. Now if I had to choose an LCD or a viewfinder only then it would definitely be an LCD.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Canon ultracompacts
- Thread starter JohnTiger
- Start date
Well, it's a matter of taste I guess. I like cameras that are somewhat jewellery-like and that have clean simple styles. When you look at those Canon models that optical viewfinder (front and behind) makes the exterior look more complicated. I dunno if I'm lacking in vocabulary but that's the best explanation I can give. What can I say, that see-through circle just irritates me. But as I have said, that isn't the only appearance-issue I have with Canon models.
Just compare SD630 and SD600. I just think SD630 is better-looking and that's because it doesn't have an optical viewfinder.
Listen, I know this is a bit silly hating a little circle on a camera. But as is with mobile phones and just about all portable electronics, consumers nowadays have the luxury the make appearance a criterion. A camera is for taking pictures, that's for sure, but I think there is nothing wrong with wanting a camera that appearance-wise is suitable to you.
And as the previous writer mentioned, there are people who don't use optical viewfinders and when you look at the percentage of viewfinder-equipped ultracompacts out there, you'll see the point. And I bet manufacturers aren't leaving it out just to make the camera more cheap or to save room. No, I think they are listening to consumers who say that really as the lcds are getting bigger and better there's really no need for optical viewfinders. Of course in some situations optical viewfinder is better than lcd but then again in some situations a digital SLR is better than an ultracompact.
Just compare SD630 and SD600. I just think SD630 is better-looking and that's because it doesn't have an optical viewfinder.
Listen, I know this is a bit silly hating a little circle on a camera. But as is with mobile phones and just about all portable electronics, consumers nowadays have the luxury the make appearance a criterion. A camera is for taking pictures, that's for sure, but I think there is nothing wrong with wanting a camera that appearance-wise is suitable to you.
And as the previous writer mentioned, there are people who don't use optical viewfinders and when you look at the percentage of viewfinder-equipped ultracompacts out there, you'll see the point. And I bet manufacturers aren't leaving it out just to make the camera more cheap or to save room. No, I think they are listening to consumers who say that really as the lcds are getting bigger and better there's really no need for optical viewfinders. Of course in some situations optical viewfinder is better than lcd but then again in some situations a digital SLR is better than an ultracompact.
theranman
Senior Member
Viewfinders
Negatives:
Could make the camera larger.
Could make the LCD smaller. Depends upon the product niche.
Positives:
Much easier to track a moving object both visually and especially in burst modes.
Prior to image stabilization, hugely beneficial in stabilizing the camera...much steadier than holding the camera out in front of you.
Most people with age-related presbyopia (bifocals) will appreciate it.
Allows turning off the LCD to save battery life.
Allows turning off the LCD in order to take more "discreet" photos in low light.
You do the math.
Yes, given an either/or choice, of course I'd prefer the LCD, but hopefully you see my point.
Negatives:
Could make the camera larger.
Could make the LCD smaller. Depends upon the product niche.
Positives:
Much easier to track a moving object both visually and especially in burst modes.
Prior to image stabilization, hugely beneficial in stabilizing the camera...much steadier than holding the camera out in front of you.
Most people with age-related presbyopia (bifocals) will appreciate it.
Allows turning off the LCD to save battery life.
Allows turning off the LCD in order to take more "discreet" photos in low light.
You do the math.
Yes, given an either/or choice, of course I'd prefer the LCD, but hopefully you see my point.
theranman
Senior Member
and I can appreciate your desire for a particular aesthetic.
I'm ambivalent to the viewfinder or not debate....don;t think it would sway me either way. Right now I'm after a wide angle compact and had settled on one of Panasonic FX07/50 cameras (LCD only) until yesterday when Canon announced their own wide-angle SD800IS (with optical viewfinder). The viewfinder or not is well down my list of priorities, the only advantages I can see are to save battery life by switching off the LCD.
theranman
Senior Member
Trust me, the viewfinder is waaay down the list of MOST people's priorities...mine too.
It's just that I've now concluded that for ME, it's a nice little bonus to have.
It's just that I've now concluded that for ME, it's a nice little bonus to have.
theranman
Senior Member
Now watch...Canon's gonna announce an S90, Fuji an F40, or Panasonic a TZ-2, and mess up my WHOLE game plan.
I..will...have...patience..to..wait...for...reviews...
I...will..have..patience...to..wait..for...reviews..
I..will...have...patience..to..wait...for...reviews...
I...will..have..patience...to..wait..for...reviews..
PuzzleGal
Senior Member
I bet there are a lot of people like you. Personally, I like to play with my gadgets, and I like as many controls as I can get. And once you start playing with controls, you prefer dedicated buttons. Or, at least, I do.
It drives me nuts that all the small, pocketable cameras have a slimmed-down feature-set, too. No manual focus, no manual exposure, aperture, etc. I want it all - I want exposure bracketing and manual focus. But I want to put the thing in my pocket - I don't want to lug around a case just for the camera. It's a fun toy, but it's not the reason I'm on vacation, or where-ever.
So neither you nor I can be completely satisfied, but I guess the SD800 IS will be good enough for a lot of people to buy it.
I like the Mac, but I wish it had more features, too. (Or didn't hide them so well.) They have finally admitted that you know what, that second mouse button REALLY IS handy. The brilliance of the ipod was that it had a clean, simple interface and ALSO had all the features people wanted. Wonderful design.
Anyhow, I like an optical viewfinder. But I see why you don't.
I realized I hadn't mention one thing just about everybody is saying about these Canons and optical viewfinders. It is placed ankwardly making the user push their nose against the lcd (making it smudge) when looking through the optical viewfinder. I don't know about you guys (maybe you think this is ok because the performance is the most important thing) but I think that's a big reason not to buy this cam and a big reason altogether why optical viewfinders in ultracompacts is not such a good idea necessarily.
theranman
Senior Member
Personally, I'd disagree. I always carry a tiny eyeglasses microfiber anyway, so what's the big deal to give a quick swipe over the LCD? Takes two seconds, and it's not as if a person is gonna constantly switching back and forth between the two.
Side note regarding pocketability FOR GUYS;
What do most of us guys carry?
1) Wallet
2) Cell phone
3) Keys
I don't know about you folks, but I only use my front pants pockets for carrying my usuals since I like to sit down in a chair comfortably and don't want break a cellphone in the process.
I also don't wish to scratch up my cellphone by keeping it in the same pocket as the keys. So what do I do? I keep my cellphone in the same pocket (left front) as my wallet and lens cloth. My cellphone is Razor size, so it all works out.
The other front pocket contains my keys.
Where else would I put a "pocketable" camera??? It WON'T fit in the same pocket with my wallet and cellphone, and I sure as hell won't put it with my keys!
Answer: A jacket pocket or tiny belt pouch. And if I put it THERE, I don't care if it's a little bit bigger. For me, an ultra-compact is pointless.
Side note regarding pocketability FOR GUYS;
What do most of us guys carry?
1) Wallet
2) Cell phone
3) Keys
I don't know about you folks, but I only use my front pants pockets for carrying my usuals since I like to sit down in a chair comfortably and don't want break a cellphone in the process.
I also don't wish to scratch up my cellphone by keeping it in the same pocket as the keys. So what do I do? I keep my cellphone in the same pocket (left front) as my wallet and lens cloth. My cellphone is Razor size, so it all works out.
The other front pocket contains my keys.
Where else would I put a "pocketable" camera??? It WON'T fit in the same pocket with my wallet and cellphone, and I sure as hell won't put it with my keys!
Answer: A jacket pocket or tiny belt pouch. And if I put it THERE, I don't care if it's a little bit bigger. For me, an ultra-compact is pointless.
I'm not insulting you here or anything but are you seriously saying that having to stick your nose on the lcd is no big deal. For me it is. But then again, it may not be for some people since Canon obviously knew about this design feature.
This viewpoint is completely foreign to me. I am reminded that "form follows function". The OVF performs a very necessary function, IMHO.
I would think that you might consider that your friends might be more impressed with the end results...ie the photographs you produce than the "jewelry-like" appearance of your camera....but I'm of another generation, what do I know! LOL..
--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
theranman
Senior Member
Yeah, REALLY!
If compact and ultracompact buyers really desired them, they'd have remained...duh.
It's nice that Canon has kept them as a vestige, but the other compact manufacturer' aren't gonna start adding them...and you can take THAT to the bank.
Die-hard viewfinder addicts aren't even LOOKING at this segment of the digicam market, and should be thankful that Canon has even bothered to retain them as a niche feature.
"I" appreciate it, but most buyers of compacts couldn't care less.
I WILL agree with you that photo IQ should be near the top of the list of priorities, but I don't begrudge anybody for their own priorities...aesthetics included.
theranman
Senior Member
And John, for the last time, a Canon buyer does not HAVE to use the viewfinder. It's for those occasions where they'd LIKE TO.
Well first if all I need to say that I really don't care what my friends think of the appearance of my future camera. If looks were the most important criterion or if I wanted to impress my friends I'd immediately buy Sony T50 and be done with it.
My point is just that A) manufacturers clearly put at least some thought to the appearance of their ultracompact/compact models and B) there is nothing wrong in appreciating the aesthetic side of a cam. I'm going to make an outrageous claim now: most of the people who buy ultracompacts don't really care about the finer points of photography. They just want to point and shoot. Similarly, most of these people carry these cams with them, just like car keys, mobile phone, wallet and such. I'm not saying that cam performance isn't important to them, I'm merely saying that SLR users and ultracompact users do not share the shame enthusiasm to the technical side of photography.
But I do understand why people question my thoughts. I mean come on. Most of you are really interested in the technical side of photography and here I am sounding like a yuppie who wants to have something cool to impress friends. That's not the case however, and I think it's almost old-fashioned nowadays to think that making appearance a criterion is wrong. And as I said previously about OVF, to me having to put one's nose against the lcd to use OVF is strange and certainly not my cup of tea. Moreover, if OVF was so important in the ultracompact range then why aren't the manufacturers putting them in their models.
I've also stated that Fuji F30 is my number one choice so I think it's strange that someone would criticize me since F30 is appreciated by pros as well. And by the way, I find F30 somewhat jewellery-like. =) The new Canons are also kinda jewellery-like but their design is just too complicated -- I appreciate clean simple design such as Panny FX-series or Fuji F30.
Jeff Morris
Senior Member
Personally, I don't like Canon cameras. First of all, I know you probably will want to criticize me but Canon needs to just have one model that has on optical viewfinder because I don't really like them. The whole point of having a big good lcd is to make optical viewfinders obsolete in ultracompacts and while I get that sometimes with lcds you get out of focus pics and what not, to me the perfect ultracompact has no optical viewfinder. I do admit though that the main reason I don't like them is that they impair the style. =D
Johnny,
How old are you? 18,19, 20? Do you have any experience with cameras.? You act as though optical viewfinder are out of fashion. I don't think you get it. Optical viewfinders are expensive, the manufacturer can save big money with just an LCD. holding a camera 12" from your face not only looks funny but in many cases is impractical. I have not seen a Lcd screen yet that works as well as an optical screen outdoors in bright light. For outdoor shooting you need a viewfinder.
The second reason is that Canon needs to do something about the exteriors of their cameras. They need to update that bulky/plasticy/one-color Canon exterior and realize that Canon cams just look dull -- at least to me. Especially when you look at the lcd-side of the cams they just look so old-fashioned, bif and ugly even. They really need to learn something about Panasonic for example.
Old fashioned? Digital cameras ave only been out for general consumer use since the late 90's and the Canon's have come a long way since then. Are you talking about the old days like 2003 or 2004? IMHO the SD800is is a VERY sharp camera.
And the final reason is that Canon should realize their place. I think right now those who want pocketable party cams need to decide between performance and size: if performance more important then Fuji F30 (or Fuji F20) is the way to go and if size is important then Pana FX07/Sony T10/T30 is the way to go. Canon is lying in between with kinda bulky exterior and performance that doesn't match Fuji F30 in low light.
Please explain to me what is a "Party Cam" ? A camera to take to Parties? You may have just started a new catagory of cameras, THANKS!
Right now, I think for those wanting a pocketable cam for parties. there are two choices: go with Fuji or go with Panasonic/Sony.
I have seen it all. Your post is a perfect example of what is wrong with people today. Form over substance. I suggest you give your parents a copy of your origional post so they can hang it on their living room wall, because to me is silly. Now if you posted:
Hello,
I frequent parties a lot and need a stylish, low noise camera. What are your feelings on the new Canon lineup? That would make sense and not leave me with the feeling you are a shallow, empty headed party boy.
Sorry for being so frank, but your thread is an example of what has happened to DPReview.
--
Regards,
Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman
Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
Johnny,
How old are you? 18,19, 20? Do you have any experience with cameras.? You act as though optical viewfinder are out of fashion. I don't think you get it. Optical viewfinders are expensive, the manufacturer can save big money with just an LCD. holding a camera 12" from your face not only looks funny but in many cases is impractical. I have not seen a Lcd screen yet that works as well as an optical screen outdoors in bright light. For outdoor shooting you need a viewfinder.
The second reason is that Canon needs to do something about the exteriors of their cameras. They need to update that bulky/plasticy/one-color Canon exterior and realize that Canon cams just look dull -- at least to me. Especially when you look at the lcd-side of the cams they just look so old-fashioned, bif and ugly even. They really need to learn something about Panasonic for example.
Old fashioned? Digital cameras ave only been out for general consumer use since the late 90's and the Canon's have come a long way since then. Are you talking about the old days like 2003 or 2004? IMHO the SD800is is a VERY sharp camera.
And the final reason is that Canon should realize their place. I think right now those who want pocketable party cams need to decide between performance and size: if performance more important then Fuji F30 (or Fuji F20) is the way to go and if size is important then Pana FX07/Sony T10/T30 is the way to go. Canon is lying in between with kinda bulky exterior and performance that doesn't match Fuji F30 in low light.
Please explain to me what is a "Party Cam" ? A camera to take to Parties? You may have just started a new catagory of cameras, THANKS!
Right now, I think for those wanting a pocketable cam for parties. there are two choices: go with Fuji or go with Panasonic/Sony.
I have seen it all. Your post is a perfect example of what is wrong with people today. Form over substance. I suggest you give your parents a copy of your origional post so they can hang it on their living room wall, because to me is silly. Now if you posted:
Hello,
I frequent parties a lot and need a stylish, low noise camera. What are your feelings on the new Canon lineup? That would make sense and not leave me with the feeling you are a shallow, empty headed party boy.
Sorry for being so frank, but your thread is an example of what has happened to DPReview.
--
Regards,
Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman
Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
I guess I was reacting more to your certainty than anything else. I have often found that folks who are very certain are often wrong. I also get a negative vibe when someone says "trust me"....
Not necessarily...that's often given as a reason, but it can be misleading.
For example I think many have wanted P&Ss to have wide angle zoom lenses...say that start at 28 instead of 36mm or so. I suggest that the reason that they're not offered is not that people don't want them, but that they're difficult and expensive to make.
Not true, I'm here and interested in an ultracompact with OVF as a second camera.
Agreed....
--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
theranman
Senior Member
Jeff, aside from the personal invectives, I agree with most of your points. Canons are indeed rather dull looking, and if one were to classify a "party cam", the tiny Panny's or Sony's, OR the low light F30 would be right in there.
From the looks of things (no pun intended), it would seem that the SD800IS is more of a "jack of all trades, master of none"....which isn't a bad thing in MY book.
From the looks of things (no pun intended), it would seem that the SD800IS is more of a "jack of all trades, master of none"....which isn't a bad thing in MY book.
To me an OVF is almost essential; so to see it replaced, to see the function of the camera reduced just to make the camera more aesthetic appealing is what is hard for me to accept. For me, and I gather probably not for you, this is not a tradeoff I'd make.
That said, you have every right to prefer a camera with a clean, simple design. I was just chiming in with my point of view.
I'm looking for a pocketable camera for use as a second camera, to be carried around most of the time. I'm looking at the SD800IS as a likely candidate...one reason, it has an OVF....
Good luck in your search.
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum