Reading mode: Light Dark

4" LCDs in compact cameras - SLRs behind once again

Go to last post
B

bionet

Veteran Member
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
32
Location
DE
While reviewers and users of digital SLRs still rave about the "new" 2.5" LCDs with a still meager resolution (the 2" screen of my latest mobile phone has about twice of that), the first compact cameras with 4" LCDs are appearing.

I guess we will get those in SLRs within a few years, to be announced for the 1DsMk4 =).

I wish SLRs would be ahead of compacts in this respect too, and not (sometimes years) behind. It also took Canon forever to enable the storage of one single settings profile while many manually controllable compacts have had multiple presets for a long time (and why not, very simple firmware feature). SLR users AND reviewers are not critical enough, we should demand to get the same screen technology and firmware quality that fixed lens cameras have.
 
No, DSLRs are just different from digicams. Nothing wrong with that. For example, a 4" screen on the back of an DSLR would take up quite a lot of space that is currently dedicated towards various ergonomic and control considerations. On a digicam, a 4" screen basically takes up the whole backside of the digicam, with not much room put aside for anything else. Basically, ergonomic and control considerations are pushed to the side, in favor of a very large LCD. That's not necessarily a priority for a DSLR, or DSLR users. On a DSLR, the greater priority is to balance the size of the LCD with the other control/ergonomic/handling considerations. Digicams are designed for a certain user profile-- one that basically sees a digital camera as not much more than a lens on the front and a screen to see the image on the back. So digicam designers design for that user profile; the bigger the LCD, the better these customers will think the camera is!
 
I think the main reason huge LCD's come first on consumer cameras is because they have eliminated the viewfinder on a large majority of cameras with a 3" LCD or larger. To me it makes a lot more sense to give a large LCD to a consumer camera than a DSLR. If you have to do all your composition and framing with a LCD a large and bright one is usefull.

On DSLR's on the other hand the OVF is there and the LCD is use much less frequently mainly for adjusting settings and reviewing the occasional image. I think the other reason is DSLR users are much more concerned with battery life than a P&S user who is happy with 150-300 shots per battery. Many DSLR's offer anywhere between 500-1K+ shots per charge. To many a DSLR that was limited to 200-300 shots per battery would be unacceptable.

As for preset settings imo it just does not make sense to have them on a DSLR. For one it can vary dramatically based on the lens you have. A 1/160th f8.0 ISO 200 may be great for a 18-85 lens but on a 70-300 non IS lens its a whole different story. It is also much easier to change shutter speed and aperature on a DSLR than on a compact camera in my experience.

Mr. Fixitx
 
T3 said:
For example, a 4" screen on the back of an DSLR would take
up quite a lot of space that is currently dedicated towards various
ergonomic and control considerations.
Click to expand...
No, there is just one consideration, and that one is economic. Manufacturers know they can get away with it, so they do it.

Much of the space is simply empty and it would obviously be easy to integrate a 4" LCD on the larger models. Do you seriously think they'll stop at 2.5" because of ergonomic reasons? Are you working for Canon or something? ;)
 
Mrfixitx said:
Many DSLR's offer anywhere between
500-1K+ shots per charge. To many a DSLR that was limited to
200-300 shots per battery would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...
And the next one who defends manufactureres with arguments that don't make sense. Battery life during shots doesn't need to have anything to do with the LCD. When I shoot at concerts, where I take lots of series, I turn off the LCD review.

Again, I must ask if you seriously think manufacturers would not put in a 4" LCD if it was available for about the same price as a 2.5. It's all about maximizing profit, and we will see 4" LCDs in a while.
Mrfixitx said:
As for preset settings imo it just does not make sense to have them
on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you know what makes sense for others? For me, presets would be a very useful thing, and the SLR makers with better ergonomics (e.g. Nikon) offer them.
 
SLRs are the 'way they are' because they reflect the needs of that market segment. Compacts are more 'snap and show someone', hence big screens.
 
You are right dSLRs lag in basic and advanced features. Bigger LCDs can't cost much. 1000:1 20" monitors are $300. $15 toy digital cameras take .avi movies. Why not spend $5 for a lockup movie mode? Or lower resolution modes using binned blocks for cleaner shots. Think of something new. Anything. dSLR makers seem unoriginal and unispried.
bionet said:
While reviewers and users of digital SLRs still rave about the
"new" 2.5" LCDs with a still meager resolution (the 2" screen of my
latest mobile phone has about twice of that), the first compact
cameras with 4" LCDs are appearing.
I guess we will get those in SLRs within a few years, to be
announced for the 1DsMk4 =).

I wish SLRs would be ahead of compacts in this respect too, and not
(sometimes years) behind. It also took Canon forever to enable the
storage of one single settings profile while many manually
controllable compacts have had multiple presets for a long time
(and why not, very simple firmware feature). SLR users AND
reviewers are not critical enough, we should demand to get the same
screen technology and firmware quality that fixed lens cameras have.
Click to expand...
 
First off LCD's on DSLR's are not as important as on point and shoots

you dont use the LCD as a viewfinder (at least not on most DSLR's) and reviewing isnt as important for most DSLR shooters either

There are things that are a lot more important to most DSLR shooters than a 4 inch LCD.

But i can see how in a P&S and also in entry level DSLR that may be an important factor for some people.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
bionet said:
T3 said:
For example, a 4" screen on the back of an DSLR would take
up quite a lot of space that is currently dedicated towards various
ergonomic and control considerations.
Click to expand...
No, there is just one consideration, and that one is economic.
Manufacturers know they can get away with it, so they do it.
Much of the space is simply empty and it would obviously be easy to
integrate a 4" LCD on the larger models. Do you seriously think
they'll stop at 2.5" because of ergonomic reasons? Are you working
for Canon or something? ;)
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that DSLR designers and DSLR users have different priorities. And it isn't just Canon. There isn't ANY DSLR that has a 4" screen. And frankly, I don't know how many DSLR users would want such a large screen. As for "empty space" on a DSLR, most of that "empty space" is so that users have a place to grip the camera when they are using it! On a DSLR, particularly on larger bodies, you have large padded, textured areas on the back of the camera where users can place their thumbs and fleshy areas of their palms. Those considerations are almost non-existent on a digicam. Plus, with DSLR cameras, particularly larger pro bodies, you need adequate space between buttons so that users, particularly pro users, can navigate and use buttons that aren't too tightly packed together to use even with gloved hands or in adverse shooting conditions. Also, large areas of space on a DSLR are also taken up by large control wheels or function areas that are easier to use when they have a bit of size to them and a bit of space between them. A much larger LCD screen would come at the expense of these ergonomic/spacing considerations, with no other benefit than to have a bigger screen to look at. So again, the priorities for DSLRs and DSLR users is different than those of your average digicam users. Digicam users mainly just want a big, pretty screen. DSLR users want/need/prefer things beyond just a big screen.
 
T3 said:
bionet said:
T3 said:
For example, a 4" screen on the back of an DSLR would take
up quite a lot of space that is currently dedicated towards various
ergonomic and control considerations.
Click to expand...
No, there is just one consideration, and that one is economic.
Manufacturers know they can get away with it, so they do it.
Much of the space is simply empty and it would obviously be easy to
integrate a 4" LCD on the larger models. Do you seriously think
they'll stop at 2.5" because of ergonomic reasons? Are you working
for Canon or something? ;)
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that DSLR designers and DSLR users have different
priorities.
Click to expand...
I mean DSLR designers/users have different priorities than your typical digicam buyer, who make by a digicam almost exclusively based on the size of the LCD screen, even though that LCD screen might take up almost all the space on their camera. DSLR designers/users see DSLRs more as functional tools where access to and control of functions are of paramount importance, which is not really the case with digicams.
 
bionet said:
Mrfixitx said:
Many DSLR's offer anywhere between
500-1K+ shots per charge. To many a DSLR that was limited to
200-300 shots per battery would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...
And the next one who defends manufactureres with arguments that
don't make sense. Battery life during shots doesn't need to have
anything to do with the LCD. When I shoot at concerts, where I take
lots of series, I turn off the LCD review.
Click to expand...
Canon has replaced their small monochrome status LCD with the larger illuminated review LCD to show status information. Some have blasted them for it, others have lauded them for it. I think most new buyers who use it will prefer it over the conventional monochrome LCDs. And I doubt battery life will be of concern for them. Casual users will have plenty of power to take their occassional snaps, and prolific shooters will have the wherewithall to carry a spare battery.
bionet said:
Again, I must ask if you seriously think manufacturers would not
put in a 4" LCD if it was available for about the same price as a
2.5. It's all about maximizing profit, and we will see 4" LCDs in a
while.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. But it's just not a big priority for DSLR buyers or designers. Plus, it would mean reworking a lot of the ergonomic/layout designs because a much larger LCD means less space for everything else. I think most DSLR would prefer a balance between ergonomic considerations and LCD size. Not everyone is willing to compromise the layout of a camera just to have a larger LCD.
bionet said:
bionet said:
As for preset settings imo it just does not make sense to have them
on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you know what makes sense for others? For me, presets would
be a very useful thing, and the SLR makers with better ergonomics
(e.g. Nikon) offer them.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with presets. But that has nothing to do with the size of the LCD.
 
Most digicams don't even have an OVF. Many that do, the users are not happy about.

Now, it is true that these camera's can be used with an LCD and still take fine images. But I put my eye right into the eye cup off my OVF. And the back of my D2x is full of controls that I can make use of.

Let me clarify one more thing. The ONLY time I make use of the LCD is to access the menu. Not once in the five years of shooting my machines have I looked at the monitor for any other purpose. Not once. :)

So, enjoy your digicam with it's LCD. The bigger the better. And I have no doubt that these camera's, in the hands of a good photographer, can take better pictures than me. But since my tools are quite different, why are you creating a straw man to stick pins into? :)

Dave
T3 said:
T3 said:
bionet said:
T3 said:
For example, a 4" screen on the back of an DSLR would take
up quite a lot of space that is currently dedicated towards various
ergonomic and control considerations.
Click to expand...
No, there is just one consideration, and that one is economic.
Manufacturers know they can get away with it, so they do it.
Much of the space is simply empty and it would obviously be easy to
integrate a 4" LCD on the larger models. Do you seriously think
they'll stop at 2.5" because of ergonomic reasons? Are you working
for Canon or something? ;)
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that DSLR designers and DSLR users have different
priorities.
Click to expand...
I mean DSLR designers/users have different priorities than your
typical digicam buyer, who make by a digicam almost exclusively
based on the size of the LCD screen, even though that LCD screen
might take up almost all the space on their camera. DSLR
designers/users see DSLRs more as functional tools where access to
and control of functions are of paramount importance, which is not
really the case with digicams.
Click to expand...
 
I do not want a 4" display, way to big for me.

Give me an excellent 2,5" dispaly (still much room for improvement here) and I'm perfectly happy...
 
DSLRs have always had smaller LCDs. They simply don't need big ones. They have a real control system and view finder. The rear LCD is more of a status screen then anything else.

I have no urge for things to go past 2.5" even smaller might be better if it meant better control layouts, smaller bodies and so forth.

Someone will come out with a bigger screen for sure. And then everyone will have to follow, but I think it will be a bit.

It will be either canon with a 3" on a new 1D. Or Sony with a big one on a future higher level body. KM can be thanked for the drive to 2.5"
 
Things aren't introduced by manufacturers because you need them, its only to make the object sell better. In the early days of Japanese manufacturing it was said that when something is invented that no one in their right mind would want, that you had to first create the market and make people want it, and it will sell like hot cakes.

Because DSLRs are selling well enough and they are making money, they don't need to give you much, it will change if the market starts to get a bit tight, they will off you 6" LCD screens and a set of steak knives.

Brian
 
bionet said:
And the next one who defends manufactureres with arguments that
don't make sense. Battery life during shots doesn't need to have
anything to do with the LCD. When I shoot at concerts, where I take
lots of series, I turn off the LCD review.
Again, I must ask if you seriously think manufacturers would not
put in a 4" LCD if it was available for about the same price as a
2.5. It's all about maximizing profit, and we will see 4" LCDs in a
while.
Click to expand...
LCD size does not affect battery life? Since when a ton of reviews point out that larger LCD's mean less battery life. Yes if you turn of LCD review it may solve the problem but it may also mean no status LCD on the camera(I.E A100, XTI/400D) and they are always draining power.

I also agree with other posters, if a huge LCD means that the dedicated buttons like AF, ISO, WB, Metering get crunched even closer together I would not be happy. As it is its a pain to use the arrow keys on a 350D with any type of gloves on in the cold. I can just imagine it if they shrunk them even more to put a 4" LCD in.

Frankly a nice crisp 2"-2.5LCD is all I need and I would not be willing to sacrifice ergonomics or significant battery life for a larger LCD. If they put in a larger LCD the manufactures had better make the body larger to accommodate it without impacting ergonomics for the key buttons.
 
Who cares

SLR's don't use LCD's to take the picture
only to view afterwards

compact cameras actually use the LCD as the viewfinder and thus having a better LCD actually can help make the picture better
 
PhotoTraveler said:
DSLRs have always had smaller LCDs. They simply don't need big
ones. They have a real control system and view finder.
Click to expand...
Real control system? The newer DSLRs are being shipped with larger screens these days. Though I agree that a 4" screen probably would be too great a compromise to ergonomics for many DSLRs. But for more consumer oriented DSLRs that will typically be operated in "point and shoot" mode, it might make sense.
PhotoTraveler said:
The rear
LCD is more of a status screen then anything else.
Click to expand...
Not for me. I use it for image review which includes focus confirmation and histogram analysis.
PhotoTraveler said:
I have no urge for things to go past 2.5" even smaller might be
better if it meant better control layouts, smaller bodies and so
forth.
Click to expand...
For some shooting sure. But for general purpose shooting, I much prefer the 2.5" screen on my E-500 over the much smaller screen on my E-300.
PhotoTraveler said:
Someone will come out with a bigger screen for sure. And then
everyone will have to follow, but I think it will be a bit.

It will be either canon with a 3" on a new 1D. Or Sony with a big
one on a future higher level body. KM can be thanked for the drive
to 2.5"
Click to expand...
Actually, I expect it will be on the lower end models first.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
The LCD of the XT 350d is just enough for a dslr.
Big LCD look embarassing. What do you want a big screen for? Watch a movie?!

I wonder how all the photographers of the past managed to shoot photos without an LCD...
--
  • Mr Ralf -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top