Why are people so obsessed with viewfinders?

well the OP is more specific about using LCD vs viewfinder .. so I guess those 10 points ( while a bit exaggerated ) apply.

EVF as it is is Ok, but cannot take away the need for Optical viewfinder .. ever try low light and action mixed, or landscape in twilight, and then some, plenty of shooting scene just are not liveview friendly. I believe todays DSLR with liveview on LCD is a good balance of providing the means. And if one need a EVF , a lcd hood/scope is simple and straight forward

I bewlieve EVF is best employed in compact system camera type. Panasonic's and Samsung's employment in GH1 and NX10 is quite good, they just had to think a bit more advance and ditch the SLR styling ( I think with EVF, Panasonic should made the EVF on the side, more like old days RF or their L1, which then would build cleaner styling )

--

• Franka -

I really can't agree.

The evf is better in some situations. If the screen flips up, the stability/convenience of a waist level finder is every bit as good as an ovf. As someone who used waist level finders on tlr cameras for years, they are just as stable and more inconspicuous to use than eyelevel finders. Most of your 10 points only apply when the camera is held out at arms length. And just as TLR professional cameras such as Rolleis and Mamiya c series had a lens shade, these are also available and can be used with evfs. There are advantages to ovf but the gap is much narrower than you suggest and the gap continues to narrow.

I would agree however that the old TLR cameras were designed so that the camera controls were accessed with your fingers pointing down. The current evfs are not designed this way, bujt thney can be. The point is, the evf is not inherently inferior in these aspects, it is simply a matter of designing controls to use from the waist level position or so that they can be used from either waist level or eye level.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

Marti58 said:

as you only seem to spend time in this forum instead of going out.
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

Click to expand...

Does that include yourself? Because last time I checked you weren't interested in Sony Alpha gear, actually, going by your own posting history, you never were, as much as you have tried to pack that negativity in an innocent looking wrapper from time to time.

You didn't go back far enough. Camera were originally focused on ground glass (precursor to the LCD) under a dark cloth. Viewfinders were some new fad thing that turned up much later.

Cheers~Jack

cgarrard wrote:
Jan are you a photographer?

Wow! I'm having a hard time seeing how that's not a totally snotty question.

... it's either that or a completely black rectangle on the back of your camera to frame your shot.

How old is the camera you're using?

I have no problems seeing what goes on on the back of my Sony WX1, at midday, in South Africa. The sun doesn't get much brighter.

Just because LCD screens were horrible a few years ago doesn't mean they'll be horrible forever.

I remember not so long ago the purists were dismissing LCDs, using all kinds of strained rationales. I welcomed LCDs -- especially articulating -- because they facilitate shots that are problematic through a viewfinder, like overheads and ground-level, and provide previews of marginal shots like low-light. Blah, blah, blah, said the purists. (Check out the old threads.)

Now it's come full circle, with an LCD fan calling viewfinders obsolete. Well, go over to the Leica forum with that line and get mugged. OF COURSE viewfinders aren't obsolete! Lists of uses are already posted, but for me there are three big reasons: discreet shooting, quick shooting and power saving.

First: I HATE having to hold a camera at arm's length to take a shot. I feel like such a tourist! The last thing a photographer wants to do, especially taking candids, is announce his presence. The beauty of today's tiny camera is its discreetness. With a viewfinder the discreetness of a small footprint is preserved. It's like putting your hand up to your face. A viewfinder with, thanks to today's sensor performance, the flash off, and you're almost invisible to your subjects -- another Eisenstaedt!

Second: If you have the camera set up properly, all you need to get the shot is to frame it. Using an LCD I tend to take an extra second or two analyzing the shot. And in that second or two, the shot is gone.

Third: Use the viewfinder with the LCD turned off, and you can take a thousand shots on one charge.

I have a Canon DSLR with big L glass, but I love my Canon 780IS, too. It's tiny, it's black, and it has a viewfinder that works. It's great to whip it out, get the shot and pocket it again -- slam, bam, thank you, ma'am -- without anyone's noticing, as if I were just rubbing my eye. And the viewfinder gets much of the credit.

LCDs are great -- they have many uses. But for me, the ideal camera has both LCD and viewfinder.

The real question is how do you get BOTH in a pocketable aps camera.

Since there is NO MIRROR and NO fixed lens you would have to have various frame lines on the OvF, multiple OVFs, zoomable OVFs etc - all reducing their desirability. And any built in viewfinder bigger than a peephole is going to be hard to do and still keep it pocketable. I think the best compromise is either a hoodman for the LCD or a detachable EVF. --
--
more bONGO at
http://www.bongolia.com

JanKritzinger said:

How old is the camera you're using?

I have no problems seeing what goes on on the back of my Sony WX1, at midday, in South Africa. The sun doesn't get much brighter.

Just because LCD screens were horrible a few years ago doesn't mean they'll be horrible forever.

Click to expand...

....at least in low sun and backlight.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

JanKritzinger said:

Cameras originally had viewfinders because that was the only way to frame and focus the shot.

Liveview LCDs are more than adequate for framing, and good autofocus negates the need for a optically perfect image.

The biggest advantage of an LCD screen over a viewfinder is that you don't have to take photos with the camera attached to your face! For close range wide angle photography, this gives you invaluable control over perspective.

I've shot outdoors extensively with liveview cameras, as early as the 1990s, and sunlight has never been so bad that I can't at least frame a shot, and see where the camera is focussing. Today, LCD screens produced by the likes of Sony are better than ever.

In a big DSLR, sure, incorporate both.

But with compacts such as the NEX, optical viewfinders make very little sense, and I am glad that Sony have opted to leave it out.

Viewfinders do have benefits, but most people just want them because they are used to them. Their resistance to change will die with them, and someday most viewfinders will be optional add-ons for those with special needs.

I can't wait for the NEX 5 to hit the shelves.

Click to expand...

View finder is very important in low light situations, where high ISO setting and sensitive sensors are not providing good LIVEVIEW feeding on LCD.

....the snows reflecting everywhere meaning the LCD is pretty much permanently reflecting at you... plus you are wearing very dark glasses (or going snowblind).

Its not a case of you cant see the detail in the LCD... you cant see ANYTHING on the LCD that would even give you a hint of whats in frame...

For my Pentax Optio waterproof compact I just have to zoom out a bit, then point it in the right vague direction and shoot ... its got no optical or electronic viewfinder - just the 2.5" LCD. Shading the screen helps a bit but thats tricky if you are actully skiing along at the time and are holding your poles in the other hand..... I have managed to "sort of" master this technique, but when I lend the camera to other people to video or photograph me they miss me completely.

My brother in law bought a Panasonic GF-1 and reports it was extremely challenging to use on his skiing trip. He's considering the EVF addon but that looks really fragile to me (I have a crash n' burn skiing style). I've recommended a traditional hot shoe mount (metal) optical viewfinder - you can get the helios one for about £30 - ok, framing could be suspect but at least the camera would end up pointing directly at the subject.

My old Canon Powershot A series camera had an optical viewfinder and was great for skiing trips... too bad it gave up the ghost ...

Apart from skiing I do a lot of ourdoors photography and generally I find it hard to see detail on any of my cameras on the LCDs on bright days. You can often frame the image but stuff like where the light is reflecting, whether the hair is backlit, when the waves breaking etc you just have to look at the scene directly instead of using the LCD.

If you have any aspirations at all in photograpy you dont just want to FRAME the scene, you want to COMPSOSE the scene. I can accept that these screens are gradually improving but I have yet to see something that gives the rich detail and tonality of a proper OVF (or recent EVF) in bright light.

lim yau tong said:

From my experience viewfinder is invaluable under the following situation:

1. Continuous tracking of fast moving object such as bif or sports action.
2. Easier and faster in locating target.
3. Enhance stability of shots.
4. Easier to check whether object is in focus.

Click to expand...

Nailed in 4 lines. No viewfinder cameras are OK, but fundamentally flawed for anyone taking photography seriously.

Chris

Racconda said:

Marti58 said:

as you only seem to spend time in this forum instead of going out.
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

Click to expand...

Does that include yourself? Because last time I checked you weren't interested in Sony Alpha gear, actually, going by your own posting history, you never were, as much as you have tried to pack that negativity in an innocent looking wrapper from time to time.

Click to expand...

i own and have owned several Sony Camera's ...i'm interested but that doesn't mean i buy it....and yes i go out a lot and about 85 % of my daytime is filled with Photography.

--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

There are still several reasons why optical viewfinders are better than either Live LCDs or EVFs. First, even the very best live view implementations have too much lag for many users; not only sports shooters, but anyone who's trying to capture a specific moment will benefit from a viewfinder. Also, in lower light conditions, Live previews get very noisy, and even slower, and the frame rate tends to drop. Another issue is AF: even the fastest contrast detect AF, such as on the Panasonic M4/3 cams, is way slower than prosumer level phase-detect AF. This matters to a lot of DSLR users. Also, having the camera up to one's face is the best way to hold a camera steady; this is important in a lot of photography. Last is screen resolution; even the sharpest 1.4K EVFs are noticeably grainier and softer than a nice OVF.

I think EVF/Live LCD may eventually replace OVFs, but it will still be awhile before they're good enough to do so.

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

Marti58 said:

Racconda said:

Marti58 said:

as you only seem to spend time in this forum instead of going out.
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

Click to expand...

Does that include yourself? Because last time I checked you weren't interested in Sony Alpha gear, actually, going by your own posting history, you never were, as much as you have tried to pack that negativity in an innocent looking wrapper from time to time.

Click to expand...

i own and have owned several Sony Camera's ...i'm interested but that doesn't mean i buy it....and yes i go out a lot and about 85 % of my daytime is filled with Photography.

Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question that you already answered throughout your posting history. You obviously also missed the bold part that says Alpha in my previous post. I could post dozens of quotes from your handwriting stating you aren't interested and/or notifying us with messages along the lines of: people outside this forum don't take their Alpha efforts too seriously etc. etc. In other words, that 15% might be spent better elsewhere. The Nikon DSLR and Sony forums for example.

Mike Fewster said:

I would agree however that the old TLR cameras were designed so that the camera controls were accessed with your fingers pointing down. The current evfs are not designed this way, bujt thney can be. The point is, the evf is not inherently inferior in these aspects, it is simply a matter of designing controls to use from the waist level position or so that they can be used from either waist level or eye level.

Click to expand...

And photograph everybody except children from below!!!!!

Photographs of adult people look better taken from eye level, like you would see the person if talking to them. A natural view.

I don't photograph children, mine are adults, even the one that died was an adult when he died.

Yes I used to own and use a TLR. For some reason TLRs lost out to SLRs. And some of that could very well have been wrong viewpoint.

Walt

Racconda said:

Marti58 said:

Racconda said:

Marti58 said:

as you only seem to spend time in this forum instead of going out.
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

Click to expand...

Does that include yourself? Because last time I checked you weren't interested in Sony Alpha gear, actually, going by your own posting history, you never were, as much as you have tried to pack that negativity in an innocent looking wrapper from time to time.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

guess you're not able to see that a different opinion can be valid.

Racconda said:

Racconda said:

i own and have owned several Sony Camera's ...i'm interested but that doesn't mean i buy it....and yes i go out a lot and about 85 % of my daytime is filled with Photography.

Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question that you already answered throughout your posting > history. You obviously also missed the bold part that says Alpha in my previous > post. I could post dozens of quotes from your handwriting stating you aren't > interested and/or notifying us with messages along the lines of: people outside > this forum don't take their Alpha efforts too seriously etc. etc. In other words, > that 15% might be spent better elsewhere. The Nikon DSLR and Sony forums > for example.

Click to expand...

Forums are public so i can enter any forum a i wish.

that i dont post much say's nothing .... i read a lot.

About Nikon well i dont have to debate that ..i own Nikon yes i've been using that for over 30 years ...........still i wanna know what Sony is doing just n case they produce something that will fit my Shooting needs.

--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

JanKritzinger said:

How old is the camera you're using?

I have no problems seeing what goes on on the back of my Sony WX1, at midday, in South Africa. The sun doesn't get much brighter.

Just because LCD screens were horrible a few years ago doesn't mean they'll be horrible forever.

Click to expand...

With surface reflections of your face and surroundings detail is hard to resolve still.

And I have a HX1, bought about a month ago.....

Walt

Marti58 said:

Racconda said:

Marti58 said:

Racconda said:

Marti58 said:

as you only seem to spend time in this forum instead of going out.
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

Click to expand...

Does that include yourself? Because last time I checked you weren't interested in Sony Alpha gear, actually, going by your own posting history, you never were, as much as you have tried to pack that negativity in an innocent looking wrapper from time to time.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

guess you're not able to see that a different opinion can be valid.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about an opinion. I was talking about trolling really. Your first contribution to this thread was a prime example. Someone like Barry F. actually used a Sony DSLR and wanted them to improve. That's a better motive than yours since I've never witnessed a good reason for your negativity in here.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

i own and have owned several Sony Camera's ...i'm interested but that doesn't mean i buy it....and yes i go out a lot and about 85 % of my daytime is filled with Photography.

Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question that you already answered throughout your posting > history. You obviously also missed the bold part that says Alpha in my previous > post. I could post dozens of quotes from your handwriting stating you aren't > interested and/or notifying us with messages along the lines of: people outside > this forum don't take their Alpha efforts too seriously etc. etc. In other words, > that 15% might be spent better elsewhere. The Nikon DSLR and Sony forums > for example.

Click to expand...

Forums are public so i can enter any forum a i wish.

Click to expand...

A good understanding of the forum rules seems to be lacking. That or selfreflection.

Member said:

that i dont post much say's nothing .... i read a lot.

About Nikon well i dont have to debate that ..i own Nikon yes i've been using that for over 30 years ...........still i wanna know what Sony is doing just n case they produce something that will fit my Shooting needs.

Click to expand...

Who are you kidding there?