I am seeing it, and now I'm telling you about it.
I'm not so I'm simply conveying my view..take it or leave it.
You shoulda run a mini lab for a few years as my workmates did... then you would be up to speed on what comes out of the slot from the amateurs.
My colleagues wanted to improve the amateur success rate for purely selfish reasons. It was hoped to up-sell to a higher proportion of enlarged prints, if the shots themselves could be made more worthy.
Their experiment was done to ascertain exactly WHY so many amateur shots of groups of people had acres of space over the heads, but despite this wasted frame area, the feet of the subjects were still cut off. The investigation was done with direct observation, both in a formal class with 'guinea pig' shooters in the studio, and also out and about observing the public.
It was clear that people aim eye-level cameras LEVEL and at the EYES of their subjects... and just will NOT aim them down to centre on NAVEL level until taught specifically to do so. When asked, they thought photographing people was analogous to conversation complete with eye-contact, and that the camera should "naturally" be centred on the centre of interest, which was "naturally" the faces.
Indeed, when they had shot straight at the faces, they were always so blooming
surprised that the feet were cut off... that was the killer! :-(
These days it is different. People holding an LCD camera out at arms length see a titchy little picture, which nothing like big enough to fill their view with detail, and so they tilt the camera DOWN to get the
outlines and masses filling the frame .... and it is not a composition centred on the faces that they get, with the problems that entails.
If you do not believe this, go and do your own observations, Barry.
I have been close up to teaching amateurs for decades, and this is a change which has come about with LCD displays, countering the earlier change for the worse that occurred when tiny waist level viewfinders were replaced by eye-level ones.
I've seen just as many bad photos from film days as I have from recent times. Not much has changed bar a generation of "white skies" colour shifts and blowouts thanks to the poor highlight end of digital which you didn't get back then ;-)
Yes, burned out highlights are a problem more prevalent in digital than in film.... but that has nothing to do with composition, and why amateurs do it better with LCD view screens.
You can do that with any digital camera OVF or not.
Gee! I guess you are right about that! ;-)
I am because it's true! Has digital helped aka instant review for learning and experimenting? Yes absolutely so has software and giving users full control over their shots..yup no question..however neither have a lot to do with EVF's.
I haven't disagreed with that, have I? My point with you was about composition and how LCD-only cameras make it better for learners. In this discussion, EVFs are irrelevant.
However, since the review in an OVF camera CANNOT take place in the eye-level viewfinder, simply because those cameras are not equipped for it, and review is therefore obliged to take place on the LCD.....
...this merely suggests that it makes no difference whether the LCD is viewed for the purposes of pre-emptive composition BEFORE pressing the button, or as corrective composition AFTER pressing the button and before composing a reshoot....
..... it is still the way the LCD is viewed, as a little picture in the hand , that points up poor composition when it happens.
If you can see the LCD that is with the sun beating down on it!
Well, if you want a
review image to see in the sun, you're gonna need an Electronic Viewfinder with that, aren't you, Sir? And would you also like
fries with that, Sir?
Gee! I guess you are right about that, too! ;-)
But hey! Nothing is perfect... and, as this thread points out, people are VERY selective about the imperfections up with which they are personally prepared to put! ;-)
My point is simple...the EVF has not replaced the OVF in compacts as most makers simply removed all forms of a viewfinder.
So how does your point arise from my point about LCDs improving composition for amateurs? Please remember, I'm not having a spat with you about the superiority of EVFs or OVFs.
The EVF VF didn't happen for compacts we got nothing. Now IMO that is a cost cutting profit margin reasons rather than being "what the consumer wants"
Errr... yeah, well... I expect you're right... (shrugs)
As for DSLR's and EVF's well I accept the electronic VF has some pro points overlays WYSIWYG (but not for flash!), histograms etc. On the other hand I'm shooting a wedding and that crucial moment is happening..do I have time to look at my live histogram and adjust it?? Do I have a chance to play with the WB settings? Probably not..
Okay. That's you. That's fine.
Now fair enough you don't always shoot that subject, which is why it's nice to have live view on the LCD so you can use the histogram and get the WB right etc..great for non action stuff. But let's not pretend the EVF is going to solve a load of problems (which are mostly not problems) on it's own without bringing a few more new ones (lag, more power drain, poor in low light etc)
OVF and live view work pretty well IMO.
Well, that's a concession. Do you think there might be more concessions as EVFs continue to improve?
But if you really want that touch screen only nightmare no VF or direct buttons then great, I'm not sold on it though. lol
Touch screen leaves me cold, too.
While we are broadening things out so much ...whadya think of 3D? Will it stick around this time?
--
Regards,
Baz
Well, I'll see your Cher, and your Streisand... and I'll raise you an Alice Babs!
