Not A Fan of Viewfinders. Am I crazy?

Started Jan 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Barrie Davis
Barrie Davis Forum Pro • Posts: 21,460
Re: Not A Fan of Viewfinders. Am I crazy?

ljfinger wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

zenit_b wrote:

Robert Anderson wrote:

I have to tilt my head back and view through the bottom part of my glasses. I

With the LCD screen I cannot tell if my distant subject is smiling or if their eyes are closed.

Then DON'T look through the camera, look over the top!

Best detailed view finder ever..

Golly! I am amazed anybody needs to be told this!!

It's often not so simple. My camera's resolving power at around 35mm is about the same as my bare eyes. So, if I'm shooting at, say, 200mm (which is extremely often for me) I can't see enough detail "over the top". Further, looking "over the top" means losing your attention on framing which usually means missing the shot.

I wouldn't consider using a 200mm lens to shoot with an LCD viewing camera. Not a suitable combination.

My SX260 has no viewfinder and goes to 500mm.

Sorry. You are sending mixed messages, here. Didn't you say you wouldn't countenance a camera without a viewfinder? Or was that somebody else?

That camera is practical to use at the long end under less than stressful conditions, but it's totally impractical to "look over the top" as you'll lose framing instantly.

My 70-200 is my primary portrait lens.

And you already stated your primary f-length of choice was the long end, right?

I use the whole range, sometimes I even use the long end on APS-c.

I don't go there...

I do.

The longest lens I have ever used for pro portraits is 180mm for a headshot, but that was on 2¼" square. It is all a matter of taste, but I wouldn't ever use a 200 on 35mm, let alone APS, due to gross flattening of the features at the distances involved.

The difference in feature flattening between 85mm and 300mm is actually quite small.

Also, my shots are carefully set up, so throwing confusing backgrounds out of focus at wide aperture is not of great concern.

Mine are often of kids playing and you don't really want to chase them around.

....the longest lens I have ever used for a fashion shoot was 180mm, and THAT was on 2¼" square...(Hassy). Even so, the models were so far away they couldn't hear me in the traffic noise of a city street, so I had to relay my posing directions via mobile 'phone to an assistant stationed just out of shot.

I do it all the time from just 5-30 feet away.

Do what? Use a 'phone to communicate?

Shoot portraits at long focal lengths. I've never used a communication device other than my voice for this.

Do the math. A 25cm tall head shot at 200mm means you are only 1.39m from your target.

That would suggest that your zoom is not yeilding anything LIKE a full 200mm at that working distance. Have you tried shooting headshots with an actual 200mm PRIME lens?

200mm on full-frame:

200mm on APS-c:

Your choice, not mine... (see below)

You can't see the flattening, can you? Hmmm....

To me it is excessive.... but I have noticed over the years, people have been shooting headshots with longer and yet longer lenses. Somehow they are able to 'tune out' the flattening from their perceptions, to the point where grown womens' noses are shrunk 'till they all look like two year olds... (see above)..

It has to be said, if you like this "kiddi-fication" of adults, and find it appealing, I'm afraid I don't.

Do you do it to men, as well?

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

 Barrie Davis's gear list:Barrie Davis's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow