princecody
Senior Member
Your thoughts?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why NO touchscreen on the Sony A7II?
- Thread starter princecody
- Start date
axlotl
Senior Member
It appears this discussion is not going to reach resolution any time soon.
My experience with many cameras which do have a well implemented touch screen (Panasonic) is that I don't find a use for it with hand held still photography, even after trying it over a period of months.
Some people say they like Panasonic's 'Touch Pad AF' feature. I just found it awkward and difficult to use.
Maybe video work on a tripod is a better platform for touch screen operation. In this situation the user does not have to hold onto the camera and does not (usually) look through the viewfinder.
Andrew
My experience with many cameras which do have a well implemented touch screen (Panasonic) is that I don't find a use for it with hand held still photography, even after trying it over a period of months.
Some people say they like Panasonic's 'Touch Pad AF' feature. I just found it awkward and difficult to use.
Maybe video work on a tripod is a better platform for touch screen operation. In this situation the user does not have to hold onto the camera and does not (usually) look through the viewfinder.
Andrew
For people who shoot from waist-- or chest-- level (old-school style like if you were using an waist-level finder on an old Bronica or Rolleiflex medium format film body) while using the articulating LCD flipped out, touch AF can be a very handy feature. Old Canon and Nikon SLR film bodies even used to have removable prism so you could shoot with waist-level finder attachments. Of course, back then you had to manually focus the lens. These days, you can just tap on a screen to focus and shoot (if the camera has a touch screen).
Last edited:
M
More Keepers
Guest
And the alternative to touch screen is ... drum roll ... shoot from the waist viewfinder
You posted a picture of a Nikon FTN, a wonderful camera for the 60s. More than 30 years ago Nikon put AF into a 35mm camera. For decades film and digital photographers have been using AF systems. These pictures are hardly relevant to a touch screen discussion in the 21st century.
Last edited:
Too bad you have to use film to do so. Not many of us want to use film anymore. So you see, your suggestion of using an old-school waist level finder has one major disadvantage: it's attached to an old-school manual film camera! What's why, instead of using old film cameras, many of us now use modern digital cameras with articulating LCD screens. They allow us to get away from eye-level shooting and position the camera lower, while still enjoying all the modern conveniences and performance that today's modern digital cameras offer.And the alternative to touch screen is ... drum roll ... shoot from the waist viewfinder
Actually, it's very relevant because modern touchscreen technology allows us to bring together many of these elements, past and present: shoot from waist or chest level (away from eye level), autofocus technology, and pin-point focus point selection. So instead of using an old Nikon FTN that I have to use 36 exposure film rolls on, and that I have to slowly manually focus with, I can instead use something like an Olympus E-M5 which has an articulating flip-out LCD, and it also has auto focus, in addition touch focus/touch shutter via the touch screen. And I think that's one of the reasons why many people wish the Sony A7II had a touchscreen. Many people want to be able to touch the screen to select the focus point and trip the shutter, and even do so while using the A7II's existing flip-out LCD screen.You posted a picture of a Nikon FTN, a wonderful camera for the 60s. More than 30 years ago Nikon put AF into a 35mm camera. For decades film and digital photographers have been using AF systems. These pictures are hardly relevant to a touch screen discussion in the 21st century.
Olympus E-M5
Sony A7 II
M
More Keepers
Guest
I see you like old school design ideas for some functions but not for others.Too bad you have to use film to do so. Not many of us want to use film anymore. So you see, your suggestion of using an old-school waist level finder has one major disadvantage: it's attached to an old-school manual film camera! What's why, instead of using old film cameras, many of us now use modern digital cameras with articulating LCD screens. They allow us to get away from eye-level shooting and position the camera lower, while still enjoying all the modern conveniences and performance that today's modern digital cameras offer.And the alternative to touch screen is ... drum roll ... shoot from the waist viewfinder
A flip up screen would be nice 1% of the time, hardly a must have. You aren't going to like using that rear screen flipped up into the sun. You will be lucky to see well enough just for framing. So far you've demonstrated some nice little gimmicks that are not critical for most photography. I would take a flip up display for free, but not as a must have on my feature list.
Actually, it's very relevant because modern touchscreen technology allows us to bring together many of these elements, past and present: shoot from waist or chest level (away from eye level), autofocus technology, and pin-point focus point selection. So instead of using an old Nikon FTN that I have to use 36 exposure film rolls on, and that I have to slowly manually focus with, I can instead use something like an Olympus E-M5 which has an articulating flip-out LCD, and it also has auto focus, in addition touch focus/touch shutter via the touch screen. And I think that's one of the reasons why many people wish the Sony A7II had a touchscreen. Many people want to be able to touch the screen to select the focus point and trip the shutter, and even do so while using the A7II's existing flip-out LCD screen.You posted a picture of a Nikon FTN, a wonderful camera for the 60s. More than 30 years ago Nikon put AF into a 35mm camera. For decades film and digital photographers have been using AF systems. These pictures are hardly relevant to a touch screen discussion in the 21st century.
Olympus E-M5
Sony A7 II
Last edited:
What you've said can apply to many, many features that have come to cameras over the decades. How often does the average person use mirror lock up? How often does the average person use weather sealing? How often does the average person use wireless TTL flash? All kinds of features can be considered to be of some degree of limited use. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful to have, at least to someone.
As for the "gimmicks" comment, LOL, I really have to laugh at that. People used to call auto focus a "gimmick". They used to call image stabilization a "gimmick". Pretty much every new technology or feature that is currently found in cameras has at one time or another been called a "gimmick" that is "not critical for most photography" by someone. If people like you had their way, we'd still all be using all-manual film cameras, and camera development would have come to a stand-still a long time ago. Fortunately, people like you don't run camera companies. Whew!
As for not being able to use the rear screen in the sun, when you're looking down at the LCD screen what typically happens is that your head ends up shading the screen. You get even more shade if you happen to be wearing a hat or baseball cap. And it also depends on which direction the sunlight is coming from, and how bright the sun is. But the beauty of a flip-out screen (or any feature, for that matter) is that it is an option to use. No one is making you to use it, and no one says you have to use it all the time. If a particular feature doesn't work well for a particular situation, then you just don't use it. But it's nice to have these various options at your disposal.
Last edited:
M
More Keepers
Guest
It's quite a jump to say that because my favorite features aren't touch and flip up screens that I prefer manual focus film cameras. Do you really believe that touch screens are as revolutionary to cameras as image stabilization and AF? Seriously? If I preferred manual focus film cameras I would use them. Does your logic even make sense as I prefer to use cameras with sophisticated AF capabilities? My first digital camera was in 2000. Would that make me a late adopter of digital photography technology?What you've said can apply to many, many features that have come to cameras over the decades. How often does the average person use mirror lock up? How often does the average person use weather sealing? How often does the average person use mirrorless TTL flash? All kinds of features can be considered to be of some degree of limited use. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful to have.
As for the "gimmick" comment, LOL, I really have to laugh at that. People used to call auto focus a "gimmick". They used to call image stabilization a "gimmick". Pretty much every new technology or feature that is currently found in cameras has been called a "gimmick" that is "not critical for most photography" by the curmudgeon luddite crowd. If people like you were had their way, we'd still all be using all-manual film cameras! Fortunately, people like you don't run camera companies. Whew!
As far as film goes, more power to those who still like to use film. Does that make you and I somehow better than those you call "the curmudgeon luddite crowd" just because we shoot digital? In my opinion no. Clearly you think differently.
You use the word "luddite" and "curmudgeon" as adjectives that might prove your point. Perhaps you think by calling someone these names you discredit them. You have no idea about my thoughts and abilities when it comes to new technology. You have wandered around wildly off topic, from touch screens to waist viewfinders, to flip screens, to luddites that your logic has been scattered. You demonstrate concern about your weak arguments with your simplistic insults.
Sony marketing knows more about the target market for this camera than you or I. We have the results of their decisions on product definition, pricing and competition for the A7ii.
Last edited:
You have to keep in mind that just because you were a forward-thinking adapter of new technology more than a decade ago doesnt necessarily mean that you are as adaptable today. It's like music. Just because you might have been into cutting edge music in your youth doesn't necessarily mean that you would be into the latest cutting edge music of today. It might just sound like incomprehensible, grating noise to you, and you'd think, "how can kids listen to that cr@p? That's not music!" The same goes for technology like touch screens on cameras. You might think, "why would anyone use these gimmicks? That's not photography!"It's quite a jump to say that because my favorite features aren't touch and flip up screens that I prefer manual focus film cameras. Do you really believe that touch screens are as revolutionary to cameras as image stabilization and AF? Seriously? If I preferred manual focus film cameras I would use them. Does your logic even make sense as I prefer to use cameras with sophisticated AF capabilities? My first digital camera was in 2000. Would that make me a late adopter of digital photography technology?What you've said can apply to many, many features that have come to cameras over the decades. How often does the average person use mirror lock up? How often does the average person use weather sealing? How often does the average person use mirrorless TTL flash? All kinds of features can be considered to be of some degree of limited use. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful to have.
As for the "gimmick" comment, LOL, I really have to laugh at that. People used to call auto focus a "gimmick". They used to call image stabilization a "gimmick". Pretty much every new technology or feature that is currently found in cameras has been called a "gimmick" that is "not critical for most photography" by the curmudgeon luddite crowd. If people like you were had their way, we'd still all be using all-manual film cameras! Fortunately, people like you don't run camera companies. Whew!
As far as film goes, more power to those who still like to use film. Does that make you and I somehow better than those you call "the curmudgeon luddite crowd" just because we shoot digital? In my opinion no. Clearly you think differently.
You use the word "luddite" and "curmudgeon" as adjectives that might prove your point. Perhaps you think by calling someone these names you discredit them. You have no idea about my thoughts and abilities when it comes to new technology. You have wandered around wildly off topic, from touch screens to waist viewfinders, to flip screens, to luddites that your logic has been scattered. You demonstrate concern about your weak arguments with your simplistic insults.
Sony marketing knows more about the target market for this camera than you or I. We have the results of their decisions on product definition, pricing and competition for the A7ii.
I don't find things like tilt screens and touch screens to me 'little gimmicks" at all. One man's "gimmick" is another man's handy tool. When a new feature comes out, rather than merely dismissing it as a "gimmick", I start to think of the ways I might be able to use it in the service of my photography. And it doesn't matter if I might only use a particular feature "1% of the time." It's just another tool in our toolbox, ready to be used when we might need it.
Btw, I do think that its only a matter of time before Sony offers touchscreens on their cameras. Right now, I think it's really an issue of keeping cost down, and feature rationing. With regards to keeping costs down, a decent touch screen obviously costs more than a non touch screen. And as for feature rationing, this is a fairly common practice of withholding certain features from current models and saving them for future models. Why fire off all your bullets when you can hold some in reserve? Sony probably feels that their current products are interesting enough to save touchscreens for a later release.
Last edited:
M
More Keepers
Guest
LOL ... You can't stay on topic. You think someone who may be older than you is intolerant, but you only reveal your immaturity with silly stereotypes. I will give you this, you certainly have a good imagination.You have to keep in mind that just because you were a forward-thinking adapter of new technology more than a decade ago doesnt necessarily mean that you are as adaptable today. It's like music. Just because you might have been into cutting edge music in your youth doesn't necessarily mean that you would be into the latest cutting edge music of today. It might just sound like incomprehensible, grating noise to you, and you'd think, "how can kids listen to that cr@p? That's not music!" The same goes for technology like touch screens on cameras. You might think, "why would anyone use these gimmicks? That's not photography!"It's quite a jump to say that because my favorite features aren't touch and flip up screens that I prefer manual focus film cameras. Do you really believe that touch screens are as revolutionary to cameras as image stabilization and AF? Seriously? If I preferred manual focus film cameras I would use them. Does your logic even make sense as I prefer to use cameras with sophisticated AF capabilities? My first digital camera was in 2000. Would that make me a late adopter of digital photography technology?What you've said can apply to many, many features that have come to cameras over the decades. How often does the average person use mirror lock up? How often does the average person use weather sealing? How often does the average person use mirrorless TTL flash? All kinds of features can be considered to be of some degree of limited use. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful to have.
As for the "gimmick" comment, LOL, I really have to laugh at that. People used to call auto focus a "gimmick". They used to call image stabilization a "gimmick". Pretty much every new technology or feature that is currently found in cameras has been called a "gimmick" that is "not critical for most photography" by the curmudgeon luddite crowd. If people like you were had their way, we'd still all be using all-manual film cameras! Fortunately, people like you don't run camera companies. Whew!
As far as film goes, more power to those who still like to use film. Does that make you and I somehow better than those you call "the curmudgeon luddite crowd" just because we shoot digital? In my opinion no. Clearly you think differently.
You use the word "luddite" and "curmudgeon" as adjectives that might prove your point. Perhaps you think by calling someone these names you discredit them. You have no idea about my thoughts and abilities when it comes to new technology. You have wandered around wildly off topic, from touch screens to waist viewfinders, to flip screens, to luddites that your logic has been scattered. You demonstrate concern about your weak arguments with your simplistic insults.
Sony marketing knows more about the target market for this camera than you or I. We have the results of their decisions on product definition, pricing and competition for the A7ii.
From a sales perspective touch screens are a great consumer gimmick. Recently, someone new to photography pulled out their Rebel and proudly stated they bought it because of the touch screen. This had nothing to do with his understanding of photography, for he knew nothing of that, only that this was a DSLR with a touch screen. This is why touch screen is so important for consumer cameras.
Good luck. You are going to need it.
Last edited:
It's called using an analogy to make a point. In this case, I'm making the point that just because you might have been progressive in your earlier years doesn't necessarily mean you stay progressive-minded as you age. In this case, we're talking about being progressive-minded about touch technology coming to cameras. So we're still on topic. I just did think you understand the concept of using an analogy to mane a point.LOL ... You can't stay on topic. I will give you this, you certainly have a good imaginationYou have to keep in mind that just because you were a forward-thinking adapter of new technology more than a decade ago doesnt necessarily mean that you are as adaptable today. It's like music. Just because you might have been into cutting edge music in your youth doesn't necessarily mean that you would be into the latest cutting edge music of today. It might just sound like incomprehensible, grating noise to you, and you'd think, "how can kids listen to that cr@p? That's not music!" The same goes for technology like touch screens on cameras. You might think, "why would anyone use these gimmicks? That's not photography!"It's quite a jump to say that because my favorite features aren't touch and flip up screens that I prefer manual focus film cameras. Do you really believe that touch screens are as revolutionary to cameras as image stabilization and AF? Seriously? If I preferred manual focus film cameras I would use them. Does your logic even make sense as I prefer to use cameras with sophisticated AF capabilities? My first digital camera was in 2000. Would that make me a late adopter of digital photography technology?What you've said can apply to many, many features that have come to cameras over the decades. How often does the average person use mirror lock up? How often does the average person use weather sealing? How often does the average person use mirrorless TTL flash? All kinds of features can be considered to be of some degree of limited use. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful to have.
As for the "gimmick" comment, LOL, I really have to laugh at that. People used to call auto focus a "gimmick". They used to call image stabilization a "gimmick". Pretty much every new technology or feature that is currently found in cameras has been called a "gimmick" that is "not critical for most photography" by the curmudgeon luddite crowd. If people like you were had their way, we'd still all be using all-manual film cameras! Fortunately, people like you don't run camera companies. Whew!
As far as film goes, more power to those who still like to use film. Does that make you and I somehow better than those you call "the curmudgeon luddite crowd" just because we shoot digital? In my opinion no. Clearly you think differently.
You use the word "luddite" and "curmudgeon" as adjectives that might prove your point. Perhaps you think by calling someone these names you discredit them. You have no idea about my thoughts and abilities when it comes to new technology. You have wandered around wildly off topic, from touch screens to waist viewfinders, to flip screens, to luddites that your logic has been scattered. You demonstrate concern about your weak arguments with your simplistic insults.
Sony marketing knows more about the target market for this camera than you or I. We have the results of their decisions on product definition, pricing and competition for the A7ii.
Well I guess that's the difference between some people. You think I need "good luck" using features that a camera offers. Some of us don't think there's anything difficult about it at all, so we're not going to need "good luck" using them. So while I appreciate your "Good luck, you are going to need it" comment, really I don't need it. It's not rocket science, for crying out loud. Lol. I guess some of us are more at ease with adopting new technologies and features than others.Good luck. You are going to need it.
ttran88
Senior Member
Because Sony didn't put one in? No but seriously I think their a5100 has it so if it's a must have item at least Sony has a product to offer to their customers.
M
More Keepers
Guest
Gee, thanks for explaining an analogy for DPreview readers. Did you learn that in junior high school? Your analogy is flawed and your logic is twisted.It's called using an analogy to make a point. In this case, I'm making the point that just because you might have been progressive in your earlier years doesn't necessarily mean you stay progressive-minded as you age. In this case, we're talking about being progressive-minded about touch technology coming to cameras. So we're still on topic. I just did think you understand the concept of using an analogy to mane a point.LOL ... You can't stay on topic. I will give you this, you certainly have a good imaginationYou have to keep in mind that just because you were a forward-thinking adapter of new technology more than a decade ago doesnt necessarily mean that you are as adaptable today. It's like music. Just because you might have been into cutting edge music in your youth doesn't necessarily mean that you would be into the latest cutting edge music of today. It might just sound like incomprehensible, grating noise to you, and you'd think, "how can kids listen to that cr@p? That's not music!" The same goes for technology like touch screens on cameras. You might think, "why would anyone use these gimmicks? That's not photography!"It's quite a jump to say that because my favorite features aren't touch and flip up screens that I prefer manual focus film cameras. Do you really believe that touch screens are as revolutionary to cameras as image stabilization and AF? Seriously? If I preferred manual focus film cameras I would use them. Does your logic even make sense as I prefer to use cameras with sophisticated AF capabilities? My first digital camera was in 2000. Would that make me a late adopter of digital photography technology?What you've said can apply to many, many features that have come to cameras over the decades. How often does the average person use mirror lock up? How often does the average person use weather sealing? How often does the average person use mirrorless TTL flash? All kinds of features can be considered to be of some degree of limited use. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful to have.
As for the "gimmick" comment, LOL, I really have to laugh at that. People used to call auto focus a "gimmick". They used to call image stabilization a "gimmick". Pretty much every new technology or feature that is currently found in cameras has been called a "gimmick" that is "not critical for most photography" by the curmudgeon luddite crowd. If people like you were had their way, we'd still all be using all-manual film cameras! Fortunately, people like you don't run camera companies. Whew!
As far as film goes, more power to those who still like to use film. Does that make you and I somehow better than those you call "the curmudgeon luddite crowd" just because we shoot digital? In my opinion no. Clearly you think differently.
You use the word "luddite" and "curmudgeon" as adjectives that might prove your point. Perhaps you think by calling someone these names you discredit them. You have no idea about my thoughts and abilities when it comes to new technology. You have wandered around wildly off topic, from touch screens to waist viewfinders, to flip screens, to luddites that your logic has been scattered. You demonstrate concern about your weak arguments with your simplistic insults.
Sony marketing knows more about the target market for this camera than you or I. We have the results of their decisions on product definition, pricing and competition for the A7ii.
I didn't realize you were so dense. I meant good luck in future endeavors, as you will probably need it.Well I guess that's the difference between some people. You think I need "good luck" using features that a camera offers. Some of us don't think there's anything difficult about it at all, so we're not going to need "good luck" using them. So while I appreciate your "Good luck, you are going to need it" comment, really I don't need it. It's not rocket science, for crying out loud. Lol. I guess some of us are more at ease with adopting new technologies and features than others.Good luck. You are going to need it.
Explanation: Did you really think I meant good luck with the touch screen or the camera? Did you think a mirror-less camera with touch screen is so complex that only a technically progressive individual as yourself could handle it? You are likely to run into a boss that's older than you. When you disagree and your come back is that she is a Luddite complete with stupid analogies, how do you think she will react? It won't be for a promotion. With your approach you will need all the luck you can get.
Last edited:
Well, yeah, if he or she was inclined to believe that we should still be using typewriters and Rolodex's, someone might need to talk to them about possibly modernizing!I didn't realize you were so dense. I meant good luck in future endeavors, as you will probably need it.Well I guess that's the difference between some people. You think I need "good luck" using features that a camera offers. Some of us don't think there's anything difficult about it at all, so we're not going to need "good luck" using them. So while I appreciate your "Good luck, you are going to need it" comment, really I don't need it. It's not rocket science, for crying out loud. Lol. I guess some of us are more at ease with adopting new technologies and features than others.Good luck. You are going to need it.
Explanation: Did you really think I meant good luck with the touch screen or the camera? Did you think a mirror-less camera with touch screen is so complex that only a technically progressive individual as yourself could handle it? You are likely to run into a boss that's older than you. When you disagree and your come back is that she is a Luddite complete with stupid analogies, how do you think she will react? It won't be for a promotion. With your approach you will need all the luck you can get.
I'm just teasing you. Seriously, though, there are all kinds of technology that comes down the pipeline, and it's common for some people to simply dismiss it outright, without looking at its potential. I remember when the iPad was first introduced. There were a lot of people who thought, "Why would anyone want such a thing? That's it good for? Who would ever want that thing instead of a laptop?" Likewise, when the iPhone was introduced, people said, "A smartphone without a physical keyboard? That's crazy! People won't want a smartphone without a physical keyboard"..like Steve Ballmer's reaction. Likewise, many people were quite adamant that video shouldn't and wouldn't ever come to DSLR's. Or if it did, it would never be incorporated into pro level DSLRs. It would just be a "gimmick" that would exist only for compact point-and-shoots and low-end consumer DSLRs.
Then along came pro-level DSLRs like the Canon 5D MKII and Canon 1DX which had video. Now, video in DSLRs is the norm! So the point is, you should think twice about being so dismissive about something like touchscreens on high-end DSLRs and high-end mirrorless bodies. From my perspective, it's a natural progression, and only a matter of time before it becomes commonplace. Besides, let's not forget that we have a whole generation of younger people growing up in a world of touchscreens (eg. smartphones and tablets). Having an LCD/LED screen that responds to touch is normal for them. And when it comes time for them to enter the world of high performance ILC's, I think it's going to be natural for them to expect touchscreens on their cameras. It might not be such an expectation for the older generation that didn't grow up with touchscreen smartphones and tablets. But I think the up-and-coming generation of photographers will have a different expectation of what is normal. They're going to ask, much like the OP is asking, "Why doesn't this camera's LCD screen respond to touch?!?"
Last edited:
I can't say it bothers me. If it did, I wouldn't buy the camera.
nandbytes
Veteran Member
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
Fair enough - I didn't consider that.because we need closure
Let me know when and where the Memorial Service will be held.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum