Reading mode: Light Dark

How have manufacturers convinced us we don't need a viewfinder?

Go to last post
Dennis said:
wb2trf said:
I'm going to be an apostate. The huge majority of photos are taken using cameras without viewfinders, particularly smart phones. There is no indication from this that most people think they need them.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, maybe dedicated camera sales wouldn't have suffered QUITE so much (I'm talking percentages here) if they actually offered consumers a reason to choose them over smart phones.

On one hand, you have your phone with a competent camera (no zoom lens), easy to use, always with you, connects to the internet for sharing and has a great big, sharp screen ... on the other hand, you have a dedicated camera - you supposedly trade off convenience and easy of sharing for it being a better camera, only it has an inferior screen and no viewfinder ! Making it debatable just how much better they are as cameras.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see the return of the EVF in some high end models, though I'm pretty content with my RX100-I because it fits in a pocket and I can live without a VF on those occasions where I value compactness enough to leave my bigger cameras behind.
Click to expand...
Nicely summed up, as Smartphones get ever better with their huge processing power and sharp large touchscreens which are visible even in bright sunshine,compact cameras, particularly those with only 3-5x optical zoom have very few killer advantages, the screens on cameras are never going to be as good as smartphones, particularly the bigger 5 inch and greater variety, a viewfinder is for me the big advantage, I have a Lumia 950 which has a huge screen and a very decent camera, and the cameras are getting better and better, there is probably more R&D going into smartphone cameras than compacts, so I expect smartphones to be as good as todays premium 1" sensor cameras within a short time.

Most of the time the big reason that I reach for my dedicated camera is because it has an EVF, a camera with no EVF and a short zoom has a hard time justifying its existence to most people when compared to a really good smartphone
 
vaughanB said:
Dennis said:
wb2trf said:
I'm going to be an apostate. The huge majority of photos are taken using cameras without viewfinders, particularly smart phones. There is no indication from this that most people think they need them.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, maybe dedicated camera sales wouldn't have suffered QUITE so much (I'm talking percentages here) if they actually offered consumers a reason to choose them over smart phones.

On one hand, you have your phone with a competent camera (no zoom lens), easy to use, always with you, connects to the internet for sharing and has a great big, sharp screen ... on the other hand, you have a dedicated camera - you supposedly trade off convenience and easy of sharing for it being a better camera, only it has an inferior screen and no viewfinder ! Making it debatable just how much better they are as cameras.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see the return of the EVF in some high end models, though I'm pretty content with my RX100-I because it fits in a pocket and I can live without a VF on those occasions where I value compactness enough to leave my bigger cameras behind.
Click to expand...
Nicely summed up, as Smartphones get ever better with their huge processing power and sharp large touchscreens which are visible even in bright sunshine,compact cameras, particularly those with only 3-5x optical zoom have very few killer advantages, the screens on cameras are never going to be as good as smartphones, particularly the bigger 5 inch and greater variety, a viewfinder is for me the big advantage, I have a Lumia 950 which has a huge screen and a very decent camera, and the cameras are getting better and better, there is probably more R&D going into smartphone cameras than compacts, so I expect smartphones to be as good as todays premium 1" sensor cameras within a short time.

Most of the time the big reason that I reach for my dedicated camera is because it has an EVF, a camera with no EVF and a short zoom has a hard time justifying its existence to most people when compared to a really good smartphone
Click to expand...
 
FrancoD said:
In 2006 most compact digital cameras did not have a VF, bridge cameras (like that Kodak) did.

The same is now. Most bridge cameras still have a VF , compact non bridge don't.
Click to expand...
When it comes to compact cameras, I've only owned a few.

First one was a Canon G2 (had a viewfinder), next was a Canon G7 (had a viewfinder), when I decided to replace the G7, Canon, along with most other companies had, for the most part, done away with viewfinders on their compact cameras.

In 2009 I bought a Canon S90 and sold it a couple months later. One of the reasons I sold it was because it didn't have a viewfinder.

I went about 6 years without a small compact camera because I couldn't find one, that had a viewfinder, I liked.

Finally bought my third small digital, carry anywhere type camera, a Sony RX100 M3.

Main reason? It has a viewfinder.
 
I have owned a few fixed lens or interchangeable lens cameras on which I only use one lens, I find that a nice thirty five mm finder works for the fixed lens cameras and the interchangeable lens cameras accurate enough of most situations as more of a bomb sight but its woks at least for me,

there are hoards of thirty five mm clip on range finders or is your desperate enough you can glue a shoe on your camera.

there are some superb ones out there for bucks and fine ones for ten bucks. do ebay

I use the Voigtlander bright line fineder it big but it will make you more aware how far electronic finder have to go for clarity and big image size. Try one and I bet you will like it
 
Here in Bangkok the bright sun makes a camera without a viewfinder almost useless. I have several cameras and refused to purchase one without it.
 
We have 315 days of sunshine here in the Mojave Desert. A camera without an OVF or EVF is a deal breaker to me. My E-PL1 and Pentax Q (no VF) are my least-used cameras on sunny days.
 
us?
 
vaughanB said:
Enthusiast expensive compacts still for the most part do not include an EVF/OVF, how have manufacturers managed to convince us that this is acceptable?, I still have a neat little Kodak 10 year old 6mp Z612 which wasn't an expensive camera at the time (and very small and light for what it is) and has a pretty reasonable EVF, prices of these EVFs must have dropped so manufacturers could easily incorporate one at not much extra cost, it wouldn't add much bulk and it shouldn't cost much more, why do we accept this?, I know they are making a bit of a comeback, but the price premium for an EVF is a rip off, if Kodak could do it cheaply 10+ years ago, Canon etc are taking us for mugs

c6f19a47f08a4e25b262708dc5e35c8c.jpg

d172dbd2175a4b7fa39c59259fd6b664.jpg

--
I would rather take a shot that "looks better than it is" than a shot that "is better than it looks"
Click to expand...
The same way they convinced you that digital pixels were better than silver. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker. And you handed over your money version after version upgrade after upgrade.

"There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum .

--
dw
denniswilliams.net
 
My point was not about how useful or not a VF is, I was simply pointing out that most compact digital cameras did not have an EVF in 2006 or before and after for that matter.

Of course if one likes the idea of a VF is likely to only look at cameras that have one and forget that the others don't.

BTW, several of the early compact fixed lens or small zoom digital cameras cameras did have a basic optical VF , however they were terrible .

Soft, fuzzy and not all that close to the image size they captured.

( I used to sell them...)
 
Last edited:
FrancoD said:
My point was not about how useful or not a VF is, I was simply pointing out that most compact digital cameras did not have an EVF in 2006 or before and after for that matter.

Of course if one likes the idea of a VF is likely to only look at cameras that have one and forget that the others don't.

BTW, several of the early compact fixed lens or small zoom digital cameras cameras did have a basic optical VF , however they were terrible .

Soft, fuzzy and not all that close to the image size they captured.

( I used to sell them...)
Click to expand...
Well I'll agree that most compact cameras didn't have an EVF prior to 2006 and I'll also agree that the older optical viewfinders weren't all that great but at least you got something other than an LCD and there was a time when all but the cheapest cameras came with at least that basic optical viewfinder.

And, I'll also agree with you that people who like viewfinders aren't likely to look at, or buy, cameras that don't have one.
 
Tulsaghost said:
Hmm,,screens on cameras will never be as good as the screens on phones, not.

The technology will migrate, just like it did from computers to laptops to tablets to phones.

Chuck
Click to expand...
A smartphone screen has had massive R&D to make it as good as it can possibly be, and they are always going to be bigger than a compact camera, the best smartphone screens now are amazing, way better than any dedicated camera, and the cameras are catching up fast, so a camera without an EVF has very little appeal many people

--
I would rather take a shot that "looks better than it is" than a shot that "is better than it looks"
 
Last edited:
vaughanB said:
Kodakrevisited said:
Hmm,,screens on cameras will never be as good as the screens on phones, not.

The technology will migrate, just like it did from computers to laptops to tablets to phones.

Chuck
Click to expand...
A smartphone screen has had massive R&D to make it as good as it can possibly be, and they are always going to be bigger than a compact camera, the best smartphone screens now are amazing, way better than any dedicated camera, and the cameras are catching up fast, so a camera without an EVF has very little appeal many people
Click to expand...
 
There is no convincing needed.

Large display with magnification and zillions focusing points or at least possibilities, other focusing aids, exposure simulation, all that makes my stills photography "lightyears faster" and even better. I don´t need viewfinder anymore. Fast EVF would be good alternative, but not vital. I, for example, hope for M5 body without VF - M3 replacement. Hope it happens in next three months, or I will be forced to buy the one with EVF....
 
Tulsaghost said:
I am sure Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc have ginourmus R&D departments. I have yet to see the screen that can be seen in bright sunlight, including the Galaxy and Apple phones supplied by my employer. But if you want a camera w/o a viewfinder, go for it.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood or I didnt make it clear, I MUCH prefer a proper camera with a viewfinder, my point was, if a camera has no viewfinder, many phones are just as good/better, but give me a proper camera with a viewfinder anyday
 
I did not say it could not be done, it can but it adds significant cost as compared to live view. The problem with the G11 was that the viewfinder field of view was significantly smaller than the image field of view and was not always exactly centered.
 
Again, I did not say that it could not be done but that it is can be a significant cost item. This is particularly true for good quality optics and have the fields of view of the viewfinder and imager be pretty close.
 
Are you saying that you can hold the rig as steady as the more traditional three point hold, two hands and eyepiece (or forehead)? I do think that all this relates to the size and weight of the camera/lens system as to how easy it is to hold steady. I'm far better with my DSLR with a portrait grip using both hands and my forehead. This is more true as the lens gets larger. I do note that these discussions almost never address the issue of holding a camera steady. Obviously, IS or VR may have something to do with that but these features only go so far.
 
The manufacturers do not convince the market - they probe the market with options to see what sells and adapt accordingly. So it is the consumers convincing the manufacturers on trends. But did that really happen with LCD, EVF and OVF options ? One really can get what one imagines on features these days.

Chimere
 
A viewfinder is anything that helps us frame the scene we want to photograph. The "EVF/OVF" you talk of has never been fitted to the majority of cameras.

Early cameras just used the image itself projected onto a screen (a system still used in view cameras) but such cameras weren't consumer items. Through much of the first century of consumer cameras the viewfinder was a tiny glass item sitting alongside the lens that gave an approximation of what the camera would capture.

http://www.vpk.staff.shef.ac.uk/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)

The millions of people (like me) who learned on such cameras would regard the LCD viewfinder on the back of today's cameras as magical and brilliant.
Kodakrevisited said:
Enthusiast expensive compacts still for the most part do not include an EVF/OVF, how have manufacturers managed to convince us that this is acceptable?,
Click to expand...
As I've said, the LCD on the back of a camera is just as much a viewfinder as the EVF/OVF. It's only for simplicity that the term viewfinder is applied to EVF/OVF. They are, in fact, just "eye-level" VFs. Eye-level VFs certainly have their advantages as well as the drawback of needing to be used at eye level; those little old VFs had the drawback of needing to be used near waist level.

Until the advent of articulated LCDs consumer digital cameras didn't have waist level viewfinders: how have manufacturers managed to convince us that this is acceptable?
Kodakrevisited said:
I still have a neat little Kodak 10 year old 6mp Z612 which wasn't an expensive camera at the time (and very small and light for what it is) and has a pretty reasonable EVF, prices of these EVFs must have dropped so manufacturers could easily incorporate one at not much extra cost, it wouldn't add much bulk and it shouldn't cost much more, why do we accept this?,
Click to expand...
You say "we". We means "me" and "you", with "you" being either singular or plural. By saying "we" you are implying that "me" - that is to say, vaughanB - is included in those who accept it. If you do accept it you know the answer already without needing to ask.

If "we" doesn't include vaughanB then "we" really means everyone reading your post ...
Kodakrevisited said:
I know they are making a bit of a comeback, but the price premium for an EVF is a rip off, if Kodak could do it cheaply 10+ years ago, Canon etc are taking us for mugs
Click to expand...
... which implies that you think that everyone reading your post is being taken for mugs.

Now, as I've explained, an eye-level VF isn't really a necessity but only a convenience in some circumstances. Implying that anyone who doesn't think an eye-level VF is a necessity is a mug is insulting.

In case you hadn't noticed, camera sales are in decline and the makers try to keep costs down. Just because you think an EVF wouldn't cost "much" doesn't mean there is no price advantage to omitting it. Offering a cheaper camera to someone who doesn't want an item that adds cost isn't a rip-off.

For many people adding any bulk is unacceptable; the ability to slip the camera into a shirt pocket is highly valued.
Kodakrevisited said:
--
I would rather take a shot that "looks better than it is" than a shot that "is better than it looks"
Click to expand...
I would be horrified if my equipment or ability forced me into such an unnecessary choice. Why do you think such a choice exists?

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
 
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
G

... which implies that you think that everyone reading your post is being taken for mugs.
Click to expand...
Not everybody, but I can't imagine why anybody would pay £700 for a bulky short zoom camera that had no VF, when a VF could be incorporated and surely having one is better than not having one IF there are no size tradeoffs, manufacturers will happily leave that feature out if you are prepared to hand over that kind of money without, as I say, smartphones will equal these cameras in the near future and will have better larger touchscreens, if the VF was not a desirable feature then Sony wouldn't have put one on the RX100 would they ? but the price premium is a ripoff considering it could be done so cheaply 10 years ago
 
Last edited:
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