With the Release, I just don't understand the hate some people have for fully articulating screen.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Since all cameras today do include video, then I suggest that alone is reason enough, (as long as it does not detract from single-shot).

Click to expand...

Just because a camera includes video doesn't mean that everyone uses the video capability. There are plenty of people that would gladly buy a camea iwithout video but it makes more sense for manufacturers to just incude video and the percentage of the user base that doesn't use video can just ignore it. And the fully articulating screen does detract which is the point I think you're missing. Consider a landscape photographer where your screen is generally either flat against the camera or tilted up when conditions make it hard to see the screen or when your tripod is lower to the ground. Switching from flat against the camera to tilted up is quick and efficient and composition on the screen is aligned with the camera and the tripod. A flip out screen not only makes the composition off center but if you need to tilt the screen, the process of switcing from flat against the camera to tilted is cumbersome. And in this scenario there are no benefits to having a fully articulating screen.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I agree it is more common, (because everyone always has a phone).

But if you are indeed using a "camera", (maybe on vacation with dedicated camera), and want a selfie to include with all your other photos, then WHY NOT use the camera, (and the image will be automatically included in your other photos). I suggest they will have higher IQ than with phone.

Click to expand...

Again, you're making assumptions about the primary use of a camera. Sure, if your camera is for general family, travel, etc then some people will benefit from a fully articulating screen and the negatives to a fully articulating screen are minimal in that scenario. All cameras aren't used for family vacations though. I consider selfie IQ only slightly above irrelevant.

PhotoTeach2 said:

jiberlin said:

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I just don't understand the hate for those fully articulating screen except for gray hair man that feel a bit time are passing them by. I myself is a grey hair man and I cannot say how practical this is for photography. No more having to lie completely down to do vertical or horizontal low shot with my back and knees. You can also flip it back to look more like a film camera or protect the screen....

Click to expand...

The option to flip it back is nice, but what is dislike is, with the 'full articulating' screen i know, i have to fold it to the side for tilting it up or down in landscape position. For me, most times the simple up/down tilt screens is what i need.

Click to expand...

I fully agree for some (even many) situations that is sufficient, and quicker ...

But is that more important than NOT being able to (even occasionally) take images that can ONLY be taken with a FA-LCD ???

Click to expand...

It depends on the the use of the camera, Personally i have very rare the a situation that demands for a flip-out screen, but much more often a situation that demands a simple up/down tilt screen. So, for me, a flip out screen is very annoying, and i would always prefer the simple up/down tilt screen over a flip out screen.

PhotoTeach2 said:

leorimkus said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

jiberlin said:

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I just don't understand the hate for those fully articulating screen except for gray hair man that feel a bit time are passing them by. I myself is a grey hair man and I cannot say how practical this is for photography. No more having to lie completely down to do vertical or horizontal low shot with my back and knees. You can also flip it back to look more like a film camera or protect the screen....

Click to expand...

The option to flip it back is nice, but what is dislike is, with the 'full articulating' screen i know, i have to fold it to the side for tilting it up or down in landscape position. For me, most times the simple up/down tilt screens is what i need.

Click to expand...

I fully agree for some (even many) situations that is sufficient, and quicker ...

But is that more important than NOT being able to (even occasionally) take images that can ONLY be taken with a FA-LCD ???

Click to expand...

YES!!!

Actually can't imagine an image which could only be possible with FA-LCD. Easier - yes.

Click to expand...

Well the obvious immediate "imagine" are selfies. Whether you personally take them or not, the unarguable fact is that they are very-very-very popular with many and I can imagine a situation where they may be needed.

Click to expand...

The option to take selfies as a criterium for a full fledged camera seems to me weird.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Note that I already posted above only "one" single example where I personally did a selfie (over 10yrs ago), but I definitely WANT THE ABILITY to take one if wanted/needed.

Click to expand...

You demand for a less usable screen (in my view) to have the option to take photos that you not take? This also seems weird to me.

PhotoTeach2 said:

But a prior post of photos that were only-possible with FA-LCD.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67262574

Click to expand...

2 of the 4 photos not needed a flip out screen and could be taken with a simple up/down tilt screen. For the other, a double tilt screen like Nikon Z9 would do the job.

PhotoTeach2 said:

GeoffRG said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

GeoffRG said:

There’s no perfect solution that suits everyone so, whatever Nikon does someone is going to be disappointed. However, as long as there’s an option to connect an external monitor, most users can be reasonable satisfied. I know video shooters will complain about having to carry an extra screen.

Personally I dislike using a screen instead of a viewfinder

Click to expand...

I of course prefer using the (eye) viewfinder,

PhotoTeach2 said:

so it matters little whether it tilts, articulates or is fixed, I’m going to avoid using it if I possibly can (the live view buttons on my D5s are deactivated).

Click to expand...

But that is forgoing one of the biggest benefits of "digital" in that we are no longer "chained" to the limited shooting-positions of EVF. They enable shooting "high" (directly) overhead and even on "ground" (shooting "up"), or held off to the side, (and can't forget selfies).

Click to expand...

I had a waist level finder for my F4 in 1992. Why would I want a photograph of my self?

Click to expand...

Well (evidently) "EVERYBODY" ELSE does ...

I personally can only remember "one" that I did, (about 10yrs ago).

We are obviously the minority. (but I still appreciate having the ability to take one if/when I might want/need to)

Click to expand...

When I've needed to be in a group photograph I have found a tripod and remote release did the job. I arranged to be near the middle of the group.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

I can only assume that Nikon’s market research suggested that a tilting screen was right for the Z8 and Z9 but fully articulated for the ZF. I have no idea why, it went that way but neither tilting nor articulating is a selling point where I am concerned.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Clayton1985 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Since all cameras today do include video, then I suggest that alone is reason enough, (as long as it does not detract from single-shot).

Click to expand...

Just because a camera includes video doesn't mean that everyone uses the video capability. There are plenty of people that would gladly buy a camea iwithout video but it makes more sense for manufacturers to just incude video and the percentage of the user base that doesn't use video can just ignore it. And the fully articulating screen does detract which is the point I think you're missing. Consider a landscape photographer where your screen is generally either flat against the camera or tilted up when conditions make it hard to see the screen or when your tripod is lower to the ground. Switching from flat against the camera to tilted up is quick and efficient and composition on the screen is aligned with the camera and the tripod. A flip out screen not only makes the composition off center but if you need to tilt the screen, the process of switcing from flat against the camera to tilted is cumbersome. And in this scenario there are no benefits to having a fully articulating screen.

Clayton1985 said:

I agree it is more common, (because everyone always has a phone).

But if you are indeed using a "camera", (maybe on vacation with dedicated camera), and want a selfie to include with all your other photos, then WHY NOT use the camera, (and the image will be automatically included in your other photos). I suggest they will have higher IQ than with phone.

Click to expand...

Again, you're making assumptions about the primary use of a camera. Sure, if your camera is for general family, travel, etc then some people will benefit from a fully articulating screen and the negatives to a fully articulating screen are minimal in that scenario. All cameras aren't used for family vacations though. I consider selfie IQ only slightly above irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the concept of it should be aligned etc. for me these are more or less some people profound dislike of the full articulating screen because it represents video and Selfies for them. What I have found is that your muscle memory adapts very quickly to it. Perhaps for Macro (I did not test it with Macro) where it might need millimeter precision, but for everything else people cannot tell me a 3-5cm distance/alignment to the lens center is going to ruined their shot.

But as a conclusion as the OP of this thread, is why all the hate. I mean it might not be ideal for some, but it is no inconvenience. Firstly because I think 99% of photographers barely use the flippy screen in day to day photography add the outrage is because of this is so exaggerated.

Clayton1985 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Since all cameras today do include video, then I suggest that alone is reason enough, (as long as it does not detract from single-shot).

Click to expand...

Just because a camera includes video doesn't mean that everyone uses the video capability. There are plenty of people that would gladly buy a camea iwithout video but it makes more sense for manufacturers to just incude video and the percentage of the user base that doesn't use video can just ignore it. And the fully articulating screen does detract which is the point I think you're missing.

Click to expand...

Then I suggest you buy a camera without a FA-LCD. Personally, I will not buy a camera without one, (not only for video but general photography where it extends the envelope of the camera).

Clayton1985 said:

Consider a landscape photographer where your screen is generally either flat against the camera or tilted up when conditions make it hard to see the screen or when your tripod is lower to the ground.

Click to expand...

If I am doing (typical) landscape, I would not be using the EVF instead of LCD. But if I wanted to use the LCD, it could be flat just the same as most prior digital cameras anyway, (and aligned with the lens.

Clayton1985 said:

Switching from flat against the camera to tilted up is quick and efficient and composition on the screen is aligned with the camera and the tripod.

Click to expand...

If it (only) tilts up, then I would not be able to hold the camera 3' above my head, (as I can with FA-LCD). And what about if you want/need vertical composition?

Clayton1985 said:

A flip out screen not only makes the composition off center

Click to expand...

I suggest that being aligned with the lens is of primary importance when panning, etc., and that would not be done with a flipped-out screen anyway.

Clayton1985 said:

but if you need to tilt the screen, the process of switcing from flat against the camera to tilted is cumbersome.

Click to expand...

It takes "1" extra second ... (and I am being serious). It takes about 1-second to tilt a tilt-only screen, and 2-seconds to flip & twist. (still being serious)

Clayton1985 said:

And in this scenario there are no benefits to having a fully articulating screen.

Click to expand...

Finally I agree, in that specific scenario, it does indeed take "1" extra second.

But it is still true that it expands the overall-envelope and enables images NOT POSSIBLE OTHERWISE.

Clayton1985 said:

Clayton1985 said:

I agree it is more common, (because everyone always has a phone).

But if you are indeed using a "camera", (maybe on vacation with dedicated camera), and want a selfie to include with all your other photos, then WHY NOT use the camera, (and the image will be automatically included in your other photos). I suggest they will have higher IQ than with phone.

Click to expand...

Again, you're making assumptions about the primary use of a camera.

Click to expand...

Do you buy a camera for only "one" (primary) use ???

Clayton1985 said:

Sure, if your camera is for general family, travel, etc then some people will benefit from a fully articulating screen and the negatives to a fully articulating screen are minimal in that scenario. All cameras aren't used for family vacations though.

Click to expand...

Do you know how you would may want to use/need the camera 1 to 5 yrs from when you buy it ???

Or do you want a camera usable in a larger envelope.

Clayton1985 said:

I consider selfie IQ only slightly above irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Since I stated I actually have only taken "one" selfie in the last 15 years, I still appreciate the POTENTIAL and ABILITY to do it.

But we have choices of cameras with fixed LCD, tilted-LCD, and (various-types) of FA-LCD.

Personally I appreciate the widest envelope, and that includes video, even though I have NEVER shot a video with my cameras, (but still appreciate that they can -- and I might shoot one tomorrow at an air-show I am going to).

Note that I DEFINITELY expect that I will have to hold the camera up-high over my head because there will be a large "crowd" I will need to shoot "over". (Thanks to a FA-LCD !!!)

jiberlin said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

leorimkus said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

jiberlin said:

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I just don't understand the hate for those fully articulating screen except for gray hair man that feel a bit time are passing them by. I myself is a grey hair man and I cannot say how practical this is for photography. No more having to lie completely down to do vertical or horizontal low shot with my back and knees. You can also flip it back to look more like a film camera or protect the screen....

Click to expand...

The option to flip it back is nice, but what is dislike is, with the 'full articulating' screen i know, i have to fold it to the side for tilting it up or down in landscape position. For me, most times the simple up/down tilt screens is what i need.

Click to expand...

I fully agree for some (even many) situations that is sufficient, and quicker ...

But is that more important than NOT being able to (even occasionally) take images that can ONLY be taken with a FA-LCD ???

Click to expand...

YES!!!

Actually can't imagine an image which could only be possible with FA-LCD. Easier - yes.

Click to expand...

Well the obvious immediate "imagine" are selfies. Whether you personally take them or not, the unarguable fact is that they are very-very-very popular with many and I can imagine a situation where they may be needed.

Click to expand...

The option to take selfies as a criterium for a full fledged camera seems to me weird.

jiberlin said:

Note that I already posted above only "one" single example where I personally did a selfie (over 10yrs ago), but I definitely WANT THE ABILITY to take one if wanted/needed.

Click to expand...

You demand for a less usable screen (in my view) to have the option to take photos that you not take? This also seems weird to me.

jiberlin said:

But a prior post of photos that were only-possible with FA-LCD.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67262574

Click to expand...

2 of the 4 photos not needed a flip out screen and could be taken with a simple up/down tilt screen. For the other, a double tilt screen like Nikon Z9 would do the job.

Click to expand...

My main argument is against a "fixed" LCD (aka RX10-IV) versus various styles of tilt/flip.

But to me "tilt" is only a first/minor step compared to more unlimited options provided by "fully" articulating.

I have not seen the Z9 screen, (or the various Fuji options), I am sure EACH has individual advantages in various different scenarios/situations.

jiberlin said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

jiberlin said:

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I just don't understand the hate for those fully articulating screen except for gray hair man that feel a bit time are passing them by. I myself is a grey hair man and I cannot say how practical this is for photography. No more having to lie completely down to do vertical or horizontal low shot with my back and knees. You can also flip it back to look more like a film camera or protect the screen....

Click to expand...

The option to flip it back is nice, but what is dislike is, with the 'full articulating' screen i know, i have to fold it to the side for tilting it up or down in landscape position. For me, most times the simple up/down tilt screens is what i need.

Click to expand...

I fully agree for some (even many) situations that is sufficient, and quicker ...

But is that more important than NOT being able to (even occasionally) take images that can ONLY be taken with a FA-LCD ???

Click to expand...

It depends on the the use of the camera, Personally i have very rare the a situation that demands for a flip-out screen, but much more often a situation that demands a simple up/down tilt screen. So, for me, a flip out screen is very annoying, and i would always prefer the simple up/down tilt screen over a flip out screen.

Click to expand...

I fully agree that a simple up/down tilt can indeed be best/fastest in some scenarios.

But since I prefer/have FA-LCD, I appreciate and LOOK FOR shooting opportunities to exploit. (However I have also been forced into situations where they were the only option and enabled a shot.)

But I have said enough in this thread and will back-out ... (signing OFF).

Tilt AND Flip hybrid is the way forward. I love this on my Sony A7Rv. I hope this kind of screen becomes more the norm across all models and brands in the future! Best of both worlds!

PhotoTeach2 said:

Note that I DEFINITELY expect that I will have to hold the camera up-high over my head because there will be a large "crowd" I will need to shoot "over". (Thanks to a FA-LCD !!!)

Click to expand...

But this is also possible with a tilt screen and the latter allows you to more easily hold with 2 hands, track and use the touch screen whilst doing so.

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I just don't understand the hate for those fully articulating screen except for gray hair man that feel a bit time are passing them by. I myself is a grey hair man and I cannot say how practical this is for photography. No more having to lie completely down to do vertical or horizontal low shot with my back and knees. You can also flip it back to look more like a film camera or protect the screen....

ORRRRR god forbid, the worst thing for some and do some selfies. Now I can at least be in some of the shots with family and friends, you can also rapidly compose a shot with them and use my phone as a remote for more traditional photography. How many photographers in the end find themselves out of the picture, without pictures with loved ones who have passed by etc.

Click to expand...

Don't get so worked up about what other people think. That seems to be a general theme in many of your posts.

PhotoTeach2 said:

If I am doing (typical) landscape, I would not be using the EVF instead of LCD. But if I wanted to use the LCD, it could be flat just the same as most prior digital cameras anyway, (and aligned with the lens.

Click to expand...

I use the EVF extensively along with the LCD. Yes a FA-LCD can be flat and centered until you need to tilt it slightly based on the height of the tripod or the sun, then you have extra steps that aren't required with my screen.

PhotoTeach2 said:

If it (only) tilts up, then I would not be able to hold the camera 3' above my head, (as I can with FA-LCD). And what about if you want/need vertical composition?

Click to expand...

My camera without a FA-LCD supports tilting the screen in a vertical composition.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I suggest that being aligned with the lens is of primary importance when panning, etc., and that would not be done with a flipped-out screen anyway.

Click to expand...

Even when the screen being aligned with the camera, tripod, etc isn't of primary importance, it is still a better way to compose an image. Why would I choose the lesser of two options if the FA-LCD doesn't offer anything I need?

PhotoTeach2 said:

It takes "1" extra second ... (and I am being serious). It takes about 1-second to tilt a tilt-only screen, and 2-seconds to flip & twist. (still being serious)

Click to expand...

It isn't only about the time, it's about the unneccesary hassle. Why would I add any extra hassle or even a few seconds for zero benefit to me?

PhotoTeach2 said:

Finally I agree, in that specific scenario, it does indeed take "1" extra second.

But it is still true that it expands the overall-envelope and enables images NOT POSSIBLE OTHERWISE.

Click to expand...

Yes but if I'm not planning to take selfies, lay on the ground, attach my camera to poles, etc then this is completely irrelevant for my needs. Over the years I have seen probably tens of thousands of landscape images that I admire and I believe exactly zero of those required or benefited from a FA-LCD. I'm not understanding why I should concern myself with this perceived benefit? I totally understand that you have a use for the FA-LCD but that isn't relevant to me or my usage.

And I'm speaking here in the context of dedicated landscape photography. I have other cameras for vacation, family, etc and they do have a FA-LCD. I don't dislike FA-LCD screens in general but they are the inferior solution for my landscape photography.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Do you buy a camera for only "one" (primary) use ???

Click to expand...

Yes. I have more than one camera but my landscape camera was chosen for it's primary use with very little consideration for other uses.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Since I stated I actually have only taken "one" selfie in the last 15 years, I still appreciate the POTENTIAL and ABILITY to do it.

Click to expand...

Fair enough but I don't need or want the potential because I know it isn't something I will use. If my needs unexpectedly change, I will sell my camera and buy the camera that meets the current need. It's a waste of time for me to try to predict what I'll need in 5 plus years.

PhotoTeach2 said:

But we have choices of cameras with fixed LCD, tilted-LCD, and (various-types) of FA-LCD.

Personally I appreciate the widest envelope, and that includes video, even though I have NEVER shot a video with my cameras, (but still appreciate that they can -- and I might shoot one tomorrow at an air-show I am going to).

Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense as long as you aren't giving anything up to get the added flexibility. In my case, I am giving up the efficiency of the process that has worked great for me for many years so that I might one day find a need for the FA-LCD for landscape photography. Add to remind you, I have two other cameras that I use for family, vacation, light travel, etc and those cameras have FA-LCDs. I still don't really get an added value from them but they aren't particularly inconvenient for how they are used.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Note that I DEFINITELY expect that I will have to hold the camera up-high over my head because there will be a large "crowd" I will need to shoot "over". (Thanks to a FA-LCD !!!)

Click to expand...

Well it isn't often that I shoot landscape images with the camera over my head but it does happen and my camera's LCD can tilt down to accommodate this scenario. I haven't run into any situaiton where I need the screen tilted even further down but I can appreciate that other people want a FA-LCD for those situations.

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I don't understand the concept of it should be aligned etc. for me these are more or less some people profound dislike of the full articulating screen because it represents video and Selfies for them. What I have found is that your muscle memory adapts very quickly to it. Perhaps for Macro (I did not test it with Macro) where it might need millimeter precision, but for everything else people cannot tell me a 3-5cm distance/alignment to the lens center is going to ruined their shot.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it should be aligned. I'm saying given the choices I prefer it to be aligned vs off center. I also prefer the efficiency of transitioning from flat against the camera to tilted vs the ectra steps with a FA-LCD. Sure, I could adapt but why would I when I have no use for the FA-LCD for landscape photography?

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

But as a conclusion as the OP of this thread, is why all the hate. I mean it might not be ideal for some, but it is no inconvenience. Firstly because I think 99% of photographers barely use the flippy screen in day to day photography add the outrage is because of this is so exaggerated.

Click to expand...

As I've mentioned in other replies, I have cameras with FA-LCDs so obviously I don't hate them and I get that FA-LCDs can be useful in some scenarios. What I don't get is the desire to convince people that a FA-LCD is the best choice in all scenarios. I suspect that most people engaged in this discussion have used both enough to know what works best for them, yet people are trying to tell them that they don't know.

I don’t see “all the hate”.



Some people really like them, as we can see here. Some people don’t like the workflow, also as seen here. Some people don’t like to be sold on something, similar to being sold a specific camera. In reality, we represent less than 1% of photographers, and 1% of us here really care about this issue.



This seems like a big nothingburger to me.

Clayton1985 said:

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I don't understand the concept of it should be aligned etc. for me these are more or less some people profound dislike of the full articulating screen because it represents video and Selfies for them. What I have found is that your muscle memory adapts very quickly to it. Perhaps for Macro (I did not test it with Macro) where it might need millimeter precision, but for everything else people cannot tell me a 3-5cm distance/alignment to the lens center is going to ruined their shot.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it should be aligned. I'm saying given the choices I prefer it to be aligned vs off center.

Click to expand...

I am certainly not arguing against aligned being better.

Clayton1985 said:

I also prefer the efficiency of transitioning from flat against the camera to tilted vs the ectra steps with a FA-LCD.

Click to expand...

When I tilt, it is often to either 90-degrees up or down, (so held highEST, or lowEST).

Often I shoot held-high -- but shooting DOWN, or low/ground -- and shooting UP.

Note that I can go even beyond "90"-degrees, and often do, (and then there is that totally "reversed" for those dreaded "selfies").

Only the FA-LCD gives me those options.

But also remember that "reversed" (nested) allows the camera to be stored/transported to PROTECT LCD, (it can only take one scratch to ruin the value of a $5000 camera).

Clayton1985 said:

Sure, I could adapt but why would I when I have no use for the FA-LCD for landscape photography?

Click to expand...

I fully agree they are seldom needed for that.

Clayton1985 said:

Clayton1985 said:

But as a conclusion as the OP of this thread, is why all the hate. I mean it might not be ideal for some, but it is no inconvenience. Firstly because I think 99% of photographers barely use the flippy screen in day to day photography add the outrage is because of this is so exaggerated.

Click to expand...

As I've mentioned in other replies, I have cameras with FA-LCDs so obviously I don't hate them and I get that FA-LCDs can be useful in some scenarios. What I don't get is the desire to convince people that a FA-LCD is the best choice in all scenarios.

Click to expand...

They are the ONLY choice for some scenarios. But I have no-problem if someone wants to limit themselves to conventional standing/eye-level shooting.

Clayton1985 said:

I suspect that most people engaged in this discussion have used both enough to know what works best for them, yet people are trying to tell them that they don't know.

Click to expand...

For some maybe yes, but for example I have NOT seen/used the LCD's in (most) other cameras. There are no longer a variety of camera stores available to test-hold various cameras.

And I suggest most cameras would not like to hand-away their ($5000) camera for someone to fiddle-with, and potentially break, their LCD.

I do not hand my camera to anyone without good reason.

So I suggest most here have only handled their own personal cameras.

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

Clayton1985 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Since all cameras today do include video, then I suggest that alone is reason enough, (as long as it does not detract from single-shot).

Click to expand...

Just because a camera includes video doesn't mean that everyone uses the video capability. There are plenty of people that would gladly buy a camea iwithout video but it makes more sense for manufacturers to just incude video and the percentage of the user base that doesn't use video can just ignore it. And the fully articulating screen does detract which is the point I think you're missing. Consider a landscape photographer where your screen is generally either flat against the camera or tilted up when conditions make it hard to see the screen or when your tripod is lower to the ground. Switching from flat against the camera to tilted up is quick and efficient and composition on the screen is aligned with the camera and the tripod. A flip out screen not only makes the composition off center but if you need to tilt the screen, the process of switcing from flat against the camera to tilted is cumbersome. And in this scenario there are no benefits to having a fully articulating screen.

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I agree it is more common, (because everyone always has a phone).

But if you are indeed using a "camera", (maybe on vacation with dedicated camera), and want a selfie to include with all your other photos, then WHY NOT use the camera, (and the image will be automatically included in your other photos). I suggest they will have higher IQ than with phone.

Click to expand...

Again, you're making assumptions about the primary use of a camera. Sure, if your camera is for general family, travel, etc then some people will benefit from a fully articulating screen and the negatives to a fully articulating screen are minimal in that scenario. All cameras aren't used for family vacations though. I consider selfie IQ only slightly above irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the concept of it should be aligned etc. for me these are more or less some people profound dislike of the full articulating screen because it represents video and Selfies for them. What I have found is that your muscle memory adapts very quickly to it. Perhaps for Macro (I did not test it with Macro) where it might need millimeter precision, but for everything else people cannot tell me a 3-5cm distance/alignment to the lens center is going to ruined their shot.

But as a conclusion as the OP of this thread, is why all the hate. I mean it might not be ideal for some, but it is no inconvenience. Firstly because I think 99% of photographers barely use the flippy screen in day to day photography add the outrage is because of this is so exaggerated.

Click to expand...

Photographers have always resisted change.

They originally fought against smaller film-sizes, SLR's, built-in light-meters, automatic metering, auto-focus, MIRRORLESS cameras in general, bridge-cameras.

Of course none of those were perfect, (or professionally acceptable), at first, but they were all demonized as if there was no possible future/improvement possible.

So this fixed vs articulated is just another example, (and please -- no-one mention "equivalent" FL's and f/stops).

"Photographers have always resisted change"

people in general resist change. There is nothing in particular that makes photographers any different here.

FrancoD said:

"Photographers have always resisted change"

people in general resist change. There is nothing in particular that makes photographers any different here.

Click to expand...

We always want/demand the latest/new-technology cars, TV's, cell-phones ... but not (pro) photographers.

Look at EV-autos ... people are buying them for $60K, even though they have to be recharged (long-time) every 200miles. (And what will it eventually cost to replace their battery-packs ???)

PhotoTeach2 said:

FrancoD said:

"Photographers have always resisted change"

people in general resist change. There is nothing in particular that makes photographers any different here.

Click to expand...

We always want/demand the latest/new-technology cars, TV's, cell-phones ... but not (pro) photographers.

Look at EV-autos ... people are buying them for $60K, even though they have to be recharged (long-time) every 200miles. (And what will it eventually cost to replace their battery-packs ???)

Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic.

What have EV to do with photographer beign or not resistant to change ?

(EV are getting towards an 18% market share for new sales. So about 82% of buyers don't get an EV...)

Of course SOME pro photographers are happy to keep shoting with what they have because it works for them but in particular for action/sport/wildlife photographers they tend to embrace the latest pretty fast. I don't know where you get the idea thgat they don't.

My point here is that I don't see any evidence that photographers are any more or any less resistant to change than people in any other field.

Jean Daniel Villiers said:

I just don't understand the hate for those fully articulating screen except for gray hair man that feel a bit time are passing them by. I myself is a grey hair man and I cannot say how practical this is for photography. No more having to lie completely down to do vertical or horizontal low shot with my back and knees. You can also flip it back to look more like a film camera or protect the screen....

Click to expand...

Clearly you are not overweight.