Is it an age thing - Why so many cameras without a viewfinder?

[jrtrent]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to this topic. SirPeepsalot had already made the salient point about LCD screens before this subthread started, and without trying to tell the OP that he didn't know what a viewfinder is.

 

[bobn2]

Ever heard of the expression "beating a dead horse"? Surely you have.

You're the one that's beating it. I made a perfectly reasonable and sensible observation,

You made a truly pedantic observation that was probably designed by you to cause a huge sub-thread, it seems to be your specialty.

I would have to be a very clever and sophisticated troll to have worked out that there were people there so invested in their own particular usage of the word 'viewfinder' that they would be sufficiently inflamed by a correct definition to fill up a thread arguing (while all the time blaming me for them arguing).

and for some reason it inflamed so much passion

Passion? I could care less.

Then why do you keep arguing? Why this post ?

in you and a few others that you feel that you have to make post after post insulting me

I can offer insults if you like, so far I'm being very polite indeed.

So accusing someone repeatedly of 'pedantry' is being polite? In most places, that's considered an insult. Likewise the phrases 'beating a dead horse', then falsely claiming that they intentionally put forward their own point of view solely so that other people would be triggered into arguing with it? 'The inmates have taken over the asylum'. That's not at all insulting, is it? Do you want another discussion about the meaning of 'polite', because you seem to be working on a different definition of that to my own.

and telling me that I'm wrong. Why is that?

Is it possibly because you just can't stand not being right?

I must confess that you are right in your pedantic use of the terminology as referenced by the dictionaries,

So I'm right, but pedantic. Excellent.

but I (and others) are much more right in the confines and context of these forums.

Which sounds to me like a somewhat sophisticated way of saying that you were wrong, but just cannot bear to admit to it.

So we are both right in our own little individual worlds.

We can both rest now.

Maybe we need a special forum dictionary, which gives definitions that avoid triggering people mortally offended by normal use of words.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

 

[bobn2]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to this topic.

So avoiding the simple dictionary definition of 'viewfinder', that it is a device on a camera which allows you to frame your picture, is 'sanity'. Interesting point of view. Maybe you need a viewfinder, in order to get things into perspective.

 

[jonas ar]

So you'll continue being an overbearing know-it-all. Good information.

Bobn2 has backed himself into a corner. Since he's incapable of admitting he could be wrong he will fight back and argue to the end

Which particular corner do you think I've backed myself into, and why are you so upset that someone should have a different idea of what is the definition of 'viewfinder' from you?

I'm not upset. I just find it curious that you need to defend an obviously small minority opinion so obsessively.

A very small minority, as in one person.

I cannot find any reference material, manual, or diagram that refers to the rear LCD screen as a "viewfinder."

Perhaps if bobn2 could provide the origin of his unique belief?

I happen to frequently flip my rear screen out for waist level shooting and I happily refer to the flipped out screen as a viewfinder. Why shouldn't I?

 

[golfhov]

I keep looking at cameras and eventually find one with a good spec to replace my Canon compact only to find it hasn't got a viewfinder. It's really frustrating as there appears to be so many of this type of camera - at least stick them in another genre so I don't have to wade through specs/images to work out if they have a viewfinder or not.

This part already got answered a bunch

Is it just me that has this gripe or do people these days really not want a viewfinder?

You are looking at small and low cost models. The EVF is often left out just as much for design as it is left out to save costs. I feel like your question doesn't understand the market.

It also seems to have introduced a lot arguments about a camera is and isn't. Cameras evolved to this point and they will evolve past it.

 

[Harry_Worth]

I keep looking at cameras and eventually find one with a good spec to replace my Canon compact only to find it hasn't got a viewfinder. It's really frustrating as there appears to be so many of this type of camera - at least stick them in another genre so I don't have to wade through specs/images to work out if they have a viewfinder or not.

This part already got answered a bunch

Still, it's given me plenty of time for research.

Is it just me that has this gripe or do people these days really not want a viewfinder?

You are looking at small and low cost models. The EVF is often left out just as much for design as it is left out to save costs. I feel like your question doesn't understand the market.

Yes, I suspect you're correct, I didn't fully understand the market. My Canon was a cheap little camera in its day with a viewfinder that does the job. I struggle to see anything on my phone's screen in bright sunlight which is where my Canon scores. The cameras with 'two' viewfinders are now a little larger and certainly in a different market segment.

It also seems to have introduced a lot arguments about a camera is and isn't. Cameras evolved to this point and they will evolve past it.

I'll keep out of that one!

I've found a few contenders that could potentially replace the Canon at some point (probably when it keels over as I'm almost certainly the limiting factor rather than it).

Possible contenders - Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200, Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 range but also the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V.

 

[jrtrent]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to this topic. SirPeepsalot had already made the salient point about LCD screens before this subthread started, and without trying to tell the OP that he didn't know what a viewfinder is.

So avoiding the simple dictionary definition of 'viewfinder', that it is a device on a camera which allows you to frame your picture, is 'sanity'. Interesting point of view. Maybe you need a viewfinder, in order to get things into perspective.

The OP started a thread about cameras with and without viewfinders here at DPReview. The term means something in the context of this site. If you look at the specifications for the OP's Canon A1300, you'll see that DPR lists its viewfinder type as "Optical (tunnel)." If you look at a current Canon compact with only an LCD for framing the picture, the Elph 360 HS, you'll find that the viewfinder type is listed as "None."

The OP's use of the term viewfinder is consistent with usage on this site, so there's no reason to question that in his thread, and your point about the live-view LCD performing the function of a viewfinder had already been made. If you want to lobby for an expanded use of the term viewfinder, why not start a thread on that topic? Perhaps one day DPR will list viewfinder type for the Elph 360 HS as "LCD screen" rather than "None." Or perhaps, like Imaging Resource does currently, they will change the field to "eye-level viewfinder type" rather than just "viewfinder type."

 

[bobn2]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to this topic. SirPeepsalot had already made the salient point about LCD screens before this subthread started, and without trying to tell the OP that he didn't know what a viewfinder is.

So avoiding the simple dictionary definition of 'viewfinder', that it is a device on a camera which allows you to frame your picture, is 'sanity'. Interesting point of view. Maybe you need a viewfinder, in order to get things into perspective.

The OP started a thread about cameras with and without viewfinders here at DPReview. The term means something in the context of this site. If you look at the specifications for the OP's Canon A1300, you'll see that DPR lists its viewfinder type as "Optical (tunnel)." If you look at a current Canon compact with only an LCD for framing the picture, the Elph 360 HS, you'll find that the viewfinder type is listed as "None."

The OP's use of the term viewfinder is consistent with usage on this site, so there's no reason to question that in his thread, and your point about the live-view LCD performing the function of a viewfinder had already been made. If you want to lobby for an expanded use of the term viewfinder, why not start a thread on that topic? Perhaps one day DPR will list viewfinder type for the Elph 360 HS as "LCD screen" rather than "None." Or perhaps, like Imaging Resource does currently, they will change the field to "eye-level viewfinder type" rather than just "viewfinder type."

Good grief, you're obsessive about this, aren't you? What is this big thing, that the rear screen must never, ever, under any circumstances be referred to as a 'viewfinder', even though it fulfils the purpose of viewfinding? Why are you so invested in preventing the iniquity of people referring to this device that you use for finding the view as a 'viewfinder'. Will the world come to an end if we start calling anything that helps us frame our photographs as a 'viewfinder'? I'm a bit lost as to why it's so important to you.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

 

[tbcass]

Good grief, you're obsessive about this, aren't you?

Obsessive? You're the one with 21 posts arguing everybody down. How many has jrtrent made?

--
Tom

 

[Rock and hard place]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to this topic. SirPeepsalot had already made the salient point about LCD screens before this subthread started, and without trying to tell the OP that he didn't know what a viewfinder is.

So avoiding the simple dictionary definition of 'viewfinder', that it is a device on a camera which allows you to frame your picture, is 'sanity'. Interesting point of view. Maybe you need a viewfinder, in order to get things into perspective.

The OP started a thread about cameras with and without viewfinders here at DPReview. The term means something in the context of this site. If you look at the specifications for the OP's Canon A1300, you'll see that DPR lists its viewfinder type as "Optical (tunnel)." If you look at a current Canon compact with only an LCD for framing the picture, the Elph 360 HS, you'll find that the viewfinder type is listed as "None."

The OP's use of the term viewfinder is consistent with usage on this site, so there's no reason to question that in his thread, and your point about the live-view LCD performing the function of a viewfinder had already been made. If you want to lobby for an expanded use of the term viewfinder, why not start a thread on that topic? Perhaps one day DPR will list viewfinder type for the Elph 360 HS as "LCD screen" rather than "None." Or perhaps, like Imaging Resource does currently, they will change the field to "eye-level viewfinder type" rather than just "viewfinder type."

Good grief, you're obsessive about this, aren't you? What is this big thing, that the rear screen must never, ever, under any circumstances be referred to as a 'viewfinder', even though it fulfils the purpose of viewfinding? Why are you so invested in preventing the iniquity of people referring to this device that you use for finding the view as a 'viewfinder'. Will the world come to an end if we start calling anything that helps us frame our photographs as a 'viewfinder'? I'm a bit lost as to why it's so important to you.

Bob, keep ramming the truth up their azzes.

They'll get the msg sooner or later.

 

[thinkinginimages]

I've found a few contenders that could potentially replace the Canon at some point (probably when it keels over as I'm almost certainly the limiting factor rather than it).

Possible contenders - Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200, Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 range but also the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V.

I think you're on the right path with those choices, Harry. You know what you're comfortable with and you have a good workflow with your current camera.

Yes, the old optical viewfinders have faded away. There's some fine examples on the "previously owned" market. I've always been partial to the Canon G's with the viewfinder. They're quite robust. I keep an eye out for the G1 X Mark 1.

If you're in the US, I suggest KEH for their return policy and warranty. Purely my preference for "previously owned" equipment.

 

[jrtrent]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I appreciate your efforts to bring sanity to this topic. SirPeepsalot had already made the salient point about LCD screens before this subthread started, and without trying to tell the OP that he didn't know what a viewfinder is.

So avoiding the simple dictionary definition of 'viewfinder', that it is a device on a camera which allows you to frame your picture, is 'sanity'. Interesting point of view. Maybe you need a viewfinder, in order to get things into perspective.

The OP started a thread about cameras with and without viewfinders here at DPReview. The term means something in the context of this site. If you look at the specifications for the OP's Canon A1300, you'll see that DPR lists its viewfinder type as "Optical (tunnel)." If you look at a current Canon compact with only an LCD for framing the picture, the Elph 360 HS, you'll find that the viewfinder type is listed as "None."

The OP's use of the term viewfinder is consistent with usage on this site, so there's no reason to question that in his thread, and your point about the live-view LCD performing the function of a viewfinder had already been made. If you want to lobby for an expanded use of the term viewfinder, why not start a thread on that topic? Perhaps one day DPR will list viewfinder type for the Elph 360 HS as "LCD screen" rather than "None." Or perhaps, like Imaging Resource does currently, they will change the field to "eye-level viewfinder type" rather than just "viewfinder type."

Good grief, you're obsessive about this, aren't you? What is this big thing, that the rear screen must never, ever, under any circumstances be referred to as a 'viewfinder', even though it fulfils the purpose of viewfinding? Why are you so invested in preventing the iniquity of people referring to this device that you use for finding the view as a 'viewfinder'. Will the world come to an end if we start calling anything that helps us frame our photographs as a 'viewfinder'? I'm a bit lost as to why it's so important to you.

I'll draw your attention to two quotes from above:

"SirPeepsalot had already made the salient point about LCD screens before this subthread started, and without trying to tell the OP that he didn't know what a viewfinder is."

"The OP's use of the term viewfinder is consistent with usage on this site, so there's no reason to question that in his thread . . ."

I don't care if you or anyone else wants to call the rear screen a viewfinder, but I don't think that discussion belonged in this thread. It struck me, even if it didn't bother the OP, as an unnecessary and discourteous quibble to question his use of terminology, which was perfectly understandable and in keeping with current usage.

 

[jrtrent]

I've found a few contenders that could potentially replace the Canon at some point (probably when it keels over as I'm almost certainly the limiting factor rather than it).

Possible contenders - Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200, Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 range but also the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V.

I've found optical viewfinders such as on your A1300 very useful, having had them on Leica, Sony, and Nikon compacts. I had a chance to take the ZS70 out of the store and into some bright sun last summer, and the EVF seemed surprisingly useful. I ended up choosing the FZ300 instead, with its substantially better viewfinder and weather sealing winning out, for me, over the pocketable size of the ZS70. You seem to be looking at a trio of very nice small cameras.

 

[Skatterball]

The only compact I owned was a small Canon maybe 12 or 15 years ago and it did have a viewfinder. I suspect it's 100% a cost and size issue. I could never buy a camera without a viewfinder unless some new screen technology was invented that allowed clean, contrasty easy to see images in daylight.

 

[tbcass]

OK, I surrender.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

It appears Rock and Hard place got booted.

 

[bosjohn21]

mostly cost cutting did in the optical view finder, but be hopeful the electronic eye level finder is showing up more and more

 

[bobn2]

Good grief, you're obsessive about this, aren't you?

Obsessive? You're the one with 21 posts arguing everybody down. How many has jrtrent made?

He's not being clustered by a three of four sad people who just can't bear that the Oxford and Webster dictionaries didn't use their definition of 'viewfinder'. Look, there's another one.

 

[bobn2]

I don't care if you or anyone else wants to call the rear screen a viewfinder,

So why are you still arguing with it?

but I don't think that discussion belonged in this thread. It struck me, even if it didn't bother the OP, as an unnecessary and discourteous quibble to question his use of terminology, which was perfectly understandable and in keeping with current usage.

How was my response to him discourteous, at all?

Anyway. Given that you and theo others don't seem to like the dictionary definitions of 'viewfinder', let's have yours, one that includes the types of device for finding the view that you think should be permitted to be called 'viewfinders' and ones that shouldn't.

Then maybe you can work off your obsession a bit more creatively.

Waiting for interest for you to produce a logically sound definition.

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

I keep looking at cameras and eventually find one with a good spec to replace my Canon compact only to find it hasn't got a viewfinder. It's really frustrating as there appears to be so many of this type of camera - at least stick them in another genre so I don't have to wade through specs/images to work out if they have a viewfinder or not. Is it just me that has this gripe or do people these days really not want a viewfinder?

The role of a viewfinder is to allow the photographer to get an idea of what the picture will look like, this is rather redundant when you see what the picture will look like before even taking it (on the live-view LCD) so it's no wonder that it's the first thing to be ommited for costs size and energy savings.

LCDs get washed-out in the sun. People still often need viewfinders. I greatly prefer them. It also means no need to turn up the brightness to 100% to fight the sun.

 

[Harry_Worth]

I keep looking at cameras and eventually find one with a good spec to replace my Canon compact only to find it hasn't got a viewfinder. It's really frustrating as there appears to be so many of this type of camera - at least stick them in another genre so I don't have to wade through specs/images to work out if they have a viewfinder or not. Is it just me that has this gripe or do people these days really not want a viewfinder?

The role of a viewfinder is to allow the photographer to get an idea of what the picture will look like, this is rather redundant when you see what the picture will look like before even taking it (on the live-view LCD) so it's no wonder that it's the first thing to be ommited for costs size and energy savings.

LCDs get washed-out in the sun. People still often need viewfinders. I greatly prefer them. It aso means no need to turn up the brightness to 100% to fight the sun.

Hi Mahmoud,

Yes, I often find it difficult to see my phone screen in even moderately strong daylight. I've watched my wife struggling to take pictures with her iphone in harsh lighting. One of the contributors here has pointed out that I'm probably looking in the wrong segment for a camera with a viewfinder. Happily, I do still appear to have quite a few options although none are as small as my Canon or for that matter, as cheap. I recollect I picked up my Canon for less than £200.