Do I need a viewfinder for point and shoot?

[Paul Tremblay]

I am switching from film to digital and want to take a point and shoot to my beach vacation. I have narrowed my choices down to two cameras:

1. Canon PowerShot A1400

2. Nikon COOLPIX P310

I really lean towards the Nikon, but I have always had a viewfinder on my cameras, and worry that the lack of a viewfinder on the Nikon will frustrate me, especially in bright sun. The Canon camera has a viewfinder.

For a modern point and shoot such as the Nikon P310, can one get by without a viewfinder on a bright beach? Does the LCD screen give one enough of an image by which to compose the picture, or is it useless?

 

[Reg Ister]

+1

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Paul Tremblay wrote:

I am switching from film to digital and want to take a point and shoot to my beach vacation. I have narrowed my choices down to two cameras:

1. Canon PowerShot A1400

2. Nikon COOLPIX P310

I really lean towards the Nikon, but I have always had a viewfinder on my cameras, and worry that the lack of a viewfinder on the Nikon will frustrate me, especially in bright sun. The Canon camera has a viewfinder.

Your worries are very justified - you indeed cannot rely on the screen for composing a photo in bright sun light - it is meere guesswork.

Unfortunately manuafacturers have largely abandoned optical finders in their compact cameras. One exception is the Canon G-series, which, however, is not so compact anymjore (albeit still more compact than a digital SLR).

This leaves you with the option of either getting the Canon G-series compact, and older compact made in times when compacts where still fitted with optical finders (as the Powershot you listed) or a true DSLR.

In case of the latter, you can save money by either buying an older model or an entry level model. If you have used a film SLR you might use the lenses for it on your SLR, but you probably will need a new standard zoom or wide angle as 28mm on a crop DSLR is not very wide.

 

[mgd43]

I find that in bright sunlight all I can see on the LCD is what amounts to silhouettes of people and objects. I can see their form but with little or no detail. Most of the OVF on compacts are not great, but I find them to be better than the LCD screen in bright daylight.



I have a Panasonic LX7 and I got the accessory EVF. It works very well, and if you get an LX7 I recommend getting it. You do have to take it off to put the LX7 in a pocket, but it's worth the inconvenience. Panasonic is coming out at later this month with a compact, the LF1 I think it's called, with a built-in EVF. You can check it out on Panasonic's or B&H's website.

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Lin Evans wrote:

My suggestion: Buy the camera with the EVF - you won't be sorry...

He might be sorry - if he misses shots because during a long day of taking pics or durling a walking holiday, the thirsty EVF has sucked empty the cameras empty.

The OVF (optical finder) does have the great advantage that it uses sunlight, which comes free; battery life of most cameras with an potical finder is considerable longer than the battery life of EVF cameras - although in compacts, you do have to switch off the back LCD to experience this advantage.

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Alleg1 wrote:

Apart from visibility issues, in my opinion, better stability can be achieved by holding the camera against the face and tucking in the elbows rather than holding it away from the body.

Having said that, an articulating screen and/or IS system might help overcome this problem.

On the other hand, the IS will be even better when you hold the camera against the face. With LCD framing, you only get were you had been without IS and viewfinder framing in the first place. Only with a viewfinder, the IS will be a true advance.

 

[mgd43]

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

My suggestion: Buy the camera with the EVF - you won't be sorry...

He might be sorry - if he misses shots because during a long day of taking pics or durling a walking holiday, the thirsty EVF has sucked empty the cameras empty.

The OVF (optical finder) does have the great advantage that it uses sunlight, which comes free; battery life of most cameras with an potical finder is considerable longer than the battery life of EVF cameras - although in compacts, you do have to switch off the back LCD to experience this advantage.

 

[Lin Evans]

Hi Chris,

There are always compromises, but carrying an extra battery or two is really not a big issue normally.

The OVF is a viable option if you don't need to change menu settings or do manual fine focus and providing there is a hot-shoe or other means of mounting it. I've worked with OVF's primarily for framing, but when I really want to get serious with any of my cameras which are missing at least an EVF I use a Carry Speed optical sunshade and generally also a tripod. With the optical sunshade you get 2X to 3X magnification of the LCD, are able to see it as if you were in a dark room so that nothing is left to chance. Of course the downside, at least in the case of the Carry Speed, is that you have pretty much defeated the advantage of a "small" point and shoot. Sometimes I carry an Xtend-a-View on a lanyard cord which I can simply hold up to the LCD when needed.

Best regards,

Lin

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

My suggestion: Buy the camera with the EVF - you won't be sorry...

He might be sorry - if he misses shots because during a long day of taking pics or durling a walking holiday, the thirsty EVF has sucked empty the cameras empty.

The OVF (optical finder) does have the great advantage that it uses sunlight, which comes free; battery life of most cameras with an potical finder is considerable longer than the battery life of EVF cameras - although in compacts, you do have to switch off the back LCD to experience this advantage.

--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.redbubble.com/people/christopher363

 

[Urbanito]

I also use Clearviewer on three cameras with great success.
I also have it always attached to the cameras.

Have fun

 

[yooperguy]

Update on my earlier post;

My wife and I just returned from a combination bike ride, and beach trip. It's bright and sunny today, and we were out from 11 AM through 2 PM, not the best time for ideal photography. I took about 30 photos, but could almost not see my LCD. I was using my Canon G11 with a swivel LCD and an anti-reflective screen protector. Nothing I did, even shading with my hat, helped me see exactly what I was shooting. I frequently used Manual mode to set exposure, and manual focusing for more distant objects to ensure something useable would be captured. The optical finder of the G11 was helpful for a lot of shots. However, I also used my optional Canon 2.0x tele converter lens on the camera, and it blocks the viewfinder. So, that was the worst case scenario for me. You do not have an optional tele converter lens for the A1400, but some folks find them that magnetically attach to the lens or body. I would not recommend using something like that if you get the A1400. The A1400 lacks image stabilization, so you might want a small tripod to assist on occasion. Maybe something like a gorilla pod?

All my shots turned out fine, but it was mostly educated guesses to set them up.

Dennis

 

[MichaelKz]

Paul Tremblay wrote:

I am switching from film to digital and want to take a point and shoot to my beach vacation. I have narrowed my choices down to two cameras:

1. Canon PowerShot A1400

2. Nikon COOLPIX P310

I really lean towards the Nikon, but I have always had a viewfinder on my cameras, and worry that the lack of a viewfinder on the Nikon will frustrate me, especially in bright sun. The Canon camera has a viewfinder.

For a modern point and shoot such as the Nikon P310, can one get by without a viewfinder on a bright beach? Does the LCD screen give one enough of an image by which to compose the picture, or is it useless?

If you have a smart phone and have no trouble photographing with it, then you don't need the viewfinder. Many people fit into this category, especially younger ones who never got used to using viewfinders. Clearly, a lot of cameras are selling without OVFs of EVFs.

Personally, I hate shooting at arms length, and am in the camp that won't buy a camera without a viewfinder. Hence, a year ago, I bought the Canon A1300, the predecessor to the A1400, which has very similar specs. I don't particularly like it, but there are many positive reviews -- Check out the DPRreview Canon Powershot forum; and Amazon also has a full range of user comments.

I'm looking forward to the Panasonic LF1, coming out later this month, and hope its EVF is not too small to use effectively. It will cost several times as much as the A1400, however. Unfortunately, preliminary reviews of the LF1 have been mixed, and one would expect a lot for the price ($500 US).

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi Chris,

There are always compromises, but carrying an extra battery or two is really not a big issue normally.

The OVF is a viable option if you don't need to change menu settings or do manual fine focus and providing there is a hot-shoe or other means of mounting it. I've worked with OVF's primarily for framing, but when I really want to get serious with any of my cameras which are missing at least an EVF I use a Carry Speed optical sunshade and generally also a tripod. With the optical sunshade you get 2X to 3X magnification of the LCD, are able to see it as if you were in a dark room so that nothing is left to chance. Of course the downside, at least in the case of the Carry Speed, is that you have pretty much defeated the advantage of a "small" point and shoot. Sometimes I carry an Xtend-a-View on a lanyard cord which I can simply hold up to the LCD when needed.

Best regards,

Lin

Hello Lin,

everyone has differnt preferences. I used the 10x magnification of lifeview of my EOS 40D to focus on a microscope, and found that the flickering of the screen makes it very cumbersome. I now often use the finder for manual focussing, therefore prefer SLRs with bigger finders (Canon XXD over Rebels); on the other hand there is nothing as useful as the split prism finder I had on my old manual SLR.

The battery issue is not that big with one battery and one spare. However, on longer trips I do have 5 spares for my SLR, which would translate into 10 for a camera with leser battery life, and then it becomes significant.

Now the batteries of my 40D get older, which is a hassle sometimes, as thy get empty earlier, but this is another issue.

Where we might agree is that a camera with a viewfinder, be it EVF or OVF, uis better than acompletely viewfinderless camera.

Best wishes,

Christoph

 

[Paul Tremblay]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback. I'm definitely leaning towards the Canon 1400. My other options are to spend more and get something like the Nikon Coolpix 7100 (really too much money for what I need), or to get the Nikon I mentioned in the original post and get a clearview viewfinder.

Again, much thanks; the answers were the most useful I have ever gotten on line.

 

[Alleg1]

An interesting discussion, but to digress slightly it seems to me that, although a significant number of people find limitations of one kind or another with using screens, these drawbacks tend to be played down in reviews, not just at DPR, but other sites.

 

[Christoph Stephan]

MichaelKz wrote:

If you have a smart phone and have no trouble photographing with it, then you don't need the viewfinder. Many people fit into this category, especially younger ones who never got used to using viewfinders. Clearly, a lot of cameras are selling without OVFs of EVFs.

On the other hand, I often have the impression that many of this generation shooters do not pay attention on composition and just snap away. I could notice it even in the talks on a scientific conference, where pictures of experiments where sometimes poorly composed, of different scale, or had distracting elements or background in it. I experienced sometimes the same when I asked students to take photos of experiments.

--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.redbubble.com/people/christopher363

 

[FrankS009]

Was going to suggest the same camera. The LF1 has an electronic viewfinder that you might want to compare with the other cameras you have in mind.

F.

 

[Erik Ohlson]

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

-Erik







--
'He who hesitates is not only lost - he's miles from the next Exit.'
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

 

[pavi1]

Do you find taking pictures with you cell phone the experience you enjoy? If so, you will probably be happy.

 

[tbcass]

Paul Tremblay wrote:

I am switching from film to digital and want to take a point and shoot to my beach vacation. I have narrowed my choices down to two cameras:

1. Canon PowerShot A1400

2. Nikon COOLPIX P310

I really lean towards the Nikon, but I have always had a viewfinder on my cameras, and worry that the lack of a viewfinder on the Nikon will frustrate me, especially in bright sun. The Canon camera has a viewfinder.

For a modern point and shoot such as the Nikon P310, can one get by without a viewfinder on a bright beach? Does the LCD screen give one enough of an image by which to compose the picture, or is it useless?

The viewfinder on the A1400 is so bad as to be almost useless IMO. While not ideal LCDs are usable in bright sun, especially if you wear a baseball cap or other wide brim hat.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[NIK11]

Alleg1 wrote:

An interesting discussion, but to digress slightly it seems to me that, although a significant number of people find limitations of one kind or another with using screens, these drawbacks tend to be played down in reviews, not just at DPR, but other sites.

Exactly. It seems to me most review sites exist to promote the industry and they let the manufacturers off the hook when they replaced OVF's with those early and dreadful LCD's. They are better now, but for many still not quite good enough.

A few years ago the UK independent consumer organisation Which? launched a campaign at camera manufacturers trying to pursuade them to offer more compacts with OVF's, simply because an overwhelming proportion of those surveyed complained about LCD's in sunlight. I mailed DPRE and suggested they might wish to lend their weight to the campaign, but heard nothing from them. I guess I was a little naive then.

I still sometimes read the Which? camera reviews just to hear their unbiased opinions about the reflectivity problems and limitations of (even the latest and best) LCD's.

Nick

 

[chp]

I'm one of these people that doesn't understand how anyone can live without a viewfinder on their cameras (assuming they want to take plenty of photos outdoors with it), so file my thoughts under "must have a viewfinder".

Agree.

Plus, lcd screen may be or become uncomfortable in some case if you need glasses (I am surprised none mentions that).