Do you find the standard 3" display on cameras too small?

[M SN]

Do you find the standard 3" display on cameras too small?

After using 6"+ display smartphones to take photos, using a camera with a 3" display seems way more cumbersome and taxing for me, not to mention the large smartphone displays can be both high quality, high resolution and high nits, which is far from the standard on photo cameras.

I really find that less than practically 4.5" for a 4:3 ratio image on a smartphone is way too small for me to be perfectly conformable and not have to squint of feel that I need to check focus of the recorded photo.

In practice a 3" display will provide a 2.8" live preview for a 3:2 photo and a 2.6" live preview for a 4:3 photo, at least that I was able to measure.

I realize that the huge majority is fine with such tiny displays because otherwise I would at have least heard someone complaining.

That being said I think the convenience of smartphones is not not only the computational photography and easy of sliding one in a pocket but also previewing images and videos in a really conformable size for the human eye, it's just that is taken for granted.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I think that there is a fundamental difference between the two. On a smartphone, for most people, the phone screen is the primary method of viewing images. For a camera user, the primary viewing method is either a much larger computer screen or a print. The rear LCD on a camera is really just for checking images - and you can magnify them. Personally, if I need to reviewing images carefully, I always use the much better quality image through the EVF.

A larger rear LCD on a camera is going to be unacceptable to most people because it would mean a very much larger body or doing away with all of the controls on the back of the body. 3" LCDs have been the accepted compromise for the last 15 years or so - LCDs were smaller in the early days of digital cameras. If you absolutely have to have a larger image, you can always attach an external monitor via the HDMI socket as video professionals often do

 

[MIcrAZ]

"Folding screen" technology, currently on some top-of-the-line smartphones, will eventually reach the camera makers, and nearly double their screen size without compromising the cameras' overall "back" architecture.

 

[FrancoD]

This is a camera with a 3.2" screen.





to take that to 4" it would need to be wider and taller , to be able to still have a similar control layout. You will find that for some that is already a large body.

Ther reason why those cameras do have those not on screen buttons is because they are much easier to operate than a touch screen, particularly when shooting and one of the reasons why some don't like taking photos with a phone.

(BTW, another reason is that many can use the EVF for their eyesight but need glasses to see the screen).

 

[WiltshireMoonraker59]

Do you find the standard 3" display on cameras too small?

No not at all as I don't rely on it for taking photos, I use the EVF instead

After using 6"+ display smartphones to take photos, using a camera with a 3" display seems way more cumbersome and taxing for me, not to mention the large smartphone displays can be both high quality, high resolution and high nits, which is far from the standard on photo cameras.

Don't like using smartphone screens for photograpy because you often can't see the screen in bright sunlight and the ergonomics of a phone are awful anyway.

I really find that less than practically 4.5" for a 4:3 ratio image on a smartphone is way too small for me to be perfectly conformable and not have to squint of feel that I need to check focus of the recorded photo.

In practice a 3" display will provide a 2.8" live preview for a 3:2 photo and a 2.6" live preview for a 4:3 photo, at least that I was able to measure.

I realize that the huge majority is fine with such tiny displays because otherwise I would at have least heard someone complaining.

That being said I think the convenience of smartphones is not not only the computational photography and easy of sliding one in a pocket but also previewing images and videos in a really conformable size for the human eye, it's just that is taken for granted.

There is nothing inconvenient about carrying my EM5ii wherever I go but my phone is like using a slippery wet fish

 

[M SN]

I already know the majority of people are happy with 3" displays and I was not looking for going into reasons why they are only 3" or other redundant type of fact.

I had cameras before 15years ago and I know the display sizes then, but that is pointless to talk about when I am talking about live image previewing to take a shot and back then this was not even possible with a DSLR. We can talk days about things that were considered impossible or pointless not long ago which now are basically the irreversible standard, but that is not the point.

I am genuinely looking to see if some people find the 3" displays uncomfortable to shoot with considering that anyone today has access to large 6"+ high quality displays in their pocket and have that experience to be able to compare.

 

[Fujiuseruk]

Do you find the standard 3" display on cameras too small?

no as don’t use them to take pictures very often . I prefer to use the evf.

After using 6"+ display smartphones to take photos, using a camera with a 3" display seems way more cumbersome and taxing for me, not to mention the large smartphone displays can be both high quality, high resolution and high nits, which is far from the standard on photo cameras.

I really don’t like having to hold a phone at arms length to take photos and half the time you can’t even see the screen clearly due to bright sunlight and glare

I much prefer the isolation the evf can give to allow you to really see the image and composition without distractions from your surroundings.

I really find that less than practically 4.5" for a 4:3 ratio image on a smartphone is way too small for me to be perfectly conformable and not have to squint of feel that I need to check focus of the recorded photo.

As the camera lcd/evf have the ability to zoom in to check focus I think it’s a none issue

In practice a 3" display will provide a 2.8" live preview for a 3:2 photo and a 2.6" live preview for a 4:3 photo, at least that I was able to measure.

I realize that the huge majority is fine with such tiny displays because otherwise I would at have least heard someone complaining.

they are just for settings and spot checking as final viewing is done on large monitors or in print .

That being said I think the convenience of smartphones is not not only the computational photography and easy of sliding one in a pocket but also previewing images and videos in a really conformable size for the human eye, it's just that is taken for granted.

Yes phones are convenient and the image quality is more than good enough for social

 

[thinkinginimages]

No. There would be too many sacrifices to go much bigger. Controls, buttons, grip surface, etc.

I'm not dismissing the idea because people compose differently. There's composing, and then there's aiming. It's situational.

 

[XenonDeathFlash]

Yes, camera displays are so bad compared to smartphones.

There's really no reason for them not to be OLED with small bezels just like any modern smartphone considering their price.

Using dots to measure resolution is also stupid and people who complain about brightness in daylight haven't used a modern phone with brightness in the 1500 nits range.

 

[Doug J]

I already know the majority of people are happy with 3" displays and I was not looking for going into reasons why they are only 3" or other redundant type of fact.

I had cameras before 15years ago and I know the display sizes then, but that is pointless to talk about when I am talking about live image previewing to take a shot and back then this was not even possible with a DSLR. We can talk days about things that were considered impossible or pointless not long ago which now are basically the irreversible standard, but that is not the point.

I am genuinely looking to see if some people find the 3" displays uncomfortable to shoot with considering that anyone today has access to large 6"+ high quality displays in their pocket and have that experience to be able to compare.

I don't use the display to shoot, I use the viewfinder to compose and shoot. I use the display only for a quick review of some shots. I use an iPhone for some shots, maybe that's the 6" display in the pocket you're referring to. The phone camera is OK for a quick shot to send to someone.

I don't want to carry a camera with a 6" display.


Cheers,
Doug

 

[Horacecoker]

I think that there is a fundamental difference between the two. On a smartphone, for most people, the phone screen is the primary method of viewing images. For a camera user, the primary viewing method is either a much larger computer screen or a print. The rear LCD on a camera is really just for checking images - and you can magnify them. Personally, if I need to reviewing images carefully, I always use the much better quality image through the EVF.

A larger rear LCD on a camera is going to be unacceptable to most people because it would mean a very much larger body or doing away with all of the controls on the back of the body.

Not quite true. The diagonal size of the actual screen on my Sony A6700 is 3.5". It's the wasteful black border that reduces it to 3". Do away with the black border and you have a considerably larger screen without increasing the size of the camera. They've done it on phones why not cameras?

3" LCDs have been the accepted compromise for the last 15 years or so - LCDs were smaller in the early days of digital cameras. If you absolutely have to have a larger image, you can always attach an external monitor via the HDMI socket as video professionals often do

 

[sybersitizen]

I am genuinely looking to see if some people find the 3" displays uncomfortable to shoot with considering that anyone today has access to large 6"+ high quality displays in their pocket and have that experience to be able to compare.

I'll be surprised if you get answers along the lines of 'Nope ... 3" displays are the ideal size for me to look at.'

Personally, of course I'd appreciate larger displays on my cameras ... but only if they don't unacceptably increase the size and weight of the cameras.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

Yes, I would like a larger display but really don't want a larger camera. Or a larger phone.

Sometimes when I'm using a tripod I wifi to a tablet for a larger, more flexible display. I've also tried a video monitor, but at the time couldn't find a really good one in my price range.

Gato

 

[Craig Gillette]

I think most photographers have a range of interests in what a camera is/does and what compromises might be needed. I'd like it larger but that clearly would drive up camera size.

I started, years ago, with a camera which had a little red window in the back and you could see the numbers on the paper backing of the film roll.

 

[Jim Cassatt]

Yes. I use two cameras for my photography. One is the Fuji X-T5. The other is the Fuji GFX 100S. For the mot part the eye level EVF works just fine. However, there are times when I want different camera angle, especially for portraits. Having just turned 80, bending down is not as easy as it used to be. The flip screens of the two cameras are godsends. However, the screen on the X-T5 is too small tube useful, specially for portraits. The larger screen of the 100S works much better.

 

[Mackiesback]

I already know the majority of people are happy with 3" displays and I was not looking for going into reasons why they are only 3" or other redundant type of fact.

I had cameras before 15years ago and I know the display sizes then, but that is pointless to talk about when I am talking about live image previewing to take a shot and back then this was not even possible with a DSLR. We can talk days about things that were considered impossible or pointless not long ago which now are basically the irreversible standard, but that is not the point.

I am genuinely looking to see if some people find the 3" displays uncomfortable to shoot with considering that anyone today has access to large 6"+ high quality displays in their pocket and have that experience to be able to compare.

I guess I never really thought about it, because the screen fills the back of my Z6 up pretty well, and I don't want a larger camera body. If I ever haul out my old D100 or D50, the first thing I realize I appreciate about modern cameras is the back screen.

 

[richj20]

I have no trouble using the screen to frame a scene. The flip out screen is useful for framing vertically, especially when low to the ground.

In using the screen to review, my GX8 has 10x magnification which is plenty to check focus, details, etc.




Easy to see the details of the pollen grains on the screen





--
Richard

http://www.rsjphoto.net/

 

[robgendreau]

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that a lot of people here have meh smartphones with screens that aren't as visible in bright light as the best phones.

If my cameras had that quality of display I'd love it. Even if not as big. Not to mention the better color gamut of the smartphone, and the fact that the smartphone screens can do HDR, unlike the cameras. And phone screens have far better resolution (note they don't have to hide their 1990's resolution behind "dots" like the camera makers do). I'd love higher resolution for star shots and focusing.

Of course that might mean the camera would have to use better previews.

But still: it's pretty pathetic that even flagship cameras have such lame displays. Sure, I'm not going to use it 90% of the time for composing. But when I do, or when I want to review shots, I'd like something more worthy. But maybe that's why video shooters all use displays....

 

[FrancoD]

I already know the majority of people are happy with 3" displays and I was not looking for going into reasons why they are only 3" or other redundant type of fact.

I had cameras before 15years ago and I know the display sizes then, but that is pointless to talk about when I am talking about live image previewing to take a shot and back then this was not even possible with a DSLR. We can talk days about things that were considered impossible or pointless not long ago which now are basically the irreversible standard, but that is not the point.

I am genuinely looking to see if some people find the 3" displays uncomfortable to shoot with considering that anyone today has access to large 6"+ high quality displays in their pocket and have that experience to be able to compare.

I t6hink that you answered your own question here and that is that only a minority of people would want a larger screen and it isn't at all economical to make cameras like that for minorities.

I bet that if they did the commonest comment would be that the camera is too big and or not all that ergonomic.

I do understand that for you both may not be valid points but they are to those that do enjoy using cameras with different lenses in different light.

BTW, some ,like me, don't use the rear screen simply because we need to wear glasses to see it but can use the EVF (with the dioptric adjustment) without them .

To top that , given that I almost always only take bird photos , there is no way I could do BIF holding the camera away from my eye (not that this is relevant to most....). m

 

[FrancoD]

By the way, there have been several attempts at the larger screen camera market by trying to merge a camera into the phone shape, but they all failed.

Samsung, LG, Panasonic , Casio (that I can think of) all made at least one version, all gone and forgotten because the advantage of the extra screen size did not make up for the extra bulk.