Is the built in viewfinder dead?

[Tom Caldwell]

Poke the camera manufacturers and they all seem to think the viewfinder, be it mirror based, straight through a tunnel or even evf is on it's last legs.

Even Canon with it's EF-M seems to agree with Ricoh and Pentax and Nikon has previously indicated that it also thinks that consumers want best price and small in preference to peering into their cameras.

Fuji seem to be swimming against the tide here in thinking that the weight of tradition will overcome the pressure of the mass market.

There is hope, Samsung, and the M43 crowd still make cameras with evf and as long as people will want and buy them Nikon and Canon will continue to make and sell cameras with viewfinders. Likewise Leica, the epitome of well worked out capable nostalgia.

The fact is that people seem to mainly require wide angle, for why I am not entirely sure. Maybe it is to get the feet in the frame of a group shot or wide has a bigger margin for error in framing, almost always in focus, etc? Anyway everyone is entitled to use what works best for them. Of course I have, use and love wide angle as well, but I do have other lenses, some of them quite large (grin), so I do have a vested interest in seeing viewfinders continue.

I like 85/135 effective focal lengths as the get more distant portraiture. Not everyone's need and longer lengths are more specialised but have their place and really need a proper viewfinder even if most can get by without one when using a wide lens.

So wide angle does not need a viewfinder nearly as much as a big long lens and the move to cameras that do not have any viewfinder at all clearly indicates that the industry agrees.

Pity those with longer lenses when the viewfinder disappears.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Godfrey]

The LCD is the modern viewfinder. It's just not an eye level viewfinder of the older model that you're accustomed to.

I still like an eye level viewfinder, optical or electronic, so I buy the apropos optical and electronic accessories when the camera offers the option to fit one.

And DSLRs all still have eye-level viewfinders.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[Katsunami]

The LCD is the modern viewfinder. It's just not an eye level viewfinder of the older model that you're accustomed to.

I am sorry, but I do not agree. An LCD-monitor is not a viewfinder. It just has too many drawbacks.

• It results in an unstable position, especially with somewhat longer lenses.
• It requires the use of reading glasses for many people, while a viewfinder can be adjusted with a diopter. (I would need to put on my "computer glasses", that have a correction of about +2 higher than my normal glasses.)
• It "detaches" the camera too much: it's not an extension of your eye anymore. (At least, not for me.)
• Shooting in that position just looks amateuristic (IMHO), especially when people try to get more into the picture by bending backward, and at the same time trying to look at the LCD-screen through the bottom (reading) part of their glasses.
• And the kicker: you can't see anyting in daylight especially when it's sunny.

I much prefer a viewfinder: internal if possible, external if need be. I prefer it to the extent that I actually refuse to shoot using the LCD-screen except if someone asks me to take a picture of them using a compact camera.

 

[Katsunami]

Poke the camera manufacturers and they all seem to think the viewfinder, be it mirror based, straight through a tunnel or even evf is on it's last legs.

Only for the consumer oriented camera's, IMHO. Serious camera's will always have a viewfinder (at least an external one), as an LCD-screen has too many disadvantages, as I already posted in my earlier reaction to Godfrey.

 

[Godfrey]

The LCD is the modern viewfinder. It's just not an eye level viewfinder of the older model that you're accustomed to.

I am sorry, but I do not agree. An LCD-monitor is not a viewfinder. It just has too many drawbacks.

• It results in an unstable position, especially with somewhat longer lenses.
• It requires the use of reading glasses for many people, while a viewfinder can be adjusted with a diopter. (I would need to put on my "computer glasses", that have a correction of about +2 higher than my normal glasses.)
• It "detaches" the camera too much: it's not an extension of your eye anymore. (At least, not for me.)
• Shooting in that position just looks amateuristic (IMHO), especially when people try to get more into the picture by bending backward, and at the same time trying to look at the LCD-screen through the bottom (reading) part of their glasses.
• And the kicker: you can't see anyting in daylight especially when it's sunny.

I much prefer a viewfinder: internal if possible, external if need be. I prefer it to the extent that I actually refuse to shoot using the LCD-screen except if someone asks me to take a picture of them using a compact camera.

All your reasons are fine reasons to prefer an eye level viewfinder, but do not negate the fact that the LCD is the modern viewfinder.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[Midwest]

I think it's a case where the camera makers try to convince as many people as possible that they don't need one, which saves them some money. They told us we didn't need vent (wing) windows in our cars either - look how much better we could see without the little frame there! - but we lost functionality and they saved money.

An LCD is definitely a very poor substitute most of the time for an actual viewfinder.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

All your reasons are fine reasons to prefer an eye level viewfinder, but do not negate the fact that the LCD is the modern viewfinder.

I suggest it's not technically a viewfinder if you can't see the view using it.

I've been seeing more and more posts by people who admit they can't see a thing with the LCD in bright sun so they just "guess" and shoot -- point and shoot in the truest sense.

--
Darrell

 

[A Subset]

They told us we didn't need vent (wing) windows in our cars either - look how much better we could see without the little frame there! - but we lost functionality and they saved money.

WHAT??? When did they do that? I still have vent windows in MY car. I don't understand. Next thing you'll be telling me is they're gonna quit making Kodachrome! I think you're just a nut case, that's all.

• A.

 

[Godfrey]

I suggest it's not technically a viewfinder if you can't see the view using it.

I've been seeing more and more posts by people who admit they can't see a thing with the LCD in bright sun so they just "guess" and shoot -- point and shoot in the truest sense.

There are circumstances when you can't see the view with all viewfinders. None work well in all circumstances.

There's a difference between whether something is a viewfinder and whether that same thing is able to function in a particular circumstance.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[rube39]

I don't care one way or the other.

But when taking close ups, I do find using the LCD to be much more convenient. I also prefer it for street, it is more discreet.

On the other hand, I almost always use the VF when I have one, and find it necessary when shooting sports or animals at max zoom.
--
Rube
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71881102@N00/

 

[Trafford]

I suggest it's not technically a viewfinder if you can't see the view using it.

I've been seeing more and more posts by people who admit they can't see a thing with the LCD in bright sun so they just "guess" and shoot -- point and shoot in the truest sense.

There are circumstances when you can't see the view with all viewfinders. None work well in all circumstances.

There's a difference between whether something is a viewfinder and whether that same thing is able to function in a particular circumstance.

Waist level viewfinder is my preference, probably because my first serious
camera was a film SLR in the early 1940s.

I use a folding mirror contraption with my Ricoh CX3, not quite the
same as the image is reversed.

 

[Midwest]

They told us we didn't need vent (wing) windows in our cars either - look how much better we could see without the little frame there! - but we lost functionality and they saved money.

WHAT??? When did they do that? I still have vent windows in MY car. I don't understand. Next thing you'll be telling me is they're gonna quit making Kodachrome! I think you're just a nut case, that's all.

Be that as it may....

 

[Tom Caldwell]

The LCD is the modern viewfinder. It's just not an eye level viewfinder of the older model that you're accustomed to.

I am sorry, but I do not agree. An LCD-monitor is not a viewfinder. It just has too many drawbacks.

• It results in an unstable position, especially with somewhat longer lenses.
• It requires the use of reading glasses for many people, while a viewfinder can be adjusted with a diopter. (I would need to put on my "computer glasses", that have a correction of about +2 higher than my normal glasses.)
• It "detaches" the camera too much: it's not an extension of your eye anymore. (At least, not for me.)
• Shooting in that position just looks amateuristic (IMHO), especially when people try to get more into the picture by bending backward, and at the same time trying to look at the LCD-screen through the bottom (reading) part of their glasses.
• And the kicker: you can't see anyting in daylight especially when it's sunny.

I much prefer a viewfinder: internal if possible, external if need be. I prefer it to the extent that I actually refuse to shoot using the LCD-screen except if someone asks me to take a picture of them using a compact camera.

Kat

I agree with everything you say and was merely postulating that the manufacturers seem to have decided.

From their point of view: popular demand seems to indicate that the majority will use the lcd first before the viewfinder when a viewfinder is available (even (choke) dlsr bodies with "live view"; popular demand seems to be for bigger and bigger lcd screens; popular demand asks for high resolution video which is better captured by using lcd; incorporating a viewfinder is more expensive and technically testing than simply leaving it out; without a viewfinder the camera is physically smaller overall; if they have to make a viewfinder as an add-on product then it is more costly to produce and sells in smaller numbers, smaller volume of sales makes it more costly again therefore they sell even less - and so on ad infinitum ... Until they simply decide not to offer a clip on evf at all.

Neither Pentax with the K-01, or now Canon with the EF-M, make any provision on reasonably large camera bodies for a sperate viewfinder.

We can all basicaly name the present state of the art cameas with built in evf, those with only lcd wbut have the capacity for adding a clip on expensive evf, and a small but growing number with no provision for a separate eye-viewfinder facility.

But of course, if the body has a hot shoe then there are "Approximators" (Hot shoe mounted tunnel optical finders with framelines). Approximaters will be around as long as they are prized and they do look good sitting up there on top of the camera. But I would hardly be buying up shares in approximator manufacturing companies whilst waiting for overwhelming demand to break out.

Consider that the Mode2 (especially) focus peaking makes a complete mockery of the big bright optical or electronic viewfinder as you can hardly claim that what you see is what you get but it does work very well and, after all, you can review the capture later if you really like what you saw.

Since the GXR and focus peaking I have desisted somewhat from just looking over the top of the camera for approximate framing. With some practice and a wide lens you can work out within reason what might be in the frame without either lcd or a viewfinder at all. Try it. However mode2 focus peaking produces yet another scenario. The focus peaking view does show the framing boundaries and this can be related to the real world view over the top of the camera whilst focus peaking nails the focus. It is a bit like those that use microscopes for a living can leave both eyes open and "see" individually with each eye.

It is a new way of thinking - might work.

Meanwhile dslr cameras might still have optical viewfinders but it must be acknowledged that the dslr is "dead" even if the date of the funeral has yet to be determined.

I have not bought a dslr body for some time and I cannot be alone.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Godfrey]

Waist level viewfinder is my preference, probably because my first serious
camera was a film SLR in the early 1940s.

I also love using waist level finders with 6x6 cameras ... my first "serious" camera was a 1947 Rolleiflex TLR, loaned to me by my grandfather. And if ever there was a viewfinder that was unusable in some circumstances, that was it.

I still preferred a waist level finder with the Hasselblad I had in the early 2000s however.

--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[Tom Caldwell]

All your reasons are fine reasons to prefer an eye level viewfinder, but do not negate the fact that the LCD is the modern viewfinder.

I suggest it's not technically a viewfinder if you can't see the view using it.

I've been seeing more and more posts by people who admit they can't see a thing with the LCD in bright sun so they just "guess" and shoot -- point and shoot in the truest sense.

--
Darrell

Darrell

I have added a JJC (LCH-3.0B) flip out lcd hood/cover to my GRDIII. This fits perfectly but adds aboout 7mm depth to the camera body. It also has it's own internal glass screen that covers and protects the lcd surface.

This works on the old principle of waist-level viewfinders where once the external cover is hinged back two side elements pop out on sprung hinges to give a three-sided shaded area around the lcd. Seems to work fine even if I have been using the GRDIII less and less since my infatuation with the GXR A12 mount and manual lenses. I have not tried it on REALLY bright light situations but I can see no reason why it should not be a capable solution.

This screen has lugs so the the screen shade can be removed entirely leaving just a frame and lcd glass cover, or reverse fitted thereby folding the cover down instead of up.

Now if the JJC had a mirrored back to the screen cover it woulld be even more versatile.

Advantages: closed it provides a hard cover; open it provides a three-sided shade for the lcd - you can close in the fourth side with the palm of your hand if necessary; it has an internal glass lcd protective cover; the cover portion can be clicked off and reversed or removed altogether.

Disadvantages: 7mm added thicknesss makes a new case necessary.

Comment: the glass internal screen is perfectly adequate but probably not quite as upmarket or strong as the Acmaxx product (which is only an lcd cover) and the shade cannot be used with the Acmaxx in place. They come in various sizes to fit different sized lcd screens. I have not fitted one to a GXR as I already have Acmaxx protectors on them.

Adding a mirror surface inside the cover would allow (mirrror image) overhead or waist level shots with ease.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I think it's a case where the camera makers try to convince as many people as possible that they don't need one, which saves them some money. They told us we didn't need vent (wing) windows in our cars either - look how much better we could see without the little frame there! - but we lost functionality and they saved money.

No nostalgia there for me. Triangular air vent windows did nothing for me. Never got much air into the car anyway and what came in was hot in an Australian summer. By the time you got enough speed up to bring in any air they blew shut anyway. Pre-airconditioning they were simply better than nothing. Then I bought a Citroen ID19 in 1964 (designed in 1954 (!) ) I believe. It had amongst other things "fresh air vents" that really worked. Taking the air from a high pressure point between headlight and bumper bar when opened they directed a good stream of air into the cabin and could be directed towards the fornt passengers. Of course that Citroen did not have silly little quarter light ventilators - the windows were frameless and wound right down into the doors.

Just a few years ahead of their time, the "quirky" car never caught on outside France. Much the same as the technically advanced quirky Ricoh cameras have not really been accepted outside Japan.

An LCD is definitely a very poor substitute most of the time for an actual viewfinder.

Not really. It is more the camera grip that is the problem - with big lenses especially. There is a solution for bright light screen wash-out as well.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[rattymouse]

The stampede to Fujifilm's X100, X-Pro 1 and X10 was all due to these cameras having viewfinders. A large, very significant population wants a viewfinder and will gravitate immediately towards cameras like these.

In my own case, I lost a lot of interest in Ricoh's GXR (despite liking the size and IQ from the A12's) was because it has no built in viewfinder. I will never, ever consider a camera without a a viewfinder. (Except for a cheap compact).

--

http://fujifilmimages.aminus3.com/

 

[Midwest]

Meanwhile dslr cameras might still have optical viewfinders but it must be acknowledged that the dslr is "dead" even if the date of the funeral has yet to be determined.

Oh my, we're in another month with a vowel in it...

I have not bought a dslr body for some time and I cannot be alone.

On the other end of the spectrum, in 1955, Ralph Kramden announced he was not buying a TV set because he was waiting for 3D TV.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

Darrell

I have added a JJC (LCH-3.0B) flip out lcd hood/cover to my GRDIII. This fits perfectly but adds aboout 7mm depth to the camera body. It also has it's own internal glass screen that covers and protects the lcd surface.

This works on the old principle of waist-level viewfinders where once the external cover is hinged back two side elements pop out on sprung hinges to give a three-sided shaded area around the lcd. Seems to work fine even if I have been using the GRDIII less and less since my infatuation with the GXR A12 mount and manual lenses. I have not tried it on REALLY bright light situations but I can see no reason why it should not be a capable solution.

Tom,

You may not have seen/remembered several threads I've posted going back 2 years on my approach to solve the problem. This is a recap.

I bought this LCD hood/cover right after I got my CX1 because I found the LCD to be useless in the bright sun. It seems it was virtually identical to yours judging from your description.



This screen also came with a transparent LCD cover, but it was so highly reflective that it actually made things worse. The shade shielded the LCD, but my sunny reflection was so strong that the LCD image was even harder to see. You'll note that I was trying an accessory VF at the time to try to get something I could use when I realized the sunshade wasn't working.

I then reported that I bought this viewer (for $5, including shipping) for a magnifying hood that would also completely block the sun.



I installed it (pretty sloppy installation then, but I've done it better now) and it has worked beautifully ever since. It has made the camera really useful to me and the 920K LCD display produces a wonderful VF image, even for manual focusing. All for $5.



I have always preferred a small case for my camera, so the added size has never been a problem.

Adding a mirror surface inside the cover would allow (mirrror image) overhead or waist level shots with ease.

This hasn't been a priority for me, but I understand some would like to have it.

Thanks,
--
Darrell

 

[jrtrent]

Meanwhile dslr cameras might still have optical viewfinders but it must be acknowledged that the dslr is "dead" even if the date of the funeral has yet to be determined.

I have not bought a dslr body for some time and I cannot be alone.

I've purchased five dslr's over the years, given away three and thrown away two. I don't plan to buy anymore. I love my manual focus SLR, with its big, bright, easy to focus viewfinder, simple convenient controls for aperture, shutter speed, focus point, and detailed distance and depth of field scales. None of the dslr's I've tried have been as easy, straightforward, and fun to use--in comparison, they all seem crippled in operation, and issues like sensor dust/debris were a major pain with a couple of them.

On the other hand, though I'm satisfied with the picture quality I got with a Fuji S200EXR and my CX3, on a trip a few months ago there were numerous situations where I simply could not see well enough to compose an image, even with the EVF on the Fuji. A friend of mine had an add-on folding hood contraption for her camera that also proved worthless.

As soon as I returned, I bought a Nikon P7100 with its crampled little optical viewfinder. Poor as it is for accurate framing, I have yet to run into a light condition where it doesn't give me a clear view of the scene. I'm having to learn to get by with the loose framing and having to crop later to get the picture I thought I was shooting, but at least I can see well enough to frame a picture. I have no plans to ever again buy a camera that lacks some form of optical viewfinder.