LCD-display-as-a-viewfinder idiotic?

[Nikonfreak]

If the viewfinders covered what the lens sees, then I'd say you are 100% right. It's tough to frame a shot using a viewfinder that doesn't see what the lens does or has the same FOV.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

If the viewfinders covered what the lens sees, then I'd say you are 100% right. It's tough to frame a shot using a viewfinder that doesn't see what the lens does or has the same FOV.

True but any DSLR worth its salt should have a 100% viewfinder.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

If the viewfinders covered what the lens sees, then I'd say you are 100% right.* It's tough to frame a shot using a viewfinder that doesn't see what the lens does or has the same FOV.

Viewfinders typically cover about 87% to 97% of what the lens 'sees', the variation dependant on the parallax deviation. Roughly, the more close-up you go, the greater the deviation. All true. So isn't it funny that in practice this hasn't bothered the last five generations of picture snappers since the first Brownie's, about a century ago?
So why should it now?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Yes, that too, Jared. It's "in". You look "hip" and "with it" if you take pictures at arm's length. And, conversely, you look square and nerdy if you use a viewfinder. It may not be all that ideal for composing a picture, but hey! At least you'll look cool doin' it!

[dvdowns]

Like when cellphones first came out in South Africa , you'd get this scruffy looking character walking down the road talking and laughing into this phone ........ and then it rings ....... He was trying to show everyone he posessed a cellphone and could afford to make calls .
I think there may be a small psychological relationship to looking at the back of the camera when they first came out , but often I see someone look in the viewfinder , their head jars backwards , they look at the lcd and then start smiling . I think the viewfinders on many of these cameras are so awful many are forced to use the lcd .

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

Like when cellphones first came out in South Africa , you'd get this scruffy looking character walking down the road talking and laughing into this phone ........ and then it rings ....... He was trying to show everyone he posessed a cellphone and could afford to make calls .

I lived in South Africa in the seventies. Many people that could not afford A/C in their cars kept their windows rolled up tightly anyway in the scorching African summer heat because people with A/C did...

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

If he's refering to people using the LCD to compose shots then I'd tend to agree with him. Would any professional (or just keen) photographer go without a viewfinder?

Large format people do it all the time! They compose on a ground glass screen, which is something like the LCD monitor. More detailed and bigger of course, but also a lot dimmer, especially with the lens stopped down.

[dvdowns]

Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist

I lived in South Africa in the seventies. Many people that could not afford A/C in their cars kept their windows rolled up tightly anyway in the scorching African summer heat because people with A/C did...

News from back home is that the indigenous people have adapted their crime to what they see on TV . Now they wear a suit and tie when they car-jack people , and they say " get in the back and don't try anything , we don't want things to get ' messy' " .
On the subject of photography though , amongst the locals the guy who had two cameras around his neck was held in awe as obviously being a better photographer to choose for doing weddings than the guy who "only" had one camera .

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Paul

True but any DSLR worth its salt should have a 100% viewfinder.

Yes, but isn't he talking about digicams?

I can't imagine framing a DSLR without looking through the viewfinder.

OMG... that'd be terrible.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Yes, but isn't he talking about digicams?

I can't imagine framing a DSLR without looking through the viewfinder.

OMG... that'd be terrible.

Some people don't seem to understand that this viewfinder argument is about point & shoot digicams. Not about dSLR's, obviously.
If a dSLR owner used dis LCD as a viewfinder I would have him committed.

[dvdowns]

ok , it could have saved a bit of adrenalin if that was mentioned earlier , but really I would say the same principles apply either way . I suppose we could be more forgiving of someone doing this when the image quality is probably going to be pretty awful anyway , though I know there are good digicams out there but not with 6 meg images ........ personally I would get pretty sick looking at an lcd screen moving for so long , I get motion sickness watching a 3d computer game for more than a minute . I saw someone with a digicam at the last wedding I was at and the guy staring at the screen seemed to crerate one extra weak link besides the people feeling uncomfortable about a camera being pointed at them , they had to contend with his face looking toward them while his eyes were down at the screen , maybe a psychological disadvantage for those on the receiving end compared to a "fused" camera and cameraman , sort of like a truck reversing with two trailers compared to one .* *

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist

If a dSLR owner used dis LCD as a viewfinder I would have him committed.

I am currently a P&Ser who uses the LCD monitor quite a bit, nor do I see nothing "idiotic" about doing so. If my camera had a more accurate optical finder I would use it more; nevertheless, there are occasions where I would continue to use the LCD monitor even if I did have an accurate optical finder.

Nor have I seen anything so far that would persuade me that there is anything wrong with using the LCD monitor - mainly a bunch of ad hominem abuse and "straw man" fallacies. I am not especially prone to motion sickness so that particular argument doesn't apply to me. I am well aware of the limitations of the LCD monitor - the delay in processing the image for display, the fact that it "goes blind" in very dim light, its small size, and the rest of it. Nevertheless, if a live preview LCD monitor were available on today's dSLRs, which isn't now the case, there would be occasions in which I would use it, particularly if it were an articulated one. On some occasions, having to look into the back of the camera is a limitation, such as when shooting at odd angles. This often happens when shooting extreme close-ups in the field, or when it is necessary to hold the camera overhead to clear an obstruction like a crowd of people. Sometimes an angle finder would be an adequate substitute but not always.

I would like to see an option on dSLRs in which a high-definition video output were provided so that a small external monitor with its own power supply could be attached and used as a wired remote viewfinder, though with the limitations of a dSLR - yes, the dSLR has limitations - that is likely to remain just a pipe dream. The video outputs of many of today's P&Ss, including mine, can be used in this way.

[Paul Shields]

I'm a bit lost on this thread. Are we just talking about the cheapo digicams that don't have a viewfinder? For those cameras that don't have viewfinders (optical or EVF) then sure, there's no other way of framing a shot than looking at the LCD on the back of the camera. For digicams that do have a viewfinder, then I would expect that to be preferable to the LCD, even if it's a teeny-weeny view. If the LCD is considered better than it's built-in viewfinder in this case then that's just an indication of how poorly designed that camera is. If anyone knows of a more 'sophisticated' digitam/dslr where LCD framing is prefered over the viewfinder then I'd be interested in being re-educated.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm a bit lost on this thread. Are we just talking about the cheapo digicams that don't have a viewfinder? For those cameras that don't have viewfinders (optical or EVF) then sure, there's no other way of framing a shot than looking at the LCD on the back of the camera. For digicams that do have a viewfinder, then I would expect that to be preferable to the LCD, even if it's a teeny-weeny view. If the LCD is considered better than it's built-in viewfinder in this case then that's just an indication of how poorly designed that camera is. If anyone knows of a more 'sophisticated' digitam/dslr where LCD framing is prefered over the viewfinder then I'd be interested in being re-educated.

The digitals without an optical or electronic viewfinder would of course have little choice but to use the LCD monitor, but only the very cheapest digicams suffer from this limitation. The more capable ones have one kind of viewfinder or the other, with those having zoom ranges of 4x or lower typically having optical finders and those with higher zoom ranges having electronic ones. Under many conditions I too would be using the viewfinder, but there are times when it is inconvenient or even impossible to look through the back of the camera while shooting. In those situations, the main LCD monitor, especially an articulated one, becomes attractive as a way to aim the camera. This is aside from the consideration that the optical viewfinders on most digitals aren't that accurate at showing the actual field of view, even allowing for parallax errors.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

The digitals without an optical or electronic viewfinder would of course have little choice but to use the LCD monitor, but only the very cheapest digicams suffer from this limitation. The more capable ones have one kind of viewfinder or the other, with those having zoom ranges of 4x or lower typically having optical finders and those with higher zoom ranges having electronic ones. Under many conditions I too would be using the viewfinder, but there are times when it is inconvenient or even impossible to look through the back of the camera while shooting. In those situations, the main LCD monitor, especially an articulated one, becomes attractive as a way to aim the camera. This is aside from the consideration that the optical viewfinders on most digitals aren't that accurate at showing the actual field of view, even allowing for parallax errors.

OK, good explanation and I can see your point. Personally I don't find myself often in situations where the rear LCD is the only way to frame my shot, but I can see it is an advantage for those that do.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

OK, good explanation and I can see your point. Personally I don't find myself often in situations where the rear LCD is the only way to frame my shot, but I can see it is an advantage for those that do.

I find myself in that situation fairly often. Nevertheless, even when it would be possible to use the viewfinder, the LCD monitor can be more convenient, such as taking shots at waist level, knee level, and even ankle level. For someone who takes extreme close-ups in the field, this happens a lot. It also happens quite a bit when taking pictures of children and pets, especially small ones like cats I also do a lot of available light photography indoors and must brace my camera against whatever mechanical support is available to avoid motion blur. In these instances too the viewfinder is difficult or impossible to use.

[ohenry]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

I find myself in that situation fairly often. Nevertheless, even when it would be possible to use the viewfinder, the LCD monitor can be more convenient, such as taking shots at waist level, knee level, and even ankle level. For someone who takes extreme close-ups in the field, this happens a lot. It also happens quite a bit when taking pictures of children and pets, especially small ones like cats I also do a lot of available light photography indoors and must brace my camera against what