LCD-display-as-a-viewfinder idiotic?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Why oh why do people like to take pictures at "arm's-length", using the LCD display as a viewfinder, when they can't even see whether their subject has his/her eyes shut? Or ANY detail at all, to be sure. I really don't understand it. It seems positively idiotic to me. And what if the photographer's eyesight isn't 20/20 anymore and he needs reading glasses. He/she will then also need those glasses to be able to take a picture. More likely I expect before long most will give up taking pictures altogether. Too much hassle. Consider what that would mean: most people over 40 wouldn't take pictures anymore...
That would be a great loss, imho.

Can anybody explain to me what this apparent fascination with the LCD-display-as-a-viewfinder is?

[Rokcet Scientist]

So, Jared, what you're saying is: people use the LCD-displays because the viewfinders are so bad? Funny, because although I agree that many viewfinders leave a lot to be desired, I have yet to see a viewfinder that shows less detail than the LCD-display.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Some cameras only have the LCD - so I would give those people a "bye" on your point.............
[...]
Jared

No, I wouldn't "give those people a "bye"" on that point. Because those people voluntarily and specifically CHOSE to buy a camera without an optical viewfinder. That was a 'conscious' decision.
WHY?
I'm more and more afraid there is no explanation that really makes practical sense. So, if not, the explanation appears to be the 'peer-pressure', or 'herd mentality', that 'the masses', again!, prove to be so sensitive to.
(You can see the same mentality at work in the sports stadium: EVERYbody seems to use their flash, while totally useless at over 15 feet distance...)

[dc2]

I like seeing a flash go off at the back of a concert 3000ft away from the subject
For that micro second I feel like an expert

[mikej]

So you are saying that the upteen mazillion people out there that have point and shoot cameras are ALL idiots? You know, just because you like to smash your noise up against the LCD screen as you press your eye up to the view finder does not mean that those without a view finder are inferior. And they do have a big advantage over a DSLR camera... they can hold their camera up over the heads of the crowd or at an angle they can't get their body, but still be able to see where their lens is pointing and get a picture. Try doing that reliably with your DSLR when you can't look through the view finder.

I would bet that if it wasn't for all of these "idiotic people" as you call them buying millions upon millions of point and shoot cameras that those of us that shoot with DSLR would not have the cameras we do today. They would either not exist or would be so expensive that most of us couldn't afford them. It was the same with computers. If it wasn't for those playing games, we probably wouldn't have the computers we have today either.

Also, on some point and shoot cameras, when the lighting levels are below a certain level, the flash fires automatically.

Mike

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by Mike Jordan

[...]Also, on some point and shoot cameras, when the lighting levels are below a certain level, the flash fires automatically.[...]*

Mike

On "some" point-and-shoot camera's, sure.
But I see a gazillion flashes at sports stadiums and rock concerts! Describing that as 'some' camera's is too much of a stretch for my imagination. Those can't be just those 'some' automatic camera's! EVERYBODY else seems to have apparently also chosen to use flash....
Now, I'd appreciate it if anybody could tell me why that is NOT an idiotic herd mentality?

[cyclohexane]

Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist

And what if the photographer's eyesight isn't 20/20 anymore and he needs reading glasses. He/she will then also need those glasses to be able to take a picture. More likely I expect before long most will give up taking pictures altogether. Too much hassle.

I can't see three feet in front of my face without glasses, and need them to see through a viewfinder or* view the LCD.* The LCD isn't going to change anything in that respect; I don't see how glasses are too much of a hastle to wear when taking photos.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

I can't see three feet in front of my face without glasses, and need them to see through a viewfinder or* view the LCD.* The LCD isn't going to change anything in that respect; I don't see how glasses are too much of a hastle to wear when taking photos.

Most optical viewfinders have a diopter adjustment, cyclo. If you set it to the value of your prescription you will never need your glasses again for taking pictures...

Manuals DO have advantages!

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

I tend to try and look for the good in people rather than the opposite - I find that it makes me an all around more pleasant person to be around.* *

Jared

OK, so you like to look the other way?
Yep, that's also a choice.

[cyclohexane]

Unfortunately, I need to stack at least two add-on diopter pieces to get the correct value of my perscription, as the built-in isn't anywhere near sufficient. That really isn't practical- I tried it. Besides, I would't be able to see anything except what's going on through the viewfinder.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Unfortunately, I need to stack at least two add-on diopter pieces to get the correct value of my perscription, as the built-in isn't anywhere near sufficient.[...]

If your eyes require that much correction – BTW: I comiserate – then they seem well out of the 'range' of 99% of average people's eyesight. It means you're a 'special case'. Thus it's not surprising (though very unfortunate for you of course) that camera's don't 'cater' for your special case.
Same as with cars. They're designed and built for people with 2 equal length legs. Unfortunately, people with one leg 4 inches shorter than the other obviously have a problem with standard cars!
Does that make the car a 'bad' design? Not in my opinion.

[Fish36990]

Originally Posted by Mike Jordan

Also, on some point and shoot cameras, when the lighting levels are below a certain level, the flash fires automatically.

I have to agree with Mike here. Before I had my DSLR, I was using a point and shoot camera. It would automatically have the flash turn on when the light was low. I could manually turn it off, but with the beer I had consumed by the time I was taking pictures a half-mile away....I didn't even think about it. Even when I took a picture 5 seconds later and knew the flash was going to go off an not help, I didn't care.

Since I bought my DSLR, I've become much more aware of how I take pictures. I use my flash as little as possible because of how un-natural it looks. I also really try evaluate what I'm going to take a picture of before I take it now. Before I would just whip P&S out and snap away without a thought. Luckly, I did get a photo here and there that inspired me to get more serious about it.

I agree with Rocket Scientist that it is completely silly to use the flash in a stadium but as a newly converted P&Ser, I know most of those people don't think about it or even care.

Just my two cents,

Josh

[dc2]

If I am at a bar on holiday having a few beers the PS comes out and I would the use lcd with out much thought but the next day traveling with my hangover I take the slr .they both have there merits I don't feel comfortable or feel practicle to use the slr at the bar after a few beers

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

I still say that you cannot hold people accountable for not using a poorly designed and deficient product like a point and shoot viewfinder.* If they were of a high quality, you would have an argument.

Jared

If you say it often enough it may even come true, one day.

[Paul Shields]

I guess it's because certain parts of the market don't really care. I find LCD as a viewfinder mostly useless and would run a mile from any camera that had one.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

As will your theory that people at "nuts" for not using them.............

Jared

No, Jared, they're not 'nuts'. They're idiots!
Please quote me correctly.

[dvdowns]

My personal opinion : I had a Panasonic dmc-lc5 first and only used the viewfinder . I tried a fuji with lcd viewfinder and nearly threw up when everything slid before my eyes when I moved , I have serious motion sickness issues . I love my D70 for the clear view I get through the viewfinder . My canon S70 is a necessary evil because it is compact for climbing moutains but I still never use the lcd .
I think that people who use the lcd screen are usually just snapshooters who can visualise the outcome better by seeing it flat on a screen . People who are into their photography generally look through the viewfinder and see better optical quality [with decent cameras] , knowing what the outcome will be , having a greater control of that outcome by seeing "3d" .
To be fair those that look at the back of a camera are not necessarily idiots , just not as passionate about photography as the rest of us and happy to just get a snapshot . I would have serious doubts though about a "professional" photographer who looked at the lcd except in exceptional cases [ eyesight problems]

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

To be fair those that look at the back of a camera are not necessarily idiots , just not as passionate about photography as the rest of us and happy to just get a snapshot . I would have serious doubts though about a "professional" photographer who looked at the lcd except in exceptional cases [ eyesight problems]

Why? If the images are OK and the monitor LCD works for them, why would you insist that they use your technique?