Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are camera companies shedding the view finder or in some cases, making it an optional attachment? Is it expensive to have one? Does it add too much weight? Take up too much space?
I won't buy a camera without one and as a result I have zero compact cameras but I have 8 other cameras. I can't even review my outdoor photos on the screen unless I find some shade/go in the car/go indoors. Is it because I'm older? Wear glasses?
I'm bringing it up because I have spoken to other camera enthusiasts who say the same thing. They are people over 40 but that's only because those are the people I come in contact with and speak to regularly. For all I know, 20 year olds have the same problem.
I wonder whether camera makers have calculated how much of a loss they take with compacts by not including a view finder. They should survey older adults. They might be surprised at how much money they are losing.
I'm 32 and I hate trying to use a camera with no viewfinder. I sometimes take videos with my DSLR, and since the mirror has to flip up to expose the sensor, naturally the viewfinder is useless then. And I've found that unless it's very cloudy or pretty dark, I can barely see the screen well enough to make the video (and yes, I do have the brightness turned up). I find it very difficult to take snapshots with my cell phone for that same reason, but that's not a big deal because I generally try to always have a camera with me. I also have a lot more trouble holding a camera steady out in front of me, looking at the LCD screen as opposed to having the camera pressed up to my face looking through a viewfinder. I can handhold my old Canon rangefinder at 1/15 of second and still get a presentable picture, my film SLR and DSLR at 1/60, maybe 1/30 if I have something to lean my body against, but with my cell phone I couldn't dream of doing that unless I could rest it on a table or other solid structure.
I prefer to use a view finder myself. I can use the screen on a p/s, but dslr's it just doesn't feel comfortable if I am hand holding.
When I go skiing it's common that someone will stop and ask to take their picture of them. I always get weird looks cause I will put the camera to my eye to look through the view finder only to realize there isn't a view finder.
I have to believe the camera makers did cost/benefit research on this issue. Perhaps they think point and shoot compacts are only used by young people taking family/friends photos and the subject is standing right in front of them but I'd keep mine in the car glove compartment or my pocket as a backup and for opportunist type photos and I think many other hobbyists, where the small compact was not their primary camera, would too.
But now I'm seeing some of the big boy cameras without viewfinders and it's scaring me.
But now I'm seeing some of the big boy cameras without viewfinders and it's scaring me.
Define "big boy cameras"? I don't know of any DSLR that doesn't have an optical viewfinder since the very definition of an SLR means the camera has a mirror to reflect the image up into the optical viewfinder.
There is an increasing market in mirrorless cameras that have interchangeable lenses. They look like SLRs and act like them but they are not. They appear to have an optical viewfinder but it's electronic. I don't see why this would scare you as they are not going to replace DSLRs, they are a separate market.
Likewise, the removal of a viewfinder on compact cameras is no threat to DSLRs - it's a logical progression as I find the viewfinder on compacts to be too small and difficult to use and never bother with it anyway.
Quote:
Perhaps they think point and shoot compacts are only used by young people taking family/friends photos and the subject is standing right in front of them but I'd keep mine in the car glove compartment or my pocket as a backup and for opportunist type photos and I think many other hobbyists, where the small compact was not their primary camera, would too.
If you want something small but designed more for hobbyists, I recommend the Canon Powershot G range (the most recent is the G12). It's not ultra compact but it's small compared to an interchangeable lens camera and it still has a viewfinder. It's a great "compact back up" option for hobbyists.
I'm with you, LauraC! I really do not like LCD screen only cameras at all! I don't know all the reasons they have mostly done away with the viewfinder, but I'm guessing one reason is that it's allowing for a bigger LCD screen than when there's also a viewfinder.
In real bright, contrasty light like here in South Carolina or in Mexico, where I most often vacation, it's next to impossible to compose a shot using an LCD screen in bright sun, and I personally don't feel like I'm holding the camera as securely as I do with my eye up to the camera and my arms closer to my body.
While we're complaining about modern cameras, let me add that I also hate the new touch screen ones. It's bad enough that I have trouble with it on my cell phone, but on a camera where I'm trying to get a good shot before I lose it, it could be a downright annoyance with obscenitities and hair pulling involved. LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
