canon s90.... i wonder

R

rangefound

Member
Local time
11:23 PM
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
38
View My Gallery
i have been perusing photo webistes for the last two weeks, in search for a digital compact that has aperture control, a fast wide angle f/2.0-2.8 lens, fits in my pocket , has a optical viewfinder or a place to put one and is around 300-400. Now i dont have the money to spend on a Ricoh GR-D III, nor would i want to spend that exorbatant amount on a compact. There was the LX3 which grabbed my attention, until i saw the size, might as will buy the GF-1. Then there is sigma both the DP 1 and 2, they are both big the dp1 has a slow lens with mediocre at best autofocus and the dp2 almost the same except now a 40mm lens. There are things like the G7-G11 from canon but i wouldnt dream in years for that to fit in my pocket.

Thus i am back to the S90, it fits all the criteria, except one a true viewfinder. For some that isn't a big problem but for me its a deal breaker. I went all film because i hate LCDs, why would i revert back now. If i wanted to stare at a screen i'd go look at uninspiring photos on flickr, but i don't.

My question is really could there be a way to get an optical viewfinder on the S90. I think there could be two ways to do it, either just have a tripod mount cold shoe adapter, but that means either you would have to hold it upside down or sacrifice pocketability. Neither of which seems attractive. The other idea i had would be gluing a cold shoe to the flash. Do you think that would be possible without sacrificing pocketability?

Or should i just give up and stick my o so good Oly XA

Thank you for reading my rant.
 
Have you considered writing Lensmate

lensmateonline.com

and asking them why they decided not to do it -- if that's what they've done?

Friendly folk -- who knows, maybe you can talk them into one.
 
Honestly, the canon s90 is okay but no where near as small or high quality as your xa. Maybe a richoh grd II which are still available new for about $400 would suit better?

Failing that, I'd recommend an e-p1 pen or gf1 with either the olympus or panasonic pancake lenses and the olympus 17mm OVF.
 
I don't think you'll be able to find a satisfactory solution for getting an OVF onto a S90...

OVF aside the S90 sounds like the best bang for buck, versatile digicam.

Cost aside the GRD3 is probably the best handling best image quality digicam.

Pocketability aside the G11 has a usable OVF and image quality.

You just have to decide which down-side is the most tolerable. 🙂

I do love using the XA though!
 
zumbido said:
No offense, but seriously?

The S90 is smaller than the XA in all three dimensions. Height, length, depth (in inches):

S90: 2.3 x 3.9 x 1.2
XA: 2.6 x 4.1 x 1.6

And that's without the flash for the XA. And it weighs more. As for "high quality", everyone has their own value judgements about film vs digital but the S90 empirically has a better-corrected lens, two stop faster lens, image stabilization, far less grain at any given ISO rating (quality of the grain again being a personal preference), wider ISO range, much wider range of shutter speeds, six aperture blades instead of two... I'll stop there.

Everyone has to make their own personal judgement about what sorts of "look" they prefer, but it's really, really far off-base to make a blanket statement that the XA has "higher quality" than the S90.

I'm a little perplexed about the OP's comparison of using an LCD for framing to sitting around looking at pictures on flickr, but whatever. That LCD is a lot more accurate, less squinty, and easier to use in low light than the peashooter VF on the XA. At least for someone like me with less than 20/10 vision.
Click to expand...

in retrospect, it was just a bit of catharic relief. I am just tired of the not having things that feel like a rangefinder. The VF on the XA is comparable to that on a D40, a bit better actually, but that is besides the point. I think the XA is just a good carry around camera and i enjoy the aperture control forgeting the whole film versus digital jargon. Back to what i originally posted, i know we have some members on here with a S90 does, does the lack of OVF/EVF annoy you even a little bit? And if so, do you think my "fix" would be viable (of gluing a cold shoe to the flash.
 
rangefound said:
i know we have some members on here with a S90 does, does the lack of OVF/EVF annoy you even a little bit? And if so, do you think my "fix" would be viable (of gluing a cold shoe to the flash.
Click to expand...

some things about the S90 annoy me, but the lack of OVF/EVF is not one of them. i thought it might annoy me, but it doesn't in the least.

the S90 flash pops up and down automatically, so while your "fix" of gluing a cold shoe to the flash might work, it would no doubt make the flash a lot more vulnerable to damage caused by bumping the finder while in the cold shoe.

p.s. if anyone wants an almost new S90, i would consider trading mine for a decent flatbed scanner (for scanning MF film).
 
zumbido said:
No offense, but seriously?

The S90 is smaller than the XA in all three dimensions. Height, length, depth (in inches):

S90: 2.3 x 3.9 x 1.2
XA: 2.6 x 4.1 x 1.6

And that's without the flash for the XA. And it weighs more. As for "high quality", everyone has their own value judgements about film vs digital but the S90 empirically has a better-corrected lens, two stop faster lens, image stabilization, far less grain at any given ISO rating (quality of the grain again being a personal preference), wider ISO range, much wider range of shutter speeds, six aperture blades instead of two... I'll stop there.

Everyone has to make their own personal judgement about what sorts of "look" they prefer, but it's really, really far off-base to make a blanket statement that the XA has "higher quality" than the S90.

I'm a little perplexed about the OP's comparison of using an LCD for framing to sitting around looking at pictures on flickr, but whatever. That LCD is a lot more accurate, less squinty, and easier to use in low light than the peashooter VF on the XA. At least for someone like me with less than 20/10 vision.
Click to expand...


My bad, for some reason the xa seemed smaller to me but I am wrong as you said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/weezintrumpeteer/4199395072/

Though, I would still say image quality from the xa can potentially be better than the s90, considering that you can use 35mm slide film etc compared to a camera that uses a sensor the size of a gnat.
 
rangefound said:
in retrospect, it was just a bit of catharic relief. I am just tired of the not having things that feel like a rangefinder. The VF on the XA is comparable to that on a D40, a bit better actually,
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.


rangefound said:
but that is besides the point. I think the XA is just a good carry around camera and i enjoy the aperture control forgeting the whole film versus digital jargon. Back to what i originally posted, i know we have some members on here with a S90 does, does the lack of OVF/EVF annoy you even a little bit? And if so, do you think my "fix" would be viable (of gluing a cold shoe to the flash.
Click to expand...

The truth is that when I got a G9 i did not enjoy using it as much as my GR-1 (which I like a LOT more than my old XA). But -- wonder of wonders -- the results from the G11 were, compositionlly, FAR more consistently good than with the GR-1 or the XA. An M still wins for me, by far. But composing on an LCD screen you get a dead-accurate 100% finder, so it's far easier to watch the edges of the composition, and (because you hold it away from your face) it's easy, too, to see what's going on outside the frame. What's more, with IS and a good strap, I could handhold slower than the M, which I'm reasonably good at much of the time.

So why did I not enjoy it? Hard to say; I think it's just a matter of pattern, comfort, and two decades spent with SLRs and rangefinders. But I'd be lying if I said that a small OVF is "better." An LCD is different, that's all. Much closer to using a TLR or a micro-view camera (but better, brighter, more accurate, and no L/R or top/bottom mirroring), which most here would not dare criticize...

I think that some fraction (I won't specify the size of that fraction) of objections to live-view systems in these parts is plain old crankiness.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that you will find a compact digital camera with a nice viewfinder at all. I do share your concern. Good viewfinders make you connect more with the subject, and allow for accurate framing. I really like the viewfinders on my konica hexar, and my Contax RTSIII, they're bright and show at least 100% of the image that ends up on film.
None of the compacts do that, and I have looked quite hard. The canon G11 OVF only shows 75% of the image. 75%! :bang: You might as well guess in that case, composing shots would be hell.
 
The 'viewfinder' on my S90 is larger than the viewfinder on my Rolleiflex MX-EVS and is much easier to see and compose on in an light (and I have a brighter Mamiya VF glass on my Rollei.)
 
Last edited:
I have an S90 and really like it, however on my recent trip to Egypt, the lack of a viewfinder in bright, glaring, light meant that I was "shooting blind" a lot of the time. Other than that, the camera was very usable, and produced great images. That said, the minimal info provided by the "whited out" viewfinder still allowed adequate framing of shots>. Lots of compromises with this camera, but a good alternative to carrying a standard RF (Canon P, or leica RF) with attached lens.
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff fellas.
Was debating for a while about the G11/S90 choice (have a g9), in my case in bright sunlight the LCD doesnt cut it, so settled on the G11. When light and conditions are ok the LCD is infact just like a mini view camera and is superb. For quick (street etc) shots I have no problem whith the 75% view in fact I tend to only use the VF in a film RF like that. In my case MUST have an OVF no matter how compromised it is for quick shots, also can use a slip on external VF with the G11. The G11 will fit in all my shirt top pockets, just a bit heavy , pity they only went with the f2.8 lens tho. The results in low light simply kill the G9 as I am sure the S90 does.
Just my take.

ron
 
I have an S90 and I find the lack of any viewfinder a real pain. Also I find it quite slow when refocusing and taking a series of shots. Manual focusing is possible and I need to practise that.

Going back to a small DSLR is such a delight.
 
Neither one thank you....

Neither one thank you....

Did all my checking, reading reviews, etc.. ...

Bottom line, I can buy a low count Olympus e-420 with the small kit 14-42 lens that is not a whole lot bigger than the G11 for $350-400. Smallest DSLR w/zoom, prior to the e620.

OK not shirt pocketable, but minimal compromises on all other aspects of P&S vs. DSLR.

Won't be long before I turn up an Olympus E-P1 for that money.

The two canons looked good for a few days.
 
Last edited:
I owned a GRD II for about a year. It was a superb camera and I loved the way it handled and the fact that its size kept it in or near my hands constantly. When the GRD III came out I had a pretty profound case of sticker shock. While I battled it, I tried an S90. Though it's a nice little camera using it made me long for my GRD II. There was just something a tad off about the design. The lens is nice and fast but the camera is a little pokey and fiddly handling.

About that time, the LX3 price started to tumble so I swapped the S90 for a LX3. At first I really disliked the lens cap but after a while I really warmed up to the camera. I later picked up a mint GRD III and while it obviously improves on the GRD II, it couldn't knock the LX3 from my hands.

The LX3 simply does too much too well. The interface is good, the IQ is sometimes astonishing and build is solid. I wished it had a better grip but the limited zoom range is fine by me. With the GRDs you get used to shooting at 28mm so any reach, even 24-60, feels really useful.

Anyway, with the prices on new LX3s now about the same as the S90 I would suggest you look at both.

Good luck.
 
BearCatCow said:
I don't think you'll be able to find a satisfactory solution for getting an OVF onto a S90...

OVF aside the S90 sounds like the best bang for buck, versatile digicam.

Cost aside the GRD3 is probably the best handling best image quality digicam.

Pocketability aside the G11 has a usable OVF and image quality.

You just have to decide which down-side is the most tolerable. 🙂

I do love using the XA though!
Click to expand...

I only wish the S90 and G11 had more at the telephoto range, but they seem to be two very good choices. I'm still using a 7 megapixel Sony, so no need to upgrade yet.
 
Had a DP2 with the viewfinder and it was really unpocketable. Sold it and got the S90. I now autofocus with the screen maybe 10cm away from my face, keep shutter button pressed and then bring it closer to my face for composing. Of course you do not see the detail on the screen, but for me composition is more about shapes and lines and those I see well. Works very well for me and makes me think I don't look like an idiot taking pictures at arm's distance 🙂. Feels a little bit like looking through a viewfinder. S90 is a nice street shooter and has really the best ergonomics I have encountered in a compact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom