Rant: optical viewfinders & EVFs

[rjschell]

Why do so many high-end cameras expect us to view via LCD, or charge $$$ for "accessory" optical or electronic finders?

 

[thegman]

Why do so many high-end cameras expect us to view via LCD, or charge $$$ for "accessory" optical or electronic finders?

To make money, I would imagine. Why release for example, a Sony RX-1 now with built in EVF, when you can sell someone a RX-1, and in a year, sell them a RX-2.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Because the vast majority of buyers consider framing via the LCD to be the norm?

 

[daveleo]

Because a huge segment of the market does not care about having a viewfinder of any kind. They take pictures with phones and tablets. LCD viewing is the new baseline.

EDIT: Jees someone beat me again ! ! 😀

 

[KoNickon]

But these are high end cameras -- that's not the bulk of the market. Rather, those cameras would be purchased by photographers who are used to (and you'd think would expect to be getting) optical viewfinders. So we've got nobody to blame but ourselves!

 

[f16sunshine]

Ignore those cameras lacking the "features" you can't live without.
There are plenty if options that offer the full package LCD live view, EVF, and OVF.
Oh wait... there are only the Fujis 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Rant seconded.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bwcolor]

When we demand full frame at a good price point, LCD only allows for a lower price point without reducing profits. Those that demand more can buy the add-ons. Large sensor compacts become larger with OVF/EVF. Ultimately, the market will decide if LCD only on expensive cameras will continue. My guess is that it will. Most people are fine with LCD only.

 

[mugent]

When we demand full frame at a good price point, LCD only allows for a lower price point without reducing profits. Those that demand more can buy the add-ons. Large sensor compacts become larger with OVF/EVF. Ultimately, the market will decide if LCD only on expensive cameras will continue. My guess is that it will. Most people are fine with LCD only.

As thegman said, so they can sell you the RX2 down the line. They could have put in an EVF and not raised the price substantially (compared to it's already high price).

Manufacturers these days don't want to sell you a camera, they want to sell you many cameras over your lifetime, and our GAS ridden souls fall for it every time ;-)

 

[Keith]

I have to say I got over having to frame via LCD very quickly on my Sigmas ... what a pain in the butt and a total compromise IMO. On a tripod it's OK because it's no different to using a view camera and actually provides real advantages ... but these little compacts weren't made to go on tripods!

Hand held shooting is a different story and holding a camera out in front of me to take a photograph will never feel right! Optical accessory finders are a solution that works for me luckily.

 

[Tuna]

Agreed. It was my first line decision in considering a digital camera to buy. Built-in viewfinder. All others weren't considered.

 

[Avotius]

Absolutly agree with this rant. It pisses me off that viewfinders are left out so much. Take the Ricoh GR cameras. I have used the film ones for years. Had the first GRD but I was annoyed that they could not squeeze their viewfinder sysyem in that big body. Later versions of the cam are still bigger than the original but still no viewfinder, and so they stopped getting any money out of me. Now for me if it doesnt at leaat have an evf, no sale.

 

[peterm1]

+1 for the rant. I absolutely gree with your rant. It is nothing more than a rip off, money making exercise. made worse by the fact that some of them have been low res and definitely not worth the dosh. Although that is improving at least. (I have a Panasonic GF1 and its EVF is not worth buying as its too low res to use for manual focusing and that why I want it. Admittedly thats now an old camera). But in principle it sucks on both counts. I would rather pay $100 more for a camera with an EVF than to buy a camera that is marginally smaller and cheaper without one - but nmuch bigger and more expensive with a plug in one that sits on top.

There are other issues with these too. I noticed a couple of weeks ago when researching EVFs for a camera (I think it was an NEX) seeing that the manufacturer advised against putting the camera in the bag with the EVF attached on the grounds that it could be broken when being removed from the bag. As I dont use a camera strap for carrying small cameras like this, that would mean removing the EVF and replacing it every time I wanted to take a picture. What a waste. How dysfunctional is that?

 

[stillshunter]

+1 for the rant here too. A decent VF is a prerequisite to any camera purchase - hence why I am thoroughly enjoying my X100s - which has both a superb EVF and OVF...and manual focus....but I digress 😉 More pertinently, I think my preference is just that, and might also be both generational and moving into the minority. I was talking to a couple of fellow photo enthusiasts at work (yeah my real far from photography daily grind) yesterday and both of them primarily use their LCD. One of them even espousing the improved LiveView technology on his dSLR which has closed the gap for him unless he critically needs the AF speed of the OVF. I thought they were pulling my leg but both these guys - in their twenties - were serious and one of them is pretty serious about this photo thing - well he sells regularly to specialist sport magazines.

I am hereby getting old!

 

[edge100]

Why do so many high-end cameras expect us to view via LCD, or charge $$$ for "accessory" optical or electronic finders?

I wouldn't know. I shoot with a Fuji.

😉😉😉

FWIW, I agree. I have no idea how anyone composes without some kind of eye-level viewfinder, be it EVF or OVF. Waist-level is one thing, but composing with your arms outstretched just isn't stable.

 

[stillshunter]

I wouldn't know. I shoot with a Fuji.

😉😉😉

+1

FWIW, I agree. I have no idea how anyone composes without some kind of eye-level viewfinder, be it EVF or OVF. Waist-level is one thing, but composing with your arms outstretched just isn't stable.

Again agreed, but then how about those shooting TLRs with WLFs? Some argue that a mirrorless with tilting screen is of the same design and intent. Not agreeing with them, but voicing a response directed at me elsewhere. Actually that very same streetshooter argues strongly that the LCD, as opposed to any VF, offers more direct and genuine interaction with your subjects - especially on the street. Again not my opinion, nor convinced, but just relaying what's leveled at the old folks....

 

[edge100]

+1


Again agreed, but then how about those shooting TLRs with WLFs? Some argue that a mirrorless with tilting screen is of the same design and intent. Not agreeing with them, but voicing a response directed at me elsewhere. Actually that very same streetshooter argues strongly that the LCD, as opposed to any VF, offers more direct and genuine interaction with your subjects - especially on the street. Again not my opinion, nor convinced, but just relaying what's leveled at the old folks....

As I said above, waist-level is totally different. The camera is braced against your chest and your arms against your side.

Totally different than outstretched arms, steadied only by your shoulders.

 

[reala_fan]

Agreed. It was my first line decision in considering a digital camera to buy. Built-in viewfinder. All others weren't considered.

Agree as well...but I see folks with expensive DSLR's only using the LCD screen in outstretched arms...viewfinder? What's that?

Young folks....use the outstretched arms/LCD exclusively. Definitely the norm.

So, camera designers see this, and think "why supply one...they won't bother using it"...

The few that want it, can buy the accessory....and we do!

.

 

[Godfrey]

Why do so many high-end cameras expect us to view via LCD, or charge $$$ for "accessory" optical or electronic finders?

- Because the LCD is perfectly satisfactory for a large number of buyers.
- Because the option to buy an OVF or EVF expands the user's options.
- Because including just the LCD allows a lower entry price point and serves the largest segment of the buying public best.

But maybe just to irritate the minute group of enthusiasts who will complain about anything at all no matter what they do. Perhaps corporations do have a sense of sarcastic humor. ;-)

G

PS: In general, I like having both an EVF and OVF in addition to the LCD on my digital cameras. I also like being able to choose a quality OVF from several available offerings, rather than having to make-do with what the manufacturer supplies. And I like the fact that the optional EVFs allow for a tilting eyepiece, something more difficult to implement on a built-in EVF. On the other hand, I would also like a built in EVF for the convenience factor, as long as the body remains slim and compact (suitable for an accessory OVF). That's why I'm considering a Sony NEX 6 body.

 

[Keith]

- Because the LCD is perfectly satisfactory for a large number of buyers.
- Because the option to buy an OVF or EVF expands the user's options.
- Because including just the LCD allows a lower entry price point and serves the largest segment of the buying public best.

But maybe just to irritate the minute group of enthusiasts who will complain about anything at all no matter what they do. Perhaps corporations do have a sense of sarcastic humor. ;-)

G

PS: In general, I like having both an EVF and OVF in addition to the LCD on my digital cameras. I also like being able to choose a quality OVF from several available offerings, rather than having to make-do with what the manufacturer supplies. And I like the fact that the optional EVFs allow for a tilting eyepiece, something more difficult to implement on a built-in EVF. On the other hand, I would also like a built in EVF for the convenience factor, as long as the body remains slim and compact (suitable for an accessory OVF). That's why I'm considering a Sony NEX 6 body.

You seem to be really down on anyone who complains about anything lately ... I gather it's getting to you! 😀