doolittle
Well-known
6-7 years ago every point and shoot digital camera had an optical viewfinder. Now they are virtually non-existent (bar at the high end of the market, if you include the Canon G12, Fuji X100 and Nikon P7000).
I understand that the manufacturer's thinking is that the average consumer wants a low cost p&s with a big lcd screen. Adding an optical viewfinder adds cost and reduces the real estate available for the lcd screen.
However it seems to me that there is a large untapped market for a mid priced p&s with a basic optical viewfinder. Now maybe market research is telling the manufactures otherwise and I am just engaging in wishful thinking?
I understand that the manufacturer's thinking is that the average consumer wants a low cost p&s with a big lcd screen. Adding an optical viewfinder adds cost and reduces the real estate available for the lcd screen.
However it seems to me that there is a large untapped market for a mid priced p&s with a basic optical viewfinder. Now maybe market research is telling the manufactures otherwise and I am just engaging in wishful thinking?
btgc
Veteran
People prefer staring at large LCD's instead of peeping into small viewfinders. No VF means LCD will be touched only by sticky fingers and not by fatty noses as it were before. Most of users are ready to get over issue with LCD under bright sunlight.
Bobbo
Well-known
Wishful thinking 
.
6-7 years ago, all of the point and shoots had really, really bad (As in made a Leica IIIa look bright, clear and big) viewfinders. I don't know many people that used them in their dirt-cheap cameras. Everyone used the LCD screens anyway. Higher end cameras had, get this, higher end viewfinders (I.e.: they didn't totally suck, but were still pretty bad... you're not going to find a Leica M viewfinder in one). It's the reason why live view is so popular on Rebels and cheap Nikons, but is scarcely seen or used on high-end DSLRs.
Besides, now most everyone uses their cellphones, which definitely do not have real viewfinders.
.6-7 years ago, all of the point and shoots had really, really bad (As in made a Leica IIIa look bright, clear and big) viewfinders. I don't know many people that used them in their dirt-cheap cameras. Everyone used the LCD screens anyway. Higher end cameras had, get this, higher end viewfinders (I.e.: they didn't totally suck, but were still pretty bad... you're not going to find a Leica M viewfinder in one). It's the reason why live view is so popular on Rebels and cheap Nikons, but is scarcely seen or used on high-end DSLRs.
Besides, now most everyone uses their cellphones, which definitely do not have real viewfinders
.thegman
Veteran
Could not agree more with doolittle. It's a pet hate of mine in fact. Now, I can understand why cheap compacts with zoom lenses don't have them, as I imagine it's difficult and costly to implement. However, for prime lens compacts like the Sigma DP-1, Leica X1, Ricoh GR etc. it's very annoying to not have a finder, after all it is just a hole in the camera with some glass (plastic) on each side of the hole. But that simple hole makes composing in bright sunlight so dramatically easier.
Yes, we can live without them, but for the sake of a hole and some plastic, it seems silly. It's particularly galling that all the above manufacturers offer a clip on finder which destroys the pocketablilty of the camera.
But then you have the likes of Canon, who build in a much more complicated zoom finder to the G10/G11/G12, but the likes of Sigma can't be bothered to build in what any disposable film camera has?
It's a real bugbear of mine because it's so simple, so many photographers want finders, but camera makers would rather build in a self timer which only goes off when everyone smiles, or some other pointless feature.
I'm fortunate though, as I only really shoot film now, so every compact I look at has a great optical finder. It really grinds my gears though.
Yes, we can live without them, but for the sake of a hole and some plastic, it seems silly. It's particularly galling that all the above manufacturers offer a clip on finder which destroys the pocketablilty of the camera.
But then you have the likes of Canon, who build in a much more complicated zoom finder to the G10/G11/G12, but the likes of Sigma can't be bothered to build in what any disposable film camera has?
It's a real bugbear of mine because it's so simple, so many photographers want finders, but camera makers would rather build in a self timer which only goes off when everyone smiles, or some other pointless feature.
I'm fortunate though, as I only really shoot film now, so every compact I look at has a great optical finder. It really grinds my gears though.
It's got to be better than the G12 VF though... or I'd rather use the LCD.
matthewm
Well-known
I don't really see how a tiny little hole helps with composition in bright sunlight. In my experience, optical VFs on the Canon G series cameras are abysmal and a 28mm bright line finder on my Ricoh GRD III was about as useful as tits on a turtle.
I tried using the VF on my G10 just a second ago and with the camera set to focus in the center, I pointed it at my lamp. The lamp was out of focus and the wall behind was in focus. I had no idea what the camera was focused on, but apparently the slight parallax error in the VF was enough to make me think I was pointed at the lamp, when in fact the AF sensor was missing it by a couple of inches. This does me no good at all. And I don't even want to know what would happen if I had multi-AF selected out in the street. I'm sure it would be a nightmare.
If you can't see exactly what the camera is focusing on, then what's the point of using it? Now if we could get a VF with some electronics, or at least enough to show us the focus points, that would be worth having. But if you're just taking shots hoping your center AF point is nailing your subject, you might as well just be pointing a camera in the general direction of your subject and not using a VF at all.
A little crappy VF is, in my opinion, far less useful than a sharp, crisp, bright LCD.
I think people are far too dramatic about camera screens in bright light. I have yet to have trouble using mine.
I tried using the VF on my G10 just a second ago and with the camera set to focus in the center, I pointed it at my lamp. The lamp was out of focus and the wall behind was in focus. I had no idea what the camera was focused on, but apparently the slight parallax error in the VF was enough to make me think I was pointed at the lamp, when in fact the AF sensor was missing it by a couple of inches. This does me no good at all. And I don't even want to know what would happen if I had multi-AF selected out in the street. I'm sure it would be a nightmare.
If you can't see exactly what the camera is focusing on, then what's the point of using it? Now if we could get a VF with some electronics, or at least enough to show us the focus points, that would be worth having. But if you're just taking shots hoping your center AF point is nailing your subject, you might as well just be pointing a camera in the general direction of your subject and not using a VF at all.
A little crappy VF is, in my opinion, far less useful than a sharp, crisp, bright LCD.
I think people are far too dramatic about camera screens in bright light. I have yet to have trouble using mine.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
The GV-2 mini finder on the GRDIII is great : use it all the time especially in the sun when the LCD wipes out.
However, cannot deny it would be better if it was built in like the GR1 film series; which had LCD projected frame lines just as has been copied and updated in the X100.
However, cannot deny it would be better if it was built in like the GR1 film series; which had LCD projected frame lines just as has been copied and updated in the X100.
spaceman spif
Member
"I think people are far too dramatic about camera screens in bright light. I have yet to have trouble using mine."
Au contraire mon frere (although I'm not really French and am just guessing that this might be appropriate).
I have owned a couple of different "pocket" digitals, one a Fuji and the other a Panasonic Lumix with a 28 equiv. on the wide end. (Can't think of the model of either.)
But BOTH of them were HORRIBLE in bright (direct) sunlight. Had one outside on a vacation and for the life of me I could not even see what the camera was pointing at.
My next digital WILL have a usable optical viewfinder or it will remain unbought. Until then, my little XA's and and other assorted P&S's will do me just fine for "pocket" work.
Au contraire mon frere (although I'm not really French and am just guessing that this might be appropriate).
I have owned a couple of different "pocket" digitals, one a Fuji and the other a Panasonic Lumix with a 28 equiv. on the wide end. (Can't think of the model of either.)
But BOTH of them were HORRIBLE in bright (direct) sunlight. Had one outside on a vacation and for the life of me I could not even see what the camera was pointing at.
My next digital WILL have a usable optical viewfinder or it will remain unbought. Until then, my little XA's and and other assorted P&S's will do me just fine for "pocket" work.
doolittle
Well-known
What got me thinking about it, along with a thread here on cameras for children, is that my father is getting on in years and eye sight isn't as good as it used to be. He was asking me about a small camera with a viewfinder as he has difficulties seeing the lcd on his p&s well. That got me thinking about cameras with viewfinders.
I was going to recommend he look at a Canon G series, but if the viewfinder is crummy on those too, he mightn't be much better off. Maybe a bigger brighter lcd is the way to go for him.
I can understand the technical difficulties and added costs zooming viewfinders cause. I agree with thegman on fixed lens cameras.
I was going to recommend he look at a Canon G series, but if the viewfinder is crummy on those too, he mightn't be much better off. Maybe a bigger brighter lcd is the way to go for him.
I can understand the technical difficulties and added costs zooming viewfinders cause. I agree with thegman on fixed lens cameras.
Last edited:
doolittle
Well-known
My dream p&s would be a digital XA. I am not holding my breath!
claacct
Well-known
I like to use the LCD of my p&s because i want to come across as just some tourist and thus be ignored by everyone, it also slows me down which is good. i also think if you can't make a decent picture using the LCD there is no way on earth you can do that with a VF. picture making ability and talent has nothing to do with VF or lack of it.
matthewm
Well-known
What about a camera with a nice, bright LCD and one of those Hoodman things on the back to shade it for him?
Not only would it shade the LCD when he's using the camera, but it will protect the LCD when closed. It's an option at least.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I tried that for my wife, whose vision is poor, with mixed success.
Even a big bright LCD is practically unusable in bright light
(though fine in shade or indoors).
An LCD hood is unacceptable because
1) the camera would no longer fit in a pocket or small case
2) it's just too complicated
So it's back to the drawing board.
I'm looking for a simple to operate 5+ MP digital P&S with optical VF w/diopter adjustment.
SD card, IS and AA power are very desirable but negotiable. Any suggestions?
Chris
Last edited:
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
I agree. While I would personally "like" a good viewfinder in, for example, my DP-1, the lack of one doesn't keep the camera from making excellent pictures. As EVFs mature I think we're going to see them migrate down to some of the lower-end cameras but there will always be some that have only LCDs...
daveisbest
Established
Great camera though it is, the viewfinder on the XA sucks. Even the viewfinders on my two most used 35mm cameras, the Minolta AF-C and Leica III, are pretty poor. I think there will always have to be a compromise, if the camera is small then the viewfinder has to be small too. The X100, R-D1, M8 and M9 are the only digital cameras I know of that have good viewfinders.
thegman
Veteran
Have you tried a Canon G10/G11/G12? I think they have diopter adjustment. It's a powerful camera, so probably not that simple, but you can just leave it on "auto" I guess.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Here's some free market research: I won't buy another digital camera unless it comes with some kind of VF. Maybe some folks can live without them, but I prefer that my cameras have one. It's more about ergonomics for me and less about whether I can or can't make good images with an LCD. I just don't like LCD- and camera phone-style of shooting.
With my current digital cameras, my use of the LCD decreases with the quality of the VF. I have the Canon G11, and, for composing shots, I use the LCD about 75% of the time. On my Panasonic G1 I use the LCD about 25% of the time. On my X100—just as with my film cameras—I don't use the LCD for composing at all.
It's not that I don't find LCDs useful. I do. I've found that on my G11 and G1 the best use for the (articulated) LCD is high-angle or low-angle shots. I also use my G11 at work a lot when I need to take close-up shots of machinery. The LCD is great for getting the camera into tight spots where my big head won't fit or where I don't dare stick it.
The reappearance and the development of the VF is one of the most exciting trends in digital photography right now. I'm all for it.
/
With my current digital cameras, my use of the LCD decreases with the quality of the VF. I have the Canon G11, and, for composing shots, I use the LCD about 75% of the time. On my Panasonic G1 I use the LCD about 25% of the time. On my X100—just as with my film cameras
—I don't use the LCD for composing at all. It's not that I don't find LCDs useful. I do. I've found that on my G11 and G1 the best use for the (articulated) LCD is high-angle or low-angle shots. I also use my G11 at work a lot when I need to take close-up shots of machinery. The LCD is great for getting the camera into tight spots where my big head won't fit or where I don't dare stick it.
The reappearance and the development of the VF is one of the most exciting trends in digital photography right now. I'm all for it.
/
spaceman spif
Member
Here's another consideration, too: slower shutter speeds.
In good daylight, no problem. In lower-light circumstances, though, I'd MUCH rather be holding a camera up next my body with an optical VF than be waving it around in the air. There's just no way for me to hold it really steady "out there".
Okay, so it doesn't have to be optical, I guess. I once shot with an Olympus C-700-something-or-other that had an LCD viewfinder where an optical one should be. Crummy resolution, but I could a) see what I was shooting in broad daylight, and b) hold the whole thing next to me for slower shutter work.
Dunno what you'd call it, but I like the eyeball-in-the-viewfinder idea, whether it's LCD or optical.
In good daylight, no problem. In lower-light circumstances, though, I'd MUCH rather be holding a camera up next my body with an optical VF than be waving it around in the air. There's just no way for me to hold it really steady "out there".
Okay, so it doesn't have to be optical, I guess. I once shot with an Olympus C-700-something-or-other that had an LCD viewfinder where an optical one should be. Crummy resolution, but I could a) see what I was shooting in broad daylight, and b) hold the whole thing next to me for slower shutter work.
Dunno what you'd call it, but I like the eyeball-in-the-viewfinder idea, whether it's LCD or optical.
besk
Well-known
Canon A1200 -- the only thing it doesn't have is the diopter adjustment.
$109 at Walmart
$109 at Walmart
Bike Tourist
Well-known
The camera engineers never seem to ask me what I want (for some reason). I recently bought my Lumix LX5 because I could add the electronic viewfinder. I put it on immediately and have never taken it off. Without it, I would never have purchased the little Panasonic, even though it suits me fine in every other respect.