The lack of optical viewfinders on digital point and shoots

[newspaperguy]

A CV Brightline finder does wonders for a digi PNS.

Even one with a built-in finder ... like the Canon G series.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=127504&ppuser=20714

 

[damien.murphy]

Few vital things in a compact camera for me, but a viewfinder is top of the list and will not buy a camera that does not have one. I don't count clip-on viewfinders, as it will get broken/ lost, and have specifically stayed away from viewfinder-less compact cameras such as the Olympus EP range and Panasonic GF's, which would otherwise have suited my needs. I'm hoping camera manufacturers cop themselves on with the release of the Fuji X100, and follow suit in giving us back the viewfinders we crave. LCDs may be of supplementary benefit, but do not replace the importance of the viewfinder, and hope camera manufacturers are paying attention to threads like these.

 

[damien.murphy]

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.

And how would you suggest taking a picture with just the LCD when its not possible to see it in sunlight..

LCD's are useful in some scenarios, but to suggest they replace viewfinders is rubbish.

 

[matthewm]

Few vital things in a compact camera for me, but a viewfinder is top of the list and will not buy a camera that does not have one. I don't count clip-on viewfinders, as it will get broken/ lost, and have specifically stayed away from viewfinder-less compact cameras such as the Olympus EP range and Panasonic GF's, which would otherwise have suited my needs. I'm hoping camera manufacturers cop themselves on with the release of the Fuji X100, and follow suit in giving us back the viewfinders we crave. LCDs may be of supplementary benefit, but do not replace the importance of the viewfinder, and hope camera manufacturers are paying attention to threads like these.

While I agree with what you are saying, the X100 isn't really a point and shoot camera. I don't think that they could squeeze that kind of viewfinder into a Canon G-Series body (or Nikon PX000). It's possible to build one into something like a Sigma DP-Series or Leica X1. But then you're talking about cameras in the over $1000 range. Others on here have mentioned the M8/M9 and those aren't point and shoot cameras either.

And with the [disappointing] recent releases of the Pen and GF series cameras from Panasonic and Olympus, it seems as if itty bitty little tiny toy touch-screen cameras are the way to go and you can't make the world's smallest, least-ergonomic camera and still have room for a big, ghastly viewfinder. 😀

I'm hoping that more camera companies ( :COUGH: Canon/Nikon :COUGH: ) will try and work their way into the X100 market, but it's doubtful.

Looking at point and shoot cameras only, it's doubtful we'll ever see a decent viewfinder. In my opinion, the only company that would create such a thing would be Ricoh with a GRD IV or MAYBE Sigma with a DP-3. Canon's G-Series are selling well and I don't know about the Nikon offering, but I'd be absolutely floored to see either one of those companies do anything with a higher-end viewfinder.

 

[Richard G]

Another thing in favor of optical viewfinders is aging eyes. I have taken the trouble to adapt to multifocals but they are not for everyone. Focussing on a point and shoot LCD and seeing the object you want to photograph might require a change of glasses for some.

 

[wolves3012]

One of the reasons I picked the Nikon P50 I have was for the zooming optical VF, knowing how poor screens can be in daylight. I've never had a screen-only digital except for my phone (which won't see anything beyond "emergency" use as a camera). The phone is useless in daylight/outdoor. In a P&S I don't see that it costs that much to include it a VF. Having said all that, the P50 VF is not very accurate for framing, it's over-generous.

 

[besk]

The actual image on the screen is much larger than the view on my Nikon P50 view finder. I just allow for that.

BTW the view finder is not quite as "quinty" on the P50 than on the Canon A1200.

One of the reasons I picked the Nikon P50 I have was for the zooming optical VF, knowing how poor screens can be in daylight. I've never had a screen-only digital except for my phone (which won't see anything beyond "emergency" use as a camera). The phone is useless in daylight/outdoor. In a P&S I don't see that it costs that much to include it a VF. Having said all that, the P50 VF is not very accurate for framing, it's over-generous.

 

[TXForester]

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".

I was scrolling through thread to see if somebody would mention this.

You can't make up for this problem with most small cameras. Some don't have wide enough apertures and the sensors are so small that bumping up the ISO trashes picture quality.

 

[johannielscom]

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?

You got two chances: the X100 catches on so much that other manufacturers want to hook on to its success, or some other manufacturer in time needs to distinguish themselves from the competition and relaunches the optical viewfinder.

I've yet to see the first manufacturer that applies such a fundamental redesign to a new-to-launch model due to consumer wishes. In case you did not notice: the companies decide and we follow, not the other way 'round...

 

[spaceman spif]

You can't make up for this problem with most small cameras. Some don't have wide enough apertures and the sensors are so small that bumping up the ISO trashes picture quality.

That's exactly it. Slow lens + holding camera out in the air = crummy photo. Faster ISO = crummier photo. There's no fixing it in lower light situations.

I think the industry in general, who should be promoting good photography technique, has actually promoted bad technique. Made good technique impossible, actually.

 

[konicaman]

My digital P&S (nearly always in my work bag, just in case) is a Canon Powershot A590 with an optical VF. Wearing reading glasses and looking over the rim to see the surroundings and back to focus on the screen through the reading glasses is simply too slow. No plans of changing The A590 anytime soon (read: Until a new P&S with optical VF hits the market. Heck I even got a spare A590 that I got from a flea market...

G12 for traveling light. Not the best VF but a lot better than the screen in bright sun light. The screen is big enough for me to see relatively sharp - at arms length - not good for low light conditions. I still have a lot of old photo books (10 yrs. +) with instructions for supporting your arms at your chest and the camera at your nose/forehead - still valid when opting for sharp photos (even in spite of anti shake).

 

[jsrockit]

In case you did not notice: the companies decide and we follow, not the other way 'round...

Yep, too bad too.

 

[Prest_400]

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.

Indeed! I took a peek at some low range DSLRs and the VF is like looking at the end of a tunnel. So teeny compared to my OM-1!

My dream p&s would be a digital XA. I am not holding my breath!

Indeed! How come no one is able to put at least an APS sensor in a small package with a smallish lens? And have a pocketable camera, smaller than an XA, like a m43. It should be possible.

That's exactly it. Slow lens + holding camera out in the air = crummy photo. Faster ISO = crummier photo. There's no fixing it in lower light situations.

I think the industry in general, who should be promoting good photography technique, has actually promoted bad technique. Made good technique impossible, actually.

Agreed. I usually rest my elbows using a P&S in lower light, and I hold it kind like a SLR or RF; One hand (finger) under the lens and the other on the "grip".
But most people don't rest their elbows for stability, they stretch their arms instead!

IMO, the only advance has been IS, which can give a stop extra handheld and is rather useful.

 

[Ronald M]

No VF makes all those non starters for me. No way to keep it steady.

The cheap VF a few have a inaccurate and there not acceptable.

The only way to use one is to buy one with a hot shoe and use an add on Leica VF.

 

[aafuss]

My Canon PowerShot A1200 (a 2011 PowerShot camera) has a optical viewfinder which I find handy when shooting outdoors.

 

[matthewm]

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

In response to #1 above: LCD hoods fold flat against the camera and only add about 1/8 to 1/4" of thickness to a camera. Most camera cases/pouches/bags have that much room to spare. And usually they attach to the camera via a self-adhesive strip around the edge of a clear protective screen and the hood snaps on to that. So actually, the hood can be removed, leaving behind just the screen protector.

In response to #2 above: I'm not sure how complicated they are. You just lift it and it springs open. Push it and it snaps closed. They're really simple little machines. If you've ever used a TLR viewfinder, you can use one of these. When I worked at Ritz years ago I used to sell them all the time.

 

[besk]

My Canon PowerShot A1200 (a 2011 PowerShot camera) has a optical viewfinder which I find handy when shooting outdoors.

The A1200 also has a descrete mode where it shuts off the sound and the AF assist and maybe the flash. Also, there is a way to shut off the display to conserve battery power. That plus using AA batteries should meke it a handy little camera.

I have ordered one and am expecting it to arrive in a few days. (They are also available at my local Walmart - I discovered.)

It ought to be good enough for snapshots.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

When I worked at Ritz years ago I used to sell them all the time.

Did you ever take one outside? Many reviews I read say they are useless,
as reflected light from the unshaded side will still wash out the LCD display.

Chris

 

[NickTrop]

Cameras with autofocus don't need bright crystal clear viewfinders like ancient rangefinders and old manual focus SLRs did. Comparatively dim viewfinders have been the norm since the film point-n-shoot days, since you're not focusing them "by eye" and just need the VF for composition. This is why the relatively dim viewfinder on my DSLR doesn't bother me. And if you can't at least compose with the dim viewfinders, you need to visit your optometrist.

 

[doolittle]

My Canon PowerShot A1200 (a 2011 PowerShot camera) has a optical viewfinder which I find handy when shooting outdoors.

Thanks for the information. Didn't know about this camera!