This could be really sweet...

I wanted to buy the Leica D-Lux 4 and tried it out. Since I wear glasses with graded perscriptions...more than one...more like three. To see the screen I need to look through the bottom of the lens which necessitated me tilting my head back into and uncomfortable position. When I look with my head in a natural postion the screen was out of focus. Let me put it another way. When you are walking about looking for something to photograph or looking at a subject you are using your distance vision. With the normal viewfinder you use your distance vision. When looking at a screen you are using your reading vision. This requires the eyes to refocus. As you grow older even if you do not need glasses for distance you will almost certainly need them for reading. The screen on these point and shoot cameras are at the reading distance. Therefore, you will either need to have reading glasses to see the screen or like me tilt my head back into an uncomfortable position to where I will not be able to take a quick photograph. This is a natural human progression of aging. It has been explained to me at my yearly eye exam. The D-Lux 4 had 5 focusing positions to select from. The dealer explained me to that I could select one of the positions and trust the camera to take the photograph. Alternately with a viewfinder I will only be using my distance vision to see the subject then throw up the camera to my eye and see the subject. I hope I explained this problem. This does not include the problems of shooting with the sun behind you and it white outs the screen.
 
Personally, I would love to own a small point and shoot digital with a viewfinder. I have tried the Canon G11 several times but its viewfinder is dark and like looking through a tunnel. My wife who has eye sight much worse than mine found it was extremely difficult to use. I have a number of inexpensive point and shoot film cameras with bright viewfinders. After 40+ years of photographing I do not need to look at each photograph after I have taken it. All the screens are small compared to the monitors of the computers and I question their accuracy. An intrinsic plus of digital imaging is to see your images on a large monitor as opposed to 4x6 prints. For me to see the images on the small screen I need to be wearing reading glasses and be in a position where the sun does not fade out the image. It is just that I have gone out with too many digital photographers who are wasting time looking at their most recent image instead of concentrating on the event. Sorry for rambling on.
 
I've tried to "adapt" to several pairs of progressive lenses over the years but could/would not accept the limits to a reasonable sized clear field of view. The dime-sized clear reading area that I got with the progressives is unacceptable. So I continue to wear bi-focals.
 
I've worn progressives for years, with several prescription changes. I've never had any problem adapting to them. That said, I use another pair for computer work, and no glasses at all when I read.

The point is that each of our pair of eyes are different. One person's experience with his or her glasses and his or her camera may or may not apply to anyone else.

What Steve said upthread about changes in our eyes as we age is true. How we change is a variable. That we will change is not. Example: I recently went to some lengths to see if a could wear contacts again, since that would make using cameras that much easier. Not going to happen. Contacts are not capable of delivering the necessary correction to allow me to use a camera and to function otherwise.
 
I don't know what has gotten into the camera manufacturers these days. They only produce point and shoots for young people with perfect eyesight. Hardly possible to get a camera with a viewfinder anymore. Wearing reading glasses to view the screen is not very practical. Guess I'll have to keep using my A590 until it falls apart? Maybe I should get a spare one from the Bay?
 
First off, for you glasses guys. Try one of the Sony Cybershot P&S cameras. I think it is the DSC50 I have (will have to check for sure when I get home) at 6.0 megapixels. Several of the Cybershot line have viewfinders as well as a screen. I think the later ones may not have viewfinders, but at 6 or 7 MP that's not bad.

As to the Samsung, it looks nice, but I think the price shown would be some $500 plus dollars and that gets one pretty close to some DSLRs. So why would you?
 
konicaman said:
I don't know what has gotten into the camera manufacturers these days. They only produce point and shoots for young people with perfect eyesight.
Click to expand...

Simple: The median person in the world today is in his or her mid-teens. Companies want to have balance sheets that look more like Samsung and less like Leica.

Take a look at the age structures in countries that are emerging markets.
 
Control wheel round the lens (like the canon s90), one beneath the shutter, and one on the back - with adequate customisation control this could be better than the canon s90.
I like the trend for fast lenses in nerdy compacts recently. f2.4 at the telephoto end is really great.
 
Not many digital compacts are coming out with specs like this...

With an MSRP around $450, I'm really keeping my eye on this one. I doubt Canon or Pany will release a model with similar specs for this price. BTW it does 720p video (confirmed on GetDPI), contrary to the specs DPreview has.
 
Bruin said:
Not many digital compacts are coming out with specs like this...

With an MSRP around $450, I'm really keeping my eye on this one. I doubt Canon or Pany will release a model with similar specs for this price. BTW it does 720p video (confirmed on GetDPI), contrary to the specs DPreview has.
Click to expand...

Other than the 720p video, the specs appear to be pretty similar to the S90, which has 640 video and a slightly slower 2.0 max aperture. Looks like a pretty good camera.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
Another unusable camera for glasses wearers.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with these kind of camera's, don't you just look at the LCD? (and then wonder after 3 hours what is wrong with the battery)
Most of the viewfinders on compacts I've tried are lousy without glasses as well. At least at my G7. My wife's Casio even doesn't have a viewfinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom