I am shopping for another digital camera. Kirk has the relatively new Canon XSI and I have the Canon Power Shot A540. I want to increase the optical zoom to 6x and mega pixels to 10 or 12. I have watched other people take pictures with no view finder and I really don't know how they do it, because if you are out in the sun I can't see anything. So, what's your take on view finders vs. no view finders???
When you're chewing on life's gristle[br]Don't grumble, give a whistle[br]And this'll help things turn out for the best...[br]And...always look on the bright side of life...[br]Always look on the light side of life.[br]Monty Python's Life of Brian[br]
OP - I have the same problem. I'd like to upgrade my old Fuji but can't find a suitable digital camera with a viewfinder. I've looked at many websites on the subject of 'Viewfinder or No Viewfinder' and it seems the reason why the latest cameras don't have one is because of the increasing size of the LCD.
I don't think you can take well-framed pictures if you don't have a v/f. As you say, you can't see the images on the LCS in bright light. I am very fussy as to how I compose my pics and I'm sure I need a vf.
I believe shields can be bought for ones current digital sans viewfinder. These are supposed to help with the bright sunlight problem. I just try to get what I want for the middle of the picture into the little square in the middle of the viewing screen as well as I can when it's glary out, then crop the photo later to get a better composition. However, I am sure Imec is right about it being easier to steady the camera with a viewfinder. I need a better quality camera, anyway, and when I look for one, it will be for one with the viewfinder.
I would definately purchase one with a view finder. Not only can you see in a high sun situation, but the batteries in you camera will last considerably longer if you don't use the LCD. But I will say that the LCD will allow you to see "exactly" what you will be getting. I would say you could use your view finder for 99% of what you shoot. Be sure to turn off you LCD if you want to save you battery. I would not be concerned about the amount of pixels if you are a typical tourist and not a professional. I would recommend that you be concerned about the quality of the lens -- and most camera manufactures do not seem to use this in the marketing of their camera. It does not matter how many pixels you have if your lens is not of good quality.
Post by patricklondon on Jun 29, 2009 20:41:43 GMT
I'm a view finder person because my eyes just won't cope with the display screen close up if I want to check the framing of details.
The one use I do have for it is when using the video function, since I can keep an eye on what's going on in the full field of view of my eyesight at the same time as a (very rough) view of what's being recorded.
I've used the viewfinder on my brilliant little pocket camera maybe a dozen times out of thousands of photos taken. It's nice to have when the sun is at just the wrong angle but i much prefer using the LCD screen as often I can compose a shot better by holding the camera higher or lower than my face wants to go, plus I like seeing exactly what the photo is likely to turn out like. It also makes taking pictures much more nonchalant and enables candids not holding the camera up to your face. I'm happy taking 100 photos just to get even a couple worth keeping which is the real advantage of digital. In the days of film I took much more considered and consciously composed photos because I might only have 24 or 36 tries for a whole day. I get much better photos now I think just madly snapping away and then culling the results later.
I still hold the view that a viewfinder is necessary to take the best shots. I thought of buying a DSLR or similar, but the thought of carrying extra lenses around on trek has really put me off. As I'll be riding a horse some of the time, changing lenses would make life very difficult. I have decided to go for a Bridge Camera and this Sony seems to fit the bill in every way. It even has a panoramic mode that stitches up to 9 pics together in the camera.
Last Edit: Sept 21, 2009 20:01:41 GMT by spindrift
I simply can't go back to anything that can't be slipped into a shirt pocket and essentially not noticed. I used to tote around SLR bodies, lenses and all and I'm taking much better pictures now with my inexpensive little Canon Elph than I ever did with my fancy SLRs.
My favorite pictures are usually taken on the spur of the moment, with a larger camera, nothing is spur of the moment. I'd at least borrow a relatively inexpensive pocket camera to try before I purchased a DSLR. You might be quite surprised by how good they really are.
I've been shooting with elph's (SD300 and SD1100) for a few years now - they're fantastic! The "pocketability" means that I've been taking more pics than I ever did with a bigger camera. However, an interesting side effect is that it has rekindled my interest in photography to the point where I now want an SLR again. I've been using my wife's brother-in-law's for the last week and have decided I'm buying my own (a Nikon D3000).
My last camera was an Elph (called Ixus in Europe) and I loved the size of it. When it finally died, I went back to the bigger type thing (Konica Minolta Dimage Z6). What I wanted the most was the 12x zoom.
Fumobici - I've been using small digital cameras for a long time...I'm trying to learn more about photography. I agree, I've had wonderful results from my small Fuji Finepix. The Sony HX1 has a x 20 zoom....useful when trekking. The panoramic function would be useful too.
Spindrift, I have the Sony camera just below that one -- a 15x zoom. I figured that was enough. I bought it about a year ago and have used it on trips. The main suggestion I would give you is to buy a spare battery before you start out doing anything. The Sony has a very small battery given the demands made on it. It happened to me on a trip last year that it died in the afternoon and I was far from the place I could reload it.
Linked to the battery size, my main complaint with that Sony is that it turns off quickly if you don't take pictures for a couple of minutes. On the papers, it said "turning it on and off will use up the battery"!! But unless you are shooting constantly, it turns off. Of course, to save battery life, you can turn off the screen and use the viewfinder.
But it takes good pictures, so I am pleased with it. Before that, I had an Olympus bridge camera that took very good pics too, but I missed the zoom.
My camera has a tiny rechargeable lithium ion battery like those in cell phones, if you carry a spare it lasts for literally hundreds of photos and you aren't creating piles of unnecessary poisonous waste by disposing of your dead batteries. You can of course get rechargeable AAs as well and they work just fine although they are bulky enough to preclude use in a true pocket camera.