«

Many point and shoot cameras including Canon are being released with
nice features and wider to longer zoom lenses but without viewfinders.
Being sold with larger 3" LCDs, the mfg claim they are much improved and
have good visibility in bright sunlight.

They may be improved but the visibility is still not up to snuff in
bright light.

Why don't these mfg realize the big advantage for many of a viewfinder.
It would be nice for them to improve the viewfinder and place all of the
necessary information in the finder as well.

I know that the majority of snapshooters do not use a viewfinder
preferring to hold a camera at arms length and forgo a sharper image
even with image stabilization. But there are still many who need to
have a viewfinder available in many situations.

Canon does have it on some models and not on others. It is unfortunate
that on the model with a 28mm EQ wide it is missing.

How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a viewfinder in a P&S
a negative?

measekite wrote:
[]
> How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a viewfinder in a
> P&S a negative?

As I now use a P&S primarily for its small size and light weight, lack of
an optical viewfinder is a positive advantage. An optical viewfinder to
cover the 10:1 (28 - 280mm) zoom of my current compact camera would be
huge.

David

measekite wrote on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:55:22 -0700:

> They may be improved but the visibility is still not up to
> snuff in bright light.

> Why don't these mfg realize the big advantage for many of a
> viewfinder. It would be nice for them to improve the
> viewfinder and place all of the necessary information in the
> finder as well.

> I know that the majority of snapshooters do not use a
> viewfinder preferring to hold a camera at arms length and
> forgo a sharper image even with image stabilization. But
> there are still many who need to have a viewfinder available
> in many situations.

> Canon does have it on some models and not on others. It is
> unfortunate that on the model with a 28mm EQ wide it is
> missing.

>How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a viewfinder
> in a P&S a negative?


I certainly would like to have an optical viewfinder if the improvement
in LCDs is still not sufficient as I suspect is so.

However, as I age I find the provision of a diopteric adjustment in the
viewfinder to be almost essential since I don't need glasses for long
distance and don't wear them outdoors

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:
>measekite wrote:
>[]
>> How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a viewfinder in a
>> P&S a negative?

Can't speak for others, but I would never buy a camera without an
optical viewfinder. Experience has taught me that
- an LCD is difficult to see in bright sunlight at best
- much aggrevated by polarized sun glasses

Awkward posture for taking pictures seems to be a matter of personal
preference, but _FOR_ME_ that is another reason to avoid them like the
plague.

There are certainly situations where an LCD is more convenient than a
viewfinder, but those situations account for far less than 5% of _MY_
typical photos and I would hate to suffer from lack of an optical
viewfinder for the remaining 95+%.

jue

"measekite" <> wrote in message
news:Lflkk.17782$...
> Many point and shoot cameras including Canon are being released with
> nice features and wider to longer zoom lenses but without viewfinders.
> Being sold with larger 3" LCDs, the mfg claim they are much improved and
> have good visibility in bright sunlight.
>
> They may be improved but the visibility is still not up to snuff in
> bright light.
>
> Why don't these mfg realize the big advantage for many of a viewfinder.
> It would be nice for them to improve the viewfinder and place all of the
> necessary information in the finder as well.
>
> I know that the majority of snapshooters do not use a viewfinder
> preferring to hold a camera at arms length and forgo a sharper image
> even with image stabilization. But there are still many who need to
> have a viewfinder available in many situations.
>
> Canon does have it on some models and not on others. It is unfortunate
> that on the model with a 28mm EQ wide it is missing.
>
> How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a viewfinder in a P&S
> a negative?


In theory there's no reason why manufacturers couldn't produce
a hood with the necessary optic, to clip in place on the back of a
point and shoot, over the screen. As an accessory. It would need to
be quite long around 9". I made one myself out black polyboard, using
a jewellers eyeglass as the optic. Fixed to the screen of a lumix bridge
camera by using the tripod thread underneath. This camera has a satisfactory
viewfinder but I needed a better method of reviewing shots in situ in strong
light, so as to be able to determine whether any more would be necessary.
Mainly museum objects and buildings.

michael adams

....

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:18:38 GMT, "James Silverton"
<> wrote:

>However, as I age I find the provision of a diopteric adjustment in the
>viewfinder to be almost essential since I don't need glasses for long
>distance and don't wear them outdoors

In most cases, with a point and shoot, the optical viewfinder is used
to make sure that you have the object framed when you can't see the
object in the LCD because of glare. The idea isn't to provide a
detailed view of the object, but to make sure it's your grandchild,
and not the family sedan near the grandchild, that the camera is
pointing at.

Even with poor eyesight, the photographer can generally tell if the
grandchild's head is in the frame through the optical viewfinder.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony wrote on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:31:35 -0400:

>> However, as I age I find the provision of a diopteric
>> adjustment in the viewfinder to be almost essential since I
>> don't need glasses for long distance and don't wear them
>> outdoors

> In most cases, with a point and shoot, the optical viewfinder
> is used to make sure that you have the object framed when you
> can't see the object in the LCD because of glare. The idea
> isn't to provide a detailed view of the object, but to make
> sure it's your grandchild, and not the family sedan near the
> grandchild, that the camera is pointing at.

The better DSLRs have adjustment lenses too but I have no pretensions to
being an artist and I'm willing to err on getting too much. There's
always PhotoShop Elements! I just don't want to get a headache from
squinting into the finder.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

michael wrote on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:08:35 +0100:


> "measekite" <> wrote in message
> news:Lflkk.17782$...
>> Many point and shoot cameras including Canon are being
>> released with nice features and wider to longer zoom lenses
>> but without viewfinders. Being sold with larger 3" LCDs, the
>> mfg claim they are much improved and have good visibility in
>> bright sunlight.
>>
>> They may be improved but the visibility is still not up to
>> snuff in bright light.
>>
>> Why don't these mfg realize the big advantage for many of a
>> viewfinder. It would be nice for them to improve the
>> viewfinder and place all of the necessary information in the
>> finder as well.
>>
>> I know that the majority of snapshooters do not use a
>> viewfinder preferring to hold a camera at arms length and
>> forgo a sharper image even with image stabilization. But
>> there are still many who need to have a viewfinder available
>> in many situations.
>>
>> Canon does have it on some models and not on others. It is
>> unfortunate that on the model with a 28mm EQ wide it is
>> missing.
>>
>> How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a
>> viewfinder in a P&S a negative?

> In theory there's no reason why manufacturers couldn't produce
> a hood with the necessary optic, to clip in place on the back
> of a point and shoot, over the screen. As an accessory. It
> would need to be quite long around 9". I made one myself out
> black polyboard, using a jewellers eyeglass as the optic.
> Fixed to the screen of a lumix bridge camera by using the
> tripod thread underneath. This camera has a satisfactory
> viewfinder but I needed a better method of reviewing shots in
> situ in strong light, so as to be able to determine whether
> any more would be necessary. Mainly museum objects and
> buildings.

Actually, I've seen such hoods on sale at Ritz but I don't know how well
they work.
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

tony cooper wrote:

> In most cases, with a point and shoot, the optical viewfinder is used to
> make sure that you have the object framed when you can't see the object in
> the LCD because of glare. The idea isn't to provide a detailed view of
> the object, but to make sure it's your grandchild, and not the family
> sedan near the grandchild, that the camera is pointing at.

Please. I'd rather see the sedan.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Ron Hunter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> measekite wrote:
>> []
>>> How many readers in this ng would find the lack of a viewfinder in a
>>> P&S a negative?
>>
>> As I now use a P&S primarily for its small size and light weight,
>> lack of an optical viewfinder is a positive advantage. An optical
>> viewfinder to cover the 10:1 (28 - 280mm) zoom of my current compact
>> camera would be huge.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> ?? I have seen the viewfinders in many cameras, and most with that
> much zoom use EVF, rather than Optical viewfinders. Probably why
> they are called ZLR cameras.
> I am not aware of an optical viewfinder on a non SLR camera that goes
> beyond 6X zoom.

I think you prove my point, Ron. Even if such optical viewfinders did
exist (and they don't), they would be much more unwieldy than an EVF. But
for the most compact camera, even an EVF adds to the volume, and the
camera is smaller without.

Each user has to decide if that compromise is acceptable to them.

David