«

Savageduck wrote:

> On 2011-05-14 10:13:57 -0700, Doug Bashford <> said:
>
> >
> > Well I've put about 1,500 pics thru my
> > new camera, and I still miss my viewfinder.
> > A viewfinder was one of my must-have bells,
> > along with AA bateries, 10X, and so forth.
> > I got all my bells except the viewfinder.
> > (I got the $200 Canon sx120is with three-inch
> > screen and the CHDK supercharger freeware hack.)
> >
> > I rationalized, Well the new technology is
> > probably much brighter. (After all, my old
> > digicam was more than five years old, one young
> > clerk never even heard of its SmartMedia card!)
> > Technically, I'm sure it must be brighter.
> > But perception-wise, (and what else matters?)
> > no, it is not. It works well inside and
> > is still a dog shooting wildflowers and such
> > outside in direct sunlight. And it's still
> > OK for shooting family and vacation snapshots
> > and vistas outside. (And other general things
> > that I'm VERY happy with...Good Camera!)
> >
> > Bottom line? I'd do it again facing the same
> > choices, but I'd gladly pay $50 more for
> > a viewfinder. It's kinda a biggy in my book.
> >
> > But the industry doesn't see it that way.
> > And sadly I contributed to that....
> > ========
>
> As much as that SX120is serves its purpose at that price point very
> well, knowing that you were more comfortable with a viewfinder, I
> would have sought out an option with one.
>
> An LCD can be totally useless in bright overhead Sun, or with the Sun
> directly behind you. I find the arms length shooting position for
> the current breed of compact cameras somewhat silly, and only
> occasionally useful. Consequently, the compact I own to supplement my
> D300s, is a Canon G11(now G12), and I had also considered a Nikon
> P7000. My G11 replaced a FijiFilm E900 which also had an OVF,
> performed well, but had a rather klunky UI which discouraged me from
> using it much.
>
> Both of those cost somewhat more than the additional $50 you were
> prepared to pay, but IMO the extra cost is well worth it.

I have always believed that the camera is an extension of the eye. You
compose with your eyes and having a viewfinder helps your eyes
normalise the scene in which you are viewing. Having a mini tv screen
hovering several inches in front of you when trying to compose an image
is heavily distracting. Don't get me wrong, some flip-out LCD screens
can be helpful in situations where getting your eye to a viewfinder can
be awkward, i.e. groundlevel macro. However, these flip-out screens
should be in addition to a viewfinder.

MC

MC wrote:
>these flip-out screens
>should be in addition to a viewfinder.

Another feature of the much maligned P&S
[Canon SX30-IS]
Multi-axial flip out TFT screen
plus an EVF to suit your needs.

Savageduck wrote:
>
>Nice. However, I wouldn't label the SX30is a "P&S," and you are the
>first to even bring that label up in this thread.

I was using the term that gets applied to cameras with non-removable
lens quite often, in addition to superzoom etc. I do realize that the SX30is
is a top of the line 'ZLR' and sometimes gets referred to as a bridge camera.
FWIW: from years of 35mm film photography,
I'm habitually more used to the EVF style
even as the Bronica, Zenit, and other TLRs viewed from above.
Occasionally I use the flip out screen if trying to compose a hand held shot
with arms extended upward over a crowd.
Some years back I (just to pick a nit) explained that my then Canon S1-IS
was Digital, had a Single Lens, and Reflexive (electronic) viewing,
therefore was a true DSLR <g>

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-05-14 17:51:40 -0700, ASCII <> said:
>
>> MC wrote:
>>> these flip-out screens
>>> should be in addition to a viewfinder.
>>
>> Another feature of the much maligned P&S
>> [Canon SX30-IS]
>> Multi-axial flip out TFT screen
>> plus an EVF to suit your needs.
>
>Nice. However, I wouldn't label the SX30is a "P&S," and you are the
>first to even bring that label up in this thread.
>The OP, Doug Bashford, is complaining about the lack of viewfinder,
>OVF, or EVF, for his COMPACT SX120is, a "superzoom compact". So you
>are comparing apples with oranges. The SX30is is certainly not a
>compact. Though I suspect he was sold by the 10X zoom capability first.
>Hence my suggestion of a G11, G12, P7000.


Please don't suggest the P7000, even in the context of supporting
Nikon, as it is too slooooow. G11 and G12 are much better. G11 - if
you can find one - sells at about the same price as the P7000. G12 is
just a few dollars more. Both are much faster to use than the P7000.

Personally, I prefer my G9 to all three of them, but that's because I
value the extra 2 MP (12 MP against 10 MP) and the longer reach of the
zoom lens, 200mm against 140mm (35mm film equivalent FL). I just paid
$200 to have it serviced and a new main board fitted - that should
tell you how much I like it.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>On Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:50:12 PM UTC-5, ASCII wrote:
>
>> Some years back I (just to pick a nit) explained that my then Canon S1-IS
>> was Digital, had a Single Lens, and Reflexive (electronic) viewing,
>> therefore was a true DSLR <g>
>
>"Reflexive" requires reflection.

Whether the view is reflected optically by way of some sort of prism
or electronically with wires,
it's still bent rather than a straight through sighting.

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>ASCII <> wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>On Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:50:12 PM UTC-5, ASCII wrote:
>
>>>> Some years back I (just to pick a nit) explained that my then Canon S1-IS
>>>> was Digital, had a Single Lens, and Reflexive (electronic) viewing,
>>>> therefore was a true DSLR <g>
>>>
>>>"Reflexive" requires reflection.
>
>> Whether the view is reflected optically by way of some sort of prism
>> or electronically with wires,
>> it's still bent rather than a straight through sighting.
>
>So television is reflexive.

In a sense, yes
Why don't you go watch it awhile,
rather than try to topic twist?

ASCII <> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>ASCII <> wrote:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>On Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:50:12 PM UTC-5, ASCII wrote:

>>>>> Some years back I (just to pick a nit) explained that my then Canon S1-IS
>>>>> was Digital, had a Single Lens, and Reflexive (electronic) viewing,
>>>>> therefore was a true DSLR <g>

>>>>"Reflexive" requires reflection.

>>> Whether the view is reflected optically by way of some sort of prism
>>> or electronically with wires,
>>> it's still bent rather than a straight through sighting.

>>So television is reflexive.

> In a sense, yes

In YOUR sense. The view is reflected electrically (not even
necessarily electronically) with wires. And wireless.

> Why don't you go watch it awhile,
> rather than try to topic twist?

You're much more entertaining: I love observing people
digging deep holes. Then they fall in and I throw a couple
shovels of sand on them.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>You're much more entertaining:

Wish the same could be said for you