«

"Gary Eickmeier" <> writes:

> The buzz in the Sony world is the a77, but I, as the contrarian, have
> purchased the a35 - a mere 16 megapixel (!) camera with all of the bells and
> whistles except the silly articulating LCD. This camera is tiny - not
> something that would impress other pros, but adequate to bring to a wedding
> shoot, ya know whut u mean?

Oh, good; I've finally found one.

Why is the articulating LCD "silly"?

Historically, interchangeable viewfinders, which gave you the ability to
use waistlevel, sometimes angled, and "normal" viewfinders on the same
camera, were a professional feature. I found it highly desirable the
few times I had it. Also, right-angle finder attachments were a
necessary option for system cameras (as in, they'd take heat if they
didn't have one). The ability to align and focus the camera in
positions where you can't conveniently align your eye with the
viewfinder is very useful, in my experience. And the articulating LCD
seems to me to be the best way to provide those features in modern
cameras that already have Live View (or equivalent; that may be a Nikon
SM).

Do you take all your photos from your eye level? Or do you enjoy lying
on the ground trying to get an eye down to focus the very-low-angle
shots, and are you good enough at guessing the framing on the hail-mary
shots that you wouldn't benefit from an articulating LCD? Or what?

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-> wrote in message
news:...
> "Gary Eickmeier" <> writes:
>
>> The buzz in the Sony world is the a77, but I, as the contrarian, have
>> purchased the a35 - a mere 16 megapixel (!) camera with all of the
>> bells and
>> whistles except the silly articulating LCD. This camera is tiny - not
>> something that would impress other pros, but adequate to bring to a
>> wedding
>> shoot, ya know whut u mean?
>
> Oh, good; I've finally found one.
>
> Why is the articulating LCD "silly"?
>
> Historically, interchangeable viewfinders, which gave you the ability to
> use waistlevel, sometimes angled, and "normal" viewfinders on the same
> camera, were a professional feature. I found it highly desirable the
> few times I had it. Also, right-angle finder attachments were a
> necessary option for system cameras (as in, they'd take heat if they
> didn't have one). The ability to align and focus the camera in
> positions where you can't conveniently align your eye with the
> viewfinder is very useful, in my experience. And the articulating LCD
> seems to me to be the best way to provide those features in modern
> cameras that already have Live View (or equivalent; that may be a Nikon
> SM).
>
> Do you take all your photos from your eye level? Or do you enjoy lying
> on the ground trying to get an eye down to focus the very-low-angle
> shots, and are you good enough at guessing the framing on the hail-mary
> shots that you wouldn't benefit from an articulating LCD? Or what?

Agreed, David.

Of course, the LCD isn't used for taking photos all the time, but having a
swivel LCD would now be an important feature when choosing a new camera.
You don't need swivel a lot, but when you do it's invaluable. It's worth
paying that bit extra for, although until you've used one you may not
think so.

Cheers,
David

"Gary Eickmeier" <> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-> wrote in message
> news:...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <> writes:
>>
>>> The buzz in the Sony world is the a77, but I, as the contrarian, have
>>> purchased the a35 - a mere 16 megapixel (!) camera with all of the bells
>>> and
>>> whistles except the silly articulating LCD. This camera is tiny - not
>>> something that would impress other pros, but adequate to bring to a
>>> wedding
>>> shoot, ya know whut u mean?
>>
>> Oh, good; I've finally found one.
>>
>> Why is the articulating LCD "silly"?
>>
>> Historically, interchangeable viewfinders, which gave you the ability to
>> use waistlevel, sometimes angled, and "normal" viewfinders on the same
>> camera, were a professional feature. I found it highly desirable the
>> few times I had it. Also, right-angle finder attachments were a
>> necessary option for system cameras (as in, they'd take heat if they
>> didn't have one). The ability to align and focus the camera in
>> positions where you can't conveniently align your eye with the
>> viewfinder is very useful, in my experience. And the articulating LCD
>> seems to me to be the best way to provide those features in modern
>> cameras that already have Live View (or equivalent; that may be a Nikon
>> SM).
>>
>> Do you take all your photos from your eye level? Or do you enjoy lying
>> on the ground trying to get an eye down to focus the very-low-angle
>> shots, and are you good enough at guessing the framing on the hail-mary
>> shots that you wouldn't benefit from an articulating LCD? Or what?
>>
> I don't usually shoot from the LCD. Doesn't work in bright daylight. The a35
> has a 1.4 mp EVF that is superb. You can see your images even before you
> press the button, and you can review the result without removing your eye
> from the viewfinder. For another example, manual focusing can be done so
> precisely because you can magnify any spot area in the viewfinder by 15X to
> see focus much better than on any SLR ever before.
>
> I use the LCD on my video camera about 1/3 of the time, but again that can
> only be done indoors.

I find very few cases outdoors where I can't see the LCD if I want to
(though, in my D700, I nearly always use the viewfinder if there isn't a
special reason to use live view; and since the screen doesn't angle on
that, there are few reasons) . But, I take far fewer than 10% of my
photos outdoors, so I tend to regard that as a special case that doesn't
much matter.