Are all LCD viewfinders terrible?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Tuthill, Oct 11, 2007.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    I bought a Canon SD800is for a Grand Canyon hiking and rafting trip.
    To save the battery, I primarily used the viewfinder, not the LCD.
    Now that I'm back home with easy access to electricity, I have started
    using the LCD.

    It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time. It's nearly impossible to
    capture moving subjects. I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.

    Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine? Is it possible
    to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?

    Canon has replaced the SD800is with a model lacking optical viewfinder.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > I bought a Canon SD800is for a Grand Canyon hiking and rafting trip.
    > To save the battery, I primarily used the viewfinder, not the LCD.
    > Now that I'm back home with easy access to electricity, I have started
    > using the LCD.


    LCDs on cameras never are good - they're simply for framing an image.

    > It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time.


    Cheap processors make for big lag!

    > It's nearly impossible to
    > capture moving subjects.


    Which is why people buy dSLRs with considerably more bulk and grip.

    > I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    > weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.


    O-o I think I'll be in a home before they stop selling 35mm lenses!

    > Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine?


    Probably!

    > Is it possible
    > to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?


    Unlikely for a P&S camera.

    > Canon has replaced the SD800is with a model lacking optical viewfinder.


    Sadly, many other camera manufacturers are also following this suit. My
    old Pentax 33L didn't have an optical viewfinder either.

    People just don't understand the benefit of a secure camera position in
    cameras and manufacturers are always happy to reduce cost! I was shocked
    when a friend called my Nikon D50 rubbish because he couldn't see a live
    preview of the image on the LCD instead of the prism.

    - --
    Brendan Gillatt
    brendan {at} brendangillatt {dot} co {dot} uk
    http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
    PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBACD7433
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFHDqLckA9dCbrNdDMRAlj9AKDbTVUMWbKjqREtoXcUIm3Vp4dEhQCeOLaK
    4/NjQIWrrjzR7jIyzoz7fTU=
    =O0MT
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Brendan Gillatt, Oct 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Brendan Gillatt <> wrote:
    >
    >> I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    >> weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.

    >
    > O-o I think I'll be in a home before they stop selling 35mm lenses!


    Do you think you'll be in a home when most people stop using
    their partial-frame DSLR lenses? I'm talking Canon EFS, Nikon DX,
    Pentax DA, Sony/Minolta DT, Tamron Di II, etc.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Paul T Guest

    On 11 Oct 2007 10:36:30 -0700, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:

    >I bought a Canon SD800is for a Grand Canyon hiking and rafting trip.
    >To save the battery, I primarily used the viewfinder, not the LCD.
    >Now that I'm back home with easy access to electricity, I have started
    >using the LCD.
    >
    >It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time. It's nearly impossible to
    >capture moving subjects. I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    >weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.
    >
    >Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine? Is it possible
    >to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?
    >
    >Canon has replaced the SD800is with a model lacking optical viewfinder.


    Another obvious TROLL if I've ever read one. None of my cameras with LCD
    experience the behavior that you report. Just go up to any camera-store counter
    and wave your hand in front of the lens of any make and model with an LCD. The
    only "lag" that any of them have, if you want to stupidly call it "lag", is
    their ability to accurately reflect the true shutter speed. A true WYSIWYG
    preview. Set the shutter speed to 1 second and you'll see a 1 second amount of
    motion blur in the LCD. Set the shutter speed to 1/100th second and you won't
    see any lag. Get a clue you dolt, or at least learn how to use a camera
    properly.

    I'll never understand why trolls insist on continually displaying their
    ignorance and stupidity with comments that are so easily disproved by anyone
    with half a brain and an ounce of experience.
    Paul T, Oct 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Alex Monro Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:

    > I bought a Canon SD800is for a Grand Canyon hiking and rafting trip.
    > To save the battery, I primarily used the viewfinder, not the LCD.
    > Now that I'm back home with easy access to electricity, I have started
    > using the LCD.
    >
    > It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time. It's nearly impossible to
    > capture moving subjects. I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    > weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.
    >
    > Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine? Is it possible
    > to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?
    >

    Some P&S (non-DSLR) cameras have an option to set a faster LCD refresh
    rate, e.g. my Fuji S9500 has 30 or 60 fps options. I find the 60 fps
    adequate for most medium speed shots, e.g. dogs & kids running.

    I still prefer the optical viewfinder of my Olympus SP-350 though, even
    though the framing accuracy isn't so good.
    Alex Monro, Oct 12, 2007
    #5
  6. Bill Tuthill

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brendan Gillatt <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    >>> weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.

    >>
    >> O-o I think I'll be in a home before they stop selling 35mm lenses!

    >
    > Do you think you'll be in a home when most people stop using
    > their partial-frame DSLR lenses? I'm talking Canon EFS, Nikon DX,
    > Pentax DA, Sony/Minolta DT, Tamron Di II, etc.


    As FF gets lower in price (and it will), the smaller SLR sensors will be
    that much cheaper still, getting dSLR bodies back in line with the price of
    film bodies. Perhaps an entry level dSLR could be had for under $200 like
    film bodies could. They will get you hooked with the body and make money on
    the lenses.
    JohnR66, Oct 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill

    Bruce. Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine? Is it possible
    > to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?
    >
    > Canon has replaced the SD800is with a model lacking optical viewfinder.


    I bought the Canon A710 IS and the LCD is unusable in direct sunlight. I
    will never buy a camera without an optical viewfinder.

    Bruce.
    Bruce., Oct 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Paul T <> wrote:
    >
    > Another obvious TROLL if I've ever read one.


    Thank you! Despite years of attempting, this is the first time
    somebody has actually called me a TROLL on Usenet.

    > None of my cameras with LCD experience the behavior that you report.


    OK...

    All I can say for sure is, it's much worse than using my old film P&S.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Pat Guest

    On Oct 12, 3:33 am, Paul T <> wrote:
    > On 11 Oct 2007 10:36:30 -0700, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:
    >
    > >I bought a Canon SD800is for a Grand Canyon hiking and rafting trip.
    > >To save the battery, I primarily used the viewfinder, not the LCD.
    > >Now that I'm back home with easy access to electricity, I have started
    > >using the LCD.

    >
    > >It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time. It's nearly impossible to
    > >capture moving subjects. I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    > >weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.

    >
    > >Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine? Is it possible
    > >to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?

    >
    > >Canon has replaced the SD800is with a model lacking optical viewfinder.

    >
    > Another obvious TROLL if I've ever read one. None of my cameras with LCD
    > experience the behavior that you report. Just go up to any camera-store counter
    > and wave your hand in front of the lens of any make and model with an LCD. The
    > only "lag" that any of them have, if you want to stupidly call it "lag", is
    > their ability to accurately reflect the true shutter speed. A true WYSIWYG
    > preview. Set the shutter speed to 1 second and you'll see a 1 second amount of
    > motion blur in the LCD. Set the shutter speed to 1/100th second and you won't
    > see any lag. Get a clue you dolt, or at least learn how to use a camera
    > properly.
    >
    > I'll never understand why trolls insist on continually displaying their
    > ignorance and stupidity with comments that are so easily disproved by anyone
    > with half a brain and an ounce of experience.


    You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.
    Pat, Oct 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Bill Tuthill

    Allen Guest

    Pat wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    > Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    > most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    > second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    > whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    > quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    > they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    > handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.
    >


    Jr. at his birthday can result in the need for high speed. Sure, Jr. is
    mall, but in most cases much closer than, say, a football or baseball
    player, which can take him (or her) across the frame very quickly. Been
    there, done that.
    Allen
    Allen, Oct 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Bill Tuthill

    russell Guest


    >
    > You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    > Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    > most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    > second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    > whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    > quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    > they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    > handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.
    >


    Just look up the specs of most pre-digi film cameras. 1/10,000 of a second?
    , dream on...
    russell, Oct 13, 2007
    #11
  12. Bill Tuthill

    Pat Guest

    On Oct 12, 8:57 pm, "russell" <> wrote:
    > > You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    > > Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    > > most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    > > second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    > > whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    > > quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    > > they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    > > handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.

    >
    > Just look up the specs of most pre-digi film cameras. 1/10,000 of a second?
    > , dream on...


    Ummm, you misread or misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I
    apologize. It is not the shutter speed of 1/10,000. That is a big of
    hyperbole of the amount of time you have to get the right shot. If
    you are 1/10 of a second off, the perfect catch or the perfect block
    or the perfect header becomes a nothing-photo. Timing is crucial. In
    deference to Allen, the 1/10,000 sec difference between Jr. blowing
    out the candle and Jr. having blown out the candle is the difference
    between the picture being on Grandma's refrigerator or being in the
    trash.
    Pat, Oct 13, 2007
    #12
  13. On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:15:08 -0700, Pat <> wrote:

    >You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    >Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    >most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    >second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    >whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    >quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    >they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    >handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.


    Yeah, you can tell that to the 20,000 or so photos that I have of birds in
    various forms of flight taken with P&S cameras.

    Fuckin' dslr trolls, they never give up with their lies and misinformation.
    Andrew_Johnson, Oct 13, 2007
    #13
  14. On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:13 -0700, Pat <> wrote:

    >On Oct 12, 8:57 pm, "russell" <> wrote:
    >> > You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    >> > Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    >> > most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    >> > second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    >> > whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    >> > quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    >> > they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    >> > handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.

    >>
    >> Just look up the specs of most pre-digi film cameras. 1/10,000 of a second?
    >> , dream on...

    >
    >Ummm, you misread or misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I
    >apologize. It is not the shutter speed of 1/10,000. That is a big of
    >hyperbole of the amount of time you have to get the right shot. If
    >you are 1/10 of a second off, the perfect catch or the perfect block
    >or the perfect header becomes a nothing-photo. Timing is crucial. In
    >deference to Allen, the 1/10,000 sec difference between Jr. blowing
    >out the candle and Jr. having blown out the candle is the difference
    >between the picture being on Grandma's refrigerator or being in the
    >trash.


    I suggest you go do some research on human reaction times. You are citing speeds
    that no nervous system in the universe can relay. Then ask yourself why the 0.05
    second shutter lag in my P&S camera is near to no difference.

    What an ignorant troll. Just like every other misleading and deceptive DSLR
    owner that posts to this forum. Par for the course. No wonder they buy them,
    they're this fuckn' stupid.
    edward_sconson, Oct 13, 2007
    #14
  15. Pat <> wrote:
    >On Oct 12, 8:57 pm, "russell" <> wrote:
    >> > You are so very, very wrong. Even the shutter lag on the original
    >> > Rebel was noticeable. P&S are worse. You can't shoot sports with
    >> > most (any) P&S. Much photography is in increments of 1/10,000 of a
    >> > second. That's the time to get the right catch or the header or
    >> > whatever. There's a very slim margin. P&S cameras just don't respond
    >> > quick enough. For a picture of Jr. at his birthday or a landscape
    >> > they are fine, but when things start moving quickly they just don't
    >> > handle it -- esp. without LCD preview.

    >>
    >> Just look up the specs of most pre-digi film cameras. 1/10,000 of a second?
    >> , dream on...

    >
    >Ummm, you misread or misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I
    >apologize. It is not the shutter speed of 1/10,000. That is a big of


    Even if viewed in terms of shutter speed, your original
    statement would be correct. There *is* much photography
    done with shutter speeds that are in fact faster than
    1/10000 of a second. (Indeed, Talbot in 1851 was using
    10 microsecond exposures!)

    The first examples that I saw of this, in the
    mid-1960's, were films of water boiling and of nuclear
    power plants during a meltdown. Both are extremely
    interesting when a camera with a rotating prism shutter
    is used at a speed of 1/10000 of a second.

    Today sub-microsecond shutter speeds are possible.

    >hyperbole of the amount of time you have to get the right shot. If
    >you are 1/10 of a second off, the perfect catch or the perfect block
    >or the perfect header becomes a nothing-photo. Timing is crucial. In
    >deference to Allen, the 1/10,000 sec difference between Jr. blowing
    >out the candle and Jr. having blown out the candle is the difference
    >between the picture being on Grandma's refrigerator or being in the
    >trash.


    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 13, 2007
    #15
  16. Bill Tuthill

    Bob S Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > I bought a Canon SD800is for a Grand Canyon hiking and rafting trip.
    > To save the battery, I primarily used the viewfinder, not the LCD.
    > Now that I'm back home with easy access to electricity, I have started
    > using the LCD.
    >
    > It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time. It's nearly impossible to
    > capture moving subjects. I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    > weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.


    My comment on LCD displays is that on my ancient A40, my wife's A570IS
    the LCD is pretty decent.

    Explain "Partial(35mm) frame lenses." the 35mm full frame format is
    alive and well in digital......

    >
    > Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine? Is it possible
    > to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?
    >
    > Canon has replaced the SD800is with a model lacking optical viewfinder.
    >
    Bob S, Oct 13, 2007
    #16
  17. Bill Tuthill

    ASAAR Guest

    On 12 Oct 2007 10:34:42 -0700, Bill Tuthill sighed:

    >> Another obvious TROLL if I've ever read one.

    >
    > Thank you! Despite years of attempting, this is the first time
    > somebody has actually called me a TROLL on Usenet.


    And by the ubiquitous anti-DSLR sock puppet troll (represented
    here by the Paul T, edward_sconson and Andrew_Johnson troika) to
    boot. Oh the ignominy! :)
    ASAAR, Oct 13, 2007
    #17
  18. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Bob S <> wrote:

    > My comment on LCD displays is that on my ancient A40, my wife's A570IS
    > the LCD is pretty decent.


    I have used an A40 and I think you have to be kidding.
    Is the A570 one of those with rotating LCD? No, apparently not.
    Let's leave it at this: I don't like the LCD viewfinder for anything
    except shot confirmation and menu navigation.

    > Explain "Partial(35mm) frame lenses." the 35mm full frame format is
    > alive and well in digital......


    I did, in an earlier post:

    partial-frame DSLR lenses? I'm talking Canon EFS, Nikon DX,
    Pentax DA, Sony/Minolta DT, Tamron Di II, etc.

    Partial-frame DSLR lenses could not be used in a 35mm film SLR.
    They are too small.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 13, 2007
    #18
  19. In article <>, Bill Tuthill <>
    wrote:

    > It is bad Bad BAD! Very long lag time. It's nearly impossible to
    > capture moving subjects. I see why people buy DSLRs despite their
    > weight, size, and probable obsolescence of partial(35mm)frame lenses.


    Kids, the OP was talking about the DIGITAL-only lenses going obsolete
    when full-frame again becomes the norm. I am hopeful this will happen.

    > Are most P&S digicam LCD viewfinders as bad as mine?


    Yes. I've never seen an LCD viewfinder that was usable, at least to my
    eyes. The range from poor to "Aw, come on, you've GOT to be kidding!"
    This applies to both the arm's length and eye-level "EVF" varieties.
    They're not fast enough for action framing, and not sharp enough to
    evaluate focus.

    > Is it possible
    > to find specifications that measure lag-time in the LCD image?


    I doubt you'll ever see useful specifications on this; the actual frame
    rate (NOT the refresh rate) is variable depending on circumstances, and
    offers lots of ways for the manufacturer to weasel the spec.

    And why offer the the spec, when it's not a popular buzz word, and can
    only show your products limitations? I'm sure 99.9% of the public
    assumes the LCD is completely realtime.
    Scott Schuckert, Oct 13, 2007
    #19
  20. Bill Tuthill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, ASAAR says...

    > And by the ubiquitous anti-DSLR sock puppet troll (represented
    > here by the Paul T, edward_sconson and Andrew_Johnson troika) to
    > boot. Oh the ignominy! :)


    Learn to use your killfile then. A very useful feature.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Oct 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeff Zawrotny

    Split screen viewfinders

    Jeff Zawrotny, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    317
    Jeff Zawrotny
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. w.a. manning

    DSLR: cropping and viewfinders

    w.a. manning, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    383
    tan boen hian
    Sep 6, 2003
  3. Wayne

    All electronic viewfinders bad in bright sunlight?

    Wayne, May 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    757
    stewy
    May 4, 2004
  4. mike nelson

    blurry viewfinders?

    mike nelson, Jun 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    323
    Tony Hwang
    Jun 28, 2005
  5. TommyC

    Some 101, please, about LCD vs. viewfinders

    TommyC, Jun 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    298
    ASAAR
    Jun 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page