# How important is a live view?



## Frankp (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm torn between the Sony alpha 200 and the alpha 300. One difference is that the 200 does not have a live view lcd but it does have a better viewfinder. It is the opposite with the a300. Both are on special today with two lens...a200 is $549 and the a300 is $599. I really have been impressed with the Sony cameras from what I've seen and read. Any advice between the two? Also, does anyone think I am waaaayyyy off base and need to consider another brand/model.

Happy Holidays  Frank


----------



## rom4n301 (Dec 6, 2008)

personally i think the live view is useless, i love using the viewfinder, i just find it more comfortable and on the plus side no live view= longer battery life


----------



## Overread (Dec 6, 2008)

I find that its far easier to hold a camera steady and well when using the viewfinder rather than liveview - having the lens close to you means you have the added stability of your face and also the fact that your arms are not extended and thus are able to hold it more steadily.
Further DSLRs tend to end up way more heavy than a point and shoot - especialy if you start using quality lenses and also longer focal length ones - with that in mind its just too much weight to hold out at arms length to use liveview.
Point and shoots are find because they are very light by design and thus don't have the same limiation.

Go for the alpha 200 if the only difference were liveview I would say it did not matter, but if the viewfinder is brighter then that can make a lot of difference


----------



## OldClicker (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm a relative newcomer to photography and so had nothing invested in older technology, equipment or techniques.  I bought a Canon XTI and within two months bought a Sony A350 for the Live View and body IS.  I use the Live View about 70% of the time and would really hate to be without it.  I know that everybody has different styles and needs, but I see Live View as another tool that helps me get the shot and really don't understand those who would not be willing to learn how to use a new tool.  I have some really nice shots (for me) that I simply would not have without it. - TF


----------



## Captain IK (Dec 6, 2008)

I think "live view" is helpful in the studio or when using a tripod, but for handheld shots, IMHO it is useless.

Dave


----------



## pez (Dec 6, 2008)

I look forward to using it on my new K20D body I'm getting tomorrow, but only for tripod shots at odd angles- where I won't have to contort quite as much to see the frame. But I wouldn't assign much worth to live view in general- sort of a gimmick...


----------



## GrfxGuru (Dec 6, 2008)

I agree with Captain, I like live view on the tripod for general set up but then switch to the finder, beyond that I never use it. The one great thing about the view finder is that it isolates your concentration to only the contents of the frame.

Regards,
Peter Witham


----------



## Flash Harry (Dec 7, 2008)

Live view can come in handy in a case where you have a crowd in front of you and a decent shot can't be achieved through the finder, switch it on, hold it over their heads, check the live v shot and hit the shutter. H


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 7, 2008)

I started to reply to this post that I really enjoyed using "live view" with my old TLRs and view cameras, but hadn't had the chance to use a DSLR with live view.  Then it occurred to me that I own a Canon 40D which has live view, and I've never used that function.  So I guess I must not think it's very important seeing that I forgot it's a feature on one of the cameras I own and use all the time.    Maybe I should try it out.  I think it would be even more handy with a movable LCD.  I think it would be most useful for me using it when I'm holding the camera above my head, or down by my feet.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 7, 2008)

Live Preview can have lots of advantages.  If you're use to a point-n-shoot, then it will feel natural for you.   It is good for setup shots where you can quickly and easily see your composition and make adjustments as necessary (hence the reference to using a tripod above).  However, I believe that it's the next model Sony up that has the movable / flippable screen which is one of the strongest advantages.  That allows you to get shots you may not otherwise.  

One example is being able to walk around with the screen flipped up so you can hold the camera at waist level, taking all kinds of candid shots as most folks will not think your are taking photos since the camera is not at eye level.  Great for parties and other events.

Flipped down allows you to get shoots when you are stuck in a crowd.  With it down, you can hold the camera over your head and see what you are shooting instead of guessing.

And, it allows you to take very awkward position shots much easier.  Laying on the ground may not be an option to take low shots (mud, water, etc.), but with the screen flipped up, you can just bend over instead.  Reaching thru / around obstacle(s) is another advantage (like thru tree limbs to get a nature shot or the like).

Finally, Sony has an advantage of virtually instant response time due to the use of two sensors (one for the shot, one for live preview) where most others use a mirror flip scheme which can be up to a second lag or so.

(It might even come in real handy for surveillance photos too, I'd imagine.)
.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 7, 2008)

TwoRails said:


> Live Preview can have lots of advantages.  If you're use to a point-n-shoot, then it will feel natural for you.   It is good for setup shots where you can quickly and easily see your composition and make adjustments as necessary (hence the reference to using a tripod above).  However, I believe that it's the next model Sony up that has the movable / flippable screen which is one of the strongest advantages.  That allows you to get shots you may not otherwise.
> 
> One example is being able to walk around with the screen flipped up so you can hold the camera at waist level, taking all kinds of candid shots as most folks will not think your are taking photos since the camera is not at eye level.  Great for parties and other events.
> 
> ...



This is why in most cases live view is wasted in on a DSLR.  






body & 70-200
Not really a combo that works well at arms length.  

Neither is this.




body & 24-70

A DSLR is not really built to be held at arms length looking at a view screen like a small lightweight point and shoot. Even with small glass such as a 50mm.  It is designed so that you stabilize the thing with your left hand and control it with your right hand looking through the viewfinder.  

 Live view can be useful in limited application such as macro on a solid support such as a tripod or when ever you have solid support and a non moving subject.  Live view however is not something that should make or break a camera purchase as it is truely a minor feature in the DSLR world.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 7, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This is why in most cases live view is wasted in on a DSLR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe for that nice setup you have, but the OP is talking about a Sony.  I'm not a betting person, but "I'd bet" that a Sony 300 with a 200mm zoom on it weighs a small fraction of your setup in the first post.  I was just down at Best Buy and I played with one, and it is very light and compact in size.  It was very comfortable to hold out, up, or down.  Not too much more than one of those mega-zoom P&S units.  It's an oranges to apples comparison to a Sony.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 7, 2008)

TwoRails said:


> Maybe for that nice setup you have, but the OP is talking about a Sony.  I'm not a betting person, but "I'd bet" that a Sony 300 with a 200mm zoom on it weighs a small fraction of your setup in the first post.  I was just down at Best Buy and I played with one, and it is very light and compact in size.  It was very comfortable to hold out, up, or down.  Not too much more than one of those mega-zoom P&S units.  It's an oranges to apples comparison to a Sony.



Body weights:

Canon 40D = 26.1 oz. 
Sony A 300 = 23.3 oz. 
Canon 5D = 28.6 oz

They are all in the same ball park.  

When you put a lens on it, it's not just the weight that comes into play.  It is also the way that weight is distributed.  Physically longer glass will distribute the weight differently.  

The other thing to remember. When you buy a P&S even a very expensive P&S you are getting an entire package built around a smaller sensor.  With a DSLR you are buying a system.  Neither of us know what the OP is thinking of for lenses and for what purpose.  

The real apples to oranges here is comparing useful features from a P&S with useful features in a DSLR.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 7, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Body weights:
> 
> Canon 40D = 26.1 oz.
> Sony A 300 = 23.3 oz.
> ...



OK, maybe the body weights are similar, but I was referring to the complete setup. Sorry I wasn't clear.  However, isn't just the  70-200 lens in your first shot something like 3 1/2 pounds??   

Sony's 75-300mm that is often offered in a deal with the  Alpha 300 weighs in a just 18 oz.  The Canon lens weighs over three times as much.  

Keep in mind that FrankP is talking about Sony 200 or 300 and is most likely not going to be buying $1,200 - 1,400 glass any time soon to put on it.

PS: I like your avatar, BTW:  Jeff Dunham is freaking hilarious!


----------



## table1349 (Dec 7, 2008)

TwoRails said:


> OK, maybe the body weights are similar, but I was referring to the complete setup. Sorry I wasn't clear.  However, isn't just the  70-200 lens in your first shot something like 3 1/2 pounds??
> 
> Sony's 75-300mm that is often offered in a deal with the  Alpha 300 weighs in a just 18 oz.  The Canon lens weighs over three times as much.
> 
> ...



The 70-200 f2.8 is 2.8lbs.  As for the lens options I make no assumptions on what glass the OP will or will not buy, nor do I make assumption as to how much money the OP chooses to spend.  This is just a serious hobby for me, but I realize that the more important part of the system is the glass, not the body.  Bodies will come and go but good glass will last for years.  

It is no assumption on my part, rather it is from experience, that something like live view is not something the average photographer should consider as a primary reason to purchase a camera body.  I work part time in a camera store.  There was a lady that came in with a friend who was a Sony nut. (Not saying that all Sony users are nuts, he just bought Sony or not at all whether it was cameras, electronics etc.)  He had convenced her that she needed a Sony DSLR. So she bought an A 300. 

A few weeks later she came back and wanted to trade it in on a new camera.  Why? The friend was convenced that Live view was the best thing to come along in photography since the invention of the shutter.  

She had two problems with his notion after trying it out.  

1 she bought the camera to take photos of her kids, including sports photos.  The live view turned out to be worthless for that and most of what she was doing.  It didn't control as easily as her little P&S. 

2.  She realized to take photos of her daughter at soccer games she needed better glass.  Obviously the idea of spending $1800.00 for Sony's 70-200 vs $1200 that she saw the Canon went for was a shock.  The owner gave her a good price for her A 300 and she walked away with a Canon instead.  She has been back twice for another lens and a flash unit.  

Again this is not a putdown of Sony.  But anyone deciding on a DSLR needs to go in with their eyes open as to what their potential system need will cost.  I have yet to figure out why Sony's 70-200 f2.8 is more expenive than Canons 70-200 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8IS or Nikons 70-200 f2.8VR.  

Live view is like anything else, a tool.  But would you buy one brand of car based on the fact that it has a hydraulic jack in the trunk and the other car has a scissors jack?  The OP needs to look at what they intend to use this camera for, figure out what system accessories that will take, and decide on it as a whole.


----------



## OldClicker (Dec 7, 2008)

Attach that to a tripod and Live View can work just fine.  I don't understand where you get this 'arms length' stuff.  You really can't see past that being the only way to use it? - TF


----------



## Dmitri (Dec 7, 2008)

rom4n301 said:


> personally i think the live view is useless, i love using the viewfinder, i just find it more comfortable and on the plus side no live view= longer battery life



Can't argue with anything he says here. If you like live view, go for it. But it is pretty useless and, as he says, you get longer battery life.'

On a related happy bit: People are more likely to get out of your way if you have the camera up to your eye, as opposed to have it in front of you like a tourist


----------



## table1349 (Dec 7, 2008)

OldClicker said:


> Attach that to a tripod and Live View can work just fine.  I don't understand where you get this 'arms length' stuff.  You really can't see past that being the only way to use it? - TF




Apparently you didn't read the entire post.  From my original post.



> Live view *can be* useful in limited application such as macro on a *solid support such as a tripod* or when ever you have solid support and a non moving subject. Live view however is not something that should make or break a camera purchase as it is truely a minor feature in the DSLR world.



Live view like any tool has a purpose but on Christmas morning, kids opening up presents.  You want to break out the tripod and have them pose?  Birthday party, again you want to break out the tripod and have them pose?  Kid playing sports or in the back yard, you want to break out the tripod and try to follow the action with live view?  Dinner with some friends, Christmas party, or any of a thousand other times you want to take photos of the spontanious events going on are you going to set up a tripod?

If not then how do you plan on viewing the LCD screen?  It doesn't work well if you put your eye to it like a viewfinder.  The only way I can use my wife's Canon 870 is with it held out in front of me. My eyes don't focus well on an LCD screen a couple of inches from my face.  In watching about everyone else I have seen using a P&S with an LCD hand held it is the same thing.  

In the overall grand scheme of things, what do most people with cameras take photographs of.  Spontanious events in their or someone else's lives.  Right tool for the right purpose.


----------



## sabbath999 (Dec 8, 2008)

For my style of shooting, live view is completely useless 98 percent of the time... but the other 2 percent of the time when it ISN'T useless it has allowed me to get shots that I otherwise would have missed.

I like having it on my camera, but I don't consider it mission-critical for what I do.


----------



## roadkill (Dec 8, 2008)

Do yourself a favor... get a D80 or a canonb XTI if your gonna drop thatkinda cash. It will open up worlds to you.


----------



## roadkill (Dec 8, 2008)

Live veiw is CRAP.


----------



## nymtber (Dec 9, 2008)

Even when I had my Canon S3IS, I used the viewfinder. I got better pictures that way, in fact I still believe that cameras were MADE to be held to the eye, and use a viewfinder to find your image, not a screen. 

Of course I just bought my girlfriend a Canon A590IS which has a useless viewfinder. But she would use the LCD anyways. Much better than her old Kodak 4MP POS...! 

I dont feel right holding a camera up and looking at an LCD. I like looking through the viewfinder and seeing whats going on that way. It does really make you concentrate on what the sensor/film sees and cuts out the rest of the world 

It could be useful... I guess... for macro. some macro shots present positions that are a PITA to look through the viewfinder!


----------



## Dao (Dec 9, 2008)

If they are basically the same, you can spare the extra cash and you will use the liveview a lot, go with the liveview capable one.

At this point, I do not have a chance to use the liveview on my camera.  So all my shots were taken with the viewfinder.  I do understand that in some situation, liveview is nice.  But it is not a feature that I will use much, then it is not important to me.

If the feature is something you use all the time, it will worth every single penny you spend on that feature.  If you are not going to use it that often and it cost a lot more.  You need to think about it. (Unless cost is not a factor)

For example, air conditioning is a good feature to have in the car, however, if the car is being driven in a place where temperature is pretty cool or cold year round (You may only need it for one or two weeks), then I may not want to pay extra for that feature.  However, if someone weight 400 pounds and sweat a lot.  AC maybe needed in that situation even if he/she need to pay a thousand more.


----------



## skieur (Dec 9, 2008)

Live view is really useful and the Sony 70 to 300mm is less weighty and easier to use than the Canon 70mm to 200mm.  Besides an 18mm to 50mm macro is what is usually on the camera for all around shooting and that is not a problem at all to hold.

It is certainly not for all shooting, but definitely extremely useful in some situations.

skieur


----------



## TBAM (Dec 14, 2008)

Live view, has only had 2 uses for me:

1. Enabling me to properly compose a shot, both handheld, and on a tri-pod that otherwise I would be unable to get due to my eye not reaching the viewfinder.

2. Adjusting settings on my manual lens to ensure correct exposure and focus. The viewfinder is just way-too dim to manual focus an f1.8 by eye. Live-view lets me zoom in and focus very accurately.

In saying that I use an E-420 which is the smallest / lightest DSLR on the market, and I usually only use Live-View when I'm using my OM 50mm f1.8, which is also very light. So no problems with hand-held.

Only technical thing I don't like about live-view is that it effectively doubles your shutter-count.

P.S.
For those nay-sayers about live-view. Live-view also provides the handy function of giving you real-time feedback on whitebalance and exposure, prior to taking a photo. You can also hook your camera up to a monitor or TV and see your picture real-time on a larger screen.


----------



## reg (Dec 14, 2008)

TBAM said:


> Only technical thing I don't like about live-view is that it effectively doubles your shutter-count.



You mean when the mirror flips?

That's not the shutter.


----------



## TBAM (Dec 15, 2008)

From what I thought: 

 - The shutter is closed natively.
 - You turn on Live view, the mirrow flips up and the shutter opens allowing the sensor to "see" (like a P&S sensor).
 - You take the photo, the mirror flips down, the shutter closes, the photo is taken as per normal, then the mirrow flips back up and the shutter opens again.

Is that right?


----------



## skieur (Dec 16, 2008)

TBAM said:


> From what I thought:
> 
> - The shutter is closed natively.
> - You turn on Live view, the mirrow flips up and the shutter opens allowing the sensor to "see" (like a P&S sensor).
> ...


 
Not on the Sony version of Live View. Two sensors are used, so no mirror flip and the autofocus is much faster than with the other live view versions.

skieur


----------



## samleo (Dec 16, 2008)

Very,very useful for tripod,macro,and acute angle photography. I agree with the comments regarding the advantages of using optical view finders,but there are times when live view is an absolute boon. I have the A350 and that semi articulated screen enables me to get some great low down shots without prostrating myself on the ground. Live view is here to stay,so learn how to take advantage of it!


----------



## PhilGarber (Dec 16, 2008)

rom4n301 said:


> personally i think the live view is useless, i love using the viewfinder, i just find it more comfortable and on the plus side no live view= longer battery life



I agree. Live view (to me, at least) just screams "LAZY".:thumbdown:


----------



## eminart (Dec 18, 2008)

I couldn't care less about live view.  I wouldn't use it if I had it.  Live view is for snapshots.  

I'm sure there are situations where it might come in handy, but I wouldn't let it influence my camera-buying decision by any means.  You really can't even see it in the sunlight.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Dec 18, 2008)

samleo said:


> Very,very useful for tripod,macro,and acute angle photography. I agree with the comments regarding the advantages of using optical view finders,but there are times when live view is an absolute boon. I have the A350 and that semi articulated screen enables me to get some great low down shots without prostrating myself on the ground. Live view is here to stay,so learn how to take advantage of it!




This about sums it up:thumbup:


----------



## DexGtr (Jan 10, 2009)

i have a friend that has the 300 with liveview i've used it and it feels weird taking shots with a dslr without looking at the viewfinder...

so when i bought my own got the a200...same specs as the a300 just without liveview...didn't also bother to get the one with the bundled 80-200 lens...might as well get a nicer one than the normal Sony lens (made in china)...like the Carl Zeiss or G models.


----------



## user name (Jan 10, 2009)

when i first got my alpha 100 having to use the view finder only was annoying
you soon get used to it
15k pictures later, you think nothing of it
put a protector over the LCD though


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2009)

I bought an A350 for the live view and articulated screen and use it quite frequently.  It is perfect for shooting over the heads of crowds and for street photography.  It is no longer necessary to get my pants dirty to take low angle shots.  Simply put, live view gives any photographer more reach to get the shot at the right angle.

skieur


----------



## inTempus (Jan 11, 2009)

I have it on my 40D and I wouldn't pay extra for it.  I've used it, but just to play with it.  It's pretty much useless to me.


----------



## HoboSyke (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm using a 40D canon and I have been using live view recently only to take shots of the moon as the zoom feature allows for better focusing..


----------



## mitsugirly (Jan 18, 2009)

I opted for the a300 because of the live view. I've never had anything other than a point and shoot camera, so I'm use to looking at the live view. I've used it a lot so far with the tripod. I'm just not use to putting my eye up to the viewfinder. I have found it very useful, but I will learn to use the viewer sooner or later.
My thoughts were being in a crowd, shooting over head or down low when I bought it. I didn't know if I would need it, but I figured I'd rather be safe than sorry and buy it just in case.


----------



## eterrisinCYQX (Jan 20, 2009)

Captain IK said:


> I think "live view" is helpful in the studio or when using a tripod, but for handheld shots, IMHO it is useless.
> 
> Dave


 
+1. Also nice for tabletop photography, although a 90 degree viewfinder would render it frivolous.

Also, using the viewfinder on a PAS which doesn't have through-the-lens viewing just sucks.


----------



## optic79 (Jan 22, 2009)

I have a canon 40D, this camera also has the Live View feature. I have only found it useful when shooting at an odd camera angle, where I am unable to look through the view finder. For example, a close-up picture of seashell laying on the beach with the tide rolling in over it. for me to get this picture while looking through the viewfinder I would have had to lay on my stomach in the sand and water (no thanks). Live view allowed me to avoid this undesirable scenario and still get the shot I wanted.


----------



## bdavis (Jan 22, 2009)

I use my live view to help with my composition a little. Seeing through the lcd sometimes help me envision how the final shot will look. Also any changes made to the white balance can be seen through live view so I can check my color temperature without taking a photo. Other than that, yeah it's overrated a bit.


----------



## roadkill (Jan 23, 2009)

Down with live veiw


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 23, 2009)

roadkill said:


> Down with live veiw




yes... that's correct.... especially with those grass level macros and low perspective shots you no longer have to get down with live view...

amen..


----------



## Joves (Jan 23, 2009)

roadkill said:


> Live veiw is CRAP.


 Please tell us how you really feel about it. 
I have had the D300 for a year and, have yet to use it. Hell I never used the LCD with my old P&S when I had that option. I tried it once on the P&S and felt it disconnected me from the experience of actually shooting. Ground glass is the only live view I actually liked.


----------



## Overread (Jan 23, 2009)

also tripod macro shooters will use live view, on the newer DSLRs, which has 2* image magnification so that they can get the focus spot on!
Kind of like using an anglefinder- only one does not have to spend £/$100 or more on one and it can be viewed from a normal angle rather than always at a right angle.


----------



## nickisonfire (Jan 23, 2009)

well i have the a300 and i only use the live view when i'm in an awkward shooting where its hard to get my eye up to the viewfinder. so i would say if you have the extra cash go for it. but if your tight on money your not really missing out


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Jan 23, 2009)

I thought Live View was a bit of a gimmick but I knew in the back of my mind it would provide some use... and so it proved to be.

My photo agency sent me to photograph a band performing at London's Apple Store (quite marvelously Apple asked for me!). There were two photographers and we were plaved in a make shifted cordened off area behind about 8 rows of seating and in front of the people standing. The stage was not raised in any way. With everyone sitting down it was fine but the band came on and before they played a single note the front man told everyone that they should be standing up! Up they went and I couldn't see a thing! The odd glimpse allowed me to focus allowing me to switch the lens to manual focus. I engaged the live view so I could compose the shots from above my head. Naturally most of them were not sharp, especially as it was a badly lit stage so I had a small depth of field to play with. But a couple of them were and that was a couple more than I could have got otherwise. Photos uploaded to the agency - everybody was happy.

(My arty back of crowd grooving to the band weren't really any good...).

Still would never use live view if I had a clear sight of my subject. Ever.


----------



## Abstractational (Jan 29, 2009)

I always thought i was useless....

Find it much easier to position it to my eye. Pictures are more steady. Come out clearer etc..


----------



## CrimsonFoxPhotography (Feb 8, 2009)

Frankp said:


> I'm torn between the Sony alpha 200 and the alpha 300. One difference is that the 200 does not have a live view lcd but it does have a better viewfinder. It is the opposite with the a300. Both are on special today with two lens...a200 is $549 and the a300 is $599. I really have been impressed with the Sony cameras from what I've seen and read. Any advice between the two? Also, does anyone think I am waaaayyyy off base and need to consider another brand/model.
> 
> Happy Holidays  Frank



A lot of people are saying that live view is useless, but it has its place.  I use the viewfinder well over 99.999% of the time, but there are times where the camera needs to be held at some distance away from me.  The only way to get a better sense of whether I'm getting the shot or not is live view (and I'm strictly talking about fleeting moments, not portrait sessions).


----------



## TwoRails (Feb 8, 2009)

Another way to look at it is: Why is everyone including it in many of their cameras?  There sure must be a lot of folks out there that _do_ like live preview or I don't think manufacturers would be incur the extra cost in building cameras if people (general public) didn't want it.  Live preview helps sell cameras, even if many who want the feature are coming from point-n-shoots.


----------



## Captain IK (Feb 8, 2009)

I actually forgot that my camera has live view until I re-read this thread!
I guess that confirms I'm in the "I think it's useless" category.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 8, 2009)

TwoRails said:


> Another way to look at it is: Why is everyone including it in many of their cameras?  There sure must be a lot of folks out there that _do_ like live preview or I don't think manufacturers would be incur the extra cost in building cameras if people (general public) didn't want it.  Live preview helps sell cameras, even if many who want the feature are coming from point-n-shoots.



It's called marketing.  There is a vast market for the shooter that wants to move from point and shoot to DSLR's.  They used the LCD to frame their shots because 1. they didn't like, understand how to use the tiny viewfinder or 2. they had a camera that didn't have a view finder.  To them that is what a camera should have.  

Take a look at this forum itself.  The most posted to forum with the most threads is the beginner forum.  Scroll through the posts at the types of questions being asked.  

Same thing with other things that are marketed.  How many serious photographers bought the 5D MII because it does video vs the number that bought it for the real improvements it brought in the Canon line at that price point.  

Look at today economy for example.  How many people *really intended* to go out and buy a house with an over inflated value, at payments they couldn't really afford and were living off that over inflated home value?  I doubt that you will find one person that says they did that.  Now however we can count the numbers of people that fell for the marketing and bought those houses because they were convinced that they could make it work.  That is the essence of Marketing, selliing eskemoes, ice makers in a blizzard at the north pole and making them happy they did.


----------



## abhilashkumar (Feb 21, 2009)

I have a Sony A300. Live View is something that I only use when I want to take shots from weird angles with the tilting LCD. 

Otherwise live view is not really a big thing. I would have been just as happy without it.


----------

