# Screen or viewfinder?



## Ab$olut (Nov 20, 2006)

So most of us use digital but one thing I can't decide when I want a shot is viewfinder or screen?


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 20, 2006)

Ab$olut said:
			
		

> So most of us use digital but one thing I can't decide when I want a shot is viewfinder or screen?



Being an SLR-person it is never the screen. plus the screens are often rather useless outdoors. and you hold the camera rather far away from your body when looking at the screen... at least I would then have more shake in my hand


----------



## oldnavy170 (Nov 20, 2006)

I like the screen.  Of course my screen moves out and can be moved in any position so I just find it easier!


----------



## seanberry (Nov 20, 2006)

I use the viewfinder, the screen doesn't do "live" preview on a dSLR.  I also find the preview less than live, having some delay on my parents digicam.  I also agree that I feel less shakey with it pressed against my face.


----------



## craig (Nov 20, 2006)

Viewfinder. I have a coolpix 5200 that I use sometimes. The screen is like a video version of what is going on. I can't stand it. Plus I look dorky holding the camera in front of my face as opposed holding it up to my eye. As we all know it is actually all about how cool you look.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 20, 2006)

> Plus I look dorky holding the camera in front of my face as opposed holding it up to my eye




Every wedding I've been to lately...makes me laugh.  There will be at least 25 people...all holding their tiny cameras out at arms length while taking shots.  That's OK...that just means there will be more business for people like me to do it professionally.


----------



## bitteraspects (Nov 20, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Every wedding I've been to lately...makes me laugh. There will be at least 25 people...all holding their tiny cameras out at arms length while taking shots. That's OK...that just means there will be more business for people like me to do it professionally.



indeed.
my first wedding though, there was a guy with the brides party who was shooting with a better camera then me. (he had a 20D, and i shoot my first wedding on a 300D and a H1)


----------



## Flash Harry (Nov 21, 2006)

I've done several where guests had "better" cameras than I, that doesn't mean they got better shots or knew what to do with them even if they did, tools do not make a photographer.


----------



## bitteraspects (Nov 21, 2006)

why thank you. i was not aware of that. here i thought it was the camera that made the photographer. that was the turning point in my career as a photographer. i went out and bought 3 markII 1ds' and 2 nikon D2Xs all because i felt i needed a better camera to make me a better photographer. you have put it all into perspective for me. :roll:


----------



## rmh159 (Nov 21, 2006)

I think the best I've heard is when someone tells me that my dSLR isn't any good cuz they can't see the image on the LCD screen.  I usually just smack my forehead and make a face like someone just kicked me between the legs.


----------



## GrayFox (Nov 21, 2006)

I always use the screen because its just easier when it's on the tripod.


----------



## iflynething (Nov 29, 2006)

When ya gotta DSLR, ya look different looking at the screen. That's for looking at your pictures not taking them!

Now a point and shoot....different story!

~Michael~


----------



## Michael Humle (Nov 29, 2006)

There are only a couple of DSLR's out there that have "Live View" function...personally, I like looking through the viewfinder. When I used non-DSLR digital cameras, and used the screen, the image never turned out like the image I was looking at in the screen.


----------



## iflynething (Nov 29, 2006)

I like the picture in your sig. Michael.

Most of the time that is the case. If you look at the viewfinder you don't get the same image. But I don't ever remember what the picture was supposed to even look like so what I get on the computer is good enough.

Aren't most cameras now, looking in the viewfinder, you see what you get?

~Michael~


----------



## Michael Humle (Nov 29, 2006)

With regard to DSLRs, I know of only two cameras that have Live View screen function like non-DSLRs. One of the models is the Olympus E-330 and the other is a Fuji but I have fogotten the model number...
Thank you for the compliment on my sig....


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 30, 2006)

iflynething said:
			
		

> Aren't most cameras now, looking in the viewfinder, you see what you get?



Nope. With SLRs what you see is almost what you get, but there's usually a difference of a few percent in the coverage of the viewfinder (only very expensive bodies have 100% coverage)... plus of course you won't see _exactly_ what's being captured at the moment of exposure, because the mirror will be up!


----------



## markc (Nov 30, 2006)

Michael Humle said:
			
		

> With regard to DSLRs, I know of only two cameras that have Live View screen function like non-DSLRs. One of the models is the Olympus E-330 and the other is a Fuji but I have fogotten the model number...
> Thank you for the compliment on my sig....


That won't be a real SLR though. The R stand for reflex, which means a mirror. The mirror would be in the way of a live LCD view. Picky, I know.

(Technically you could get a live view with a half-silvered mirror, but the view would be rather dim)


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 30, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> That won't be a real SLR though. The R stand for reflex, which means a mirror. The mirror would be in the way of a live LCD view. Picky, I know.



I assume you're talking about the unnamed Fuji - the Olympus does have a mirror.


----------



## markc (Nov 30, 2006)

Dang. I should have looked at it first. That's a funky set-up. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Michael Humle (Nov 30, 2006)

Please read the following regarding the Olympus having "live View" and being a true DSLR....

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse330evolt.asp


----------



## iflynething (Nov 30, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Nope. With SLRs what you see is almost what you get, but there's usually a difference of a few percent in the coverage of the viewfinder (only very expensive bodies have 100% coverage)... plus of course you won't see _exactly_ what's being captured at the moment of exposure, because the mirror will be up!


 
I guess what I meant so say was they are pretty darn accurate. I wonder if there ever will be a time when you do "see what you get."

That has been the only bad thing about the viewfinder is there is just that slight inaccuracy. But I'm sure it's not off THAT much where you can tell. Most of the time I don't remember what should and what shouldn't have been in the picture.

Thanks for the clear up

~Michael~


----------



## GrfxGuru (Dec 1, 2006)

I'm view finder on the DSLR cuz I have no choice...although if I could choose I'd still do view finder.

On my Kodak P880 I mostly use the view finder but for quick snap stuff I'll use the viewer so I can look beyond the camera to see what's going on before hitting the button...for example people about to walk in shot or something.

Regards,
Peter Witham


----------



## iflynething (Dec 1, 2006)

You make a good point. It would make sense to use the LCD so you can see objects out of the cameras direct point of view!



~Michael~


----------



## CMan (Dec 1, 2006)

On my Finepix, I generally use the screen, but only because the viewfinder it has is pretty much worthless, if you know what I mean...


----------



## Don Simon (Dec 1, 2006)

CMan said:
			
		

> On my Finepix, I generally use the screen, but only because the viewfinder it has is pretty much worthless, if you know what I mean...



I certainly do... I wear glasses and for me, the viewfinders on most compact point & shoot cameras are completely useless. SLR (film) viewfinders were usually much better, but the viewfinders on some digital SLRs is just shocking. This was true even of many film SLRs once autofocus became standard; it seemed like the camera companies decided that not only would we never need to focus manually again, but also we didn't need to see clearly enough to frame a shot properly... if you consider the point of the viewfinder and the point of an SLR, that's a very bad idea. Fortunately the newer generation of DSLRs suggest that the companies have remembered the importance of being able to actually frame a shot and focus.


----------



## LaFoto (Dec 2, 2006)

Well, depending on which camera I use it is either.
When I use the 350D it has to be the viewfinder, it being a DSLR there is no choice. But when I use the Powershot, I have developed a technique of framing quite well with the help of the screen. It even reads in the manual that the frame you get to see in the viewfinder does not quite correspond with the actual frame but what you see on the screen does. And I enjoy the flexibility of that camera's screen which gives my "old and aching" (cough-cough) body opportunity to also take the most interesting perspectives without the need to flop myself onto my belly and shoot from there or climb trees to shoot from there or so (ok, my arms are not so long as to match a tree but ... you get my point, don't you?).


----------

