I think maybe the designers and manufacturers of compact cameras are going a little wonky in the hea

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
May be it’s the solvents from those super-trick nano coatings they are putting on lenses, but something is definitely screwy.

But I get ahead of myself. Before we get to the subject at hand, let me relate a conversation I had with a photographer at GE’s Research and Development Center in Schenectady, NY, some decades ago.

I asked him why all of the photographers shot with Nikon cameras. At the time, I was a Pentax man, and I figured the difference was like Ford and Chevy, a matter of personal preference.
His answer: “Because Nikon is the only camera that what I see in the viewfinder is exactly what is captured on the film.”

It made sense: accurate framing is probably a good idea when you are a professional photographer.

And that brings us back to the present: why are compact camera manufacturers (A) doing away with viewfinders or (B) offering them as an add-on at punitive prices?

Back of the camera screens do offer accurate framing, a view of what the sensor is seeing, but they can be extremely hard to see in bright sunlight. (Not long ago, there was a review of rugged point-and-shoot cameras on dpreview and one of the cons for the top-rated camera was that the screen was hard to see in bright sunshine. This is as close to a fatal usability flaw as I can think of.) The problem of rear-screen visibility has led to an aftermarket of various devices to provide shading for the rear screen. I bought a Hoodman device for my D550 but stopped using it after a while because it was an annoyance to keep on the camera.

And even if you successfully shade the rear screen, you still don’t get the advantages of a proper viewfinder: ie, it provides an additional point of steadiness by pressing the camera against your face. Steadiness is the thing to have when you are shooting at low shutter speeds or high focal lengths.

So now we are offered cameras that don’t have a viewfinder, but you can buy one at additional cost, and the manufacturers are extremely proud of their viewfinders, judging from the prices. If you own a Ricoh GR, the tariff for an OVF will $200 or more; a Nikon A, about $400; Canon G1X MkII, $300 (EVF); Panasonic LX7 EVF, $150; Sigma DP1, $150; Sony X100 mk II, $450 (EVF).

Now notice this: you can buy an entire Canon point-and-shoot digital camera with a built-in optical viewfinder (albeit not a super precise one), an imaging chip, a zoom lens, software and other goodies for less than $100 brand new. Are the camera manufacturers going to tell us with a straight face that it costs more to manufacture an optical or electronic viewfinder than it does to manufacture an entire camera? Even if you take into account economies of scale, it still doesn’t make sense.

I tell you; I think the manufacturers have been sniffing the fumes from those nano-coating vats and have suffered some kind of vapor lock.

Cheers, Jock
 
Manufacturers are designing for the future generations that are getting old enough to buy their own decent cameras and that generation is the smart phone crowd. This means big clear swipe-able screens that are easily seen even in bright light (mostly!). It costs more to put VF's in compacts so their argument would probably be that the screen is well big enough to see what you are taking. We all know that in many cases it is difficult to see even the best screen in sunlight but saving a few dollars on each camera is a big issue for the makers. It's the same with manuals. We no longer get a decent manual, just a flimsy booklet. They say it's to 'save trees man!' but it's penny pinching. Soon we will not have CD's, manuals or USB leads. Everything will be via the internet! Ho hum!
 
It's the same with manuals. We no longer get a decent manual, just a flimsy booklet. They say it's to 'save trees man!' but it's penny pinching.

To be honest, I have never read through a printed manual of any digital camera I have bought, since I read it before buying the camera just to know, if it is the right camera, or just look up those thing which are not obvious, in which cases I have always prefered the PDF to the printed copy anyway. Thus, I don't care about printed manuals being in the box. But that's just me, of course, others might eventually miss the manual, but that's a rather small crowd. I don't know if that's the case for all manufacturers, but at least there are some who send printed manuals to those who want to own one for free.
 
1- I would agree on the cost of the add on viewfinders, many of them cost 1/3 of the price of the camera. When I bought my first NEX-3, I considered the viewfinder add on, but never did as it cost too much and would sacrifice my flash, (you could have one or the other).

2- Much of the later NEX/ALPHA models incudes a built-in veiwfinder, such as my NEX-6.
 
In Portugal, where it is sunny most of the time (almost everyday from May to October), rear screens - even the best ones - are difficult or very difficult to see during the day. Picking a big, colourful, option in the menu of a smartphone is not the same as framing a picture (from personal experience). And this is not to mention the high and growing percentage of the population which has less than 100% vision (yes, I am part of this group).
As to manuals, I do not mind having a pdf - and I always download them in pdf format even when I have a proper one. But manufacturers might also provide us with a format which we could take with us in our smartphones. It would cost them next to nothing, and be infinitely useful in the field. Reading PDFs in a smartphone is just a pain.
 
Preaching to the converted
Actually I am just old school

I returned That Canon you mentioned being disappointed with the jpeg output - on paper it ticked all the boxes but chalk v cheese compared to the F660

all others with built in VF's are high price - I'm waiting on price reductions & have missed the boat on refurbed X10's - if they are offered again I'll bite the bullet as it seems to fit all my needs long zoom is not essential for me
 
Little point in having an A5 manual with 8 point script - at least with pdf you can print out at sizes that are readable
 
We all know that in many cases it is difficult to see even the best screen in sunlight but saving a few dollars on each camera is a big issue for the makers. It's the same with manuals. We no longer get a decent manual, just a flimsy booklet. They say it's to 'save trees man!' but it's penny pinching. Soon we will not have CD's, manuals or USB leads. Everything will be via the internet! Ho hum!

I look forward to the day when I can download a new camera via the internet!
 
Taking interchangeable lens cameras from being the hybrid digital/analogue descendants of the film era and making them into true digital cameras and then refining them to where they are now has been the most significant technical advance that I have witnessed since I bought my first camera about 15 years ago.
 
i agree with you jock, a camera without a vf aint a camera. and the cost of some of the add ons are absurd, see leicas new $400 model.

however, i will say--and i know im in the minority on this--i like the add on articulating vfs better than integrated ones (except the hybrid x100). first, its stealthy. putting it in waistlevel mode and looking down on the ground makes the photographer even more innocuous. ive taken photos in crowded environments unobserved like this i never could have if i needed to point the cam at the subject. second, in bright light i find it much easier to see when looking down via waist level vs into the light at eye level. as an aside, and not to boost sony as im not a fan of theirs, but the add on vf to the rx1 is the best evf ive ever used. an honest pleasure that i look forward to.
 
I think we need to be a bit more accepting of the fact that one size does not fit all, and understand that camera manufacturers are doing their best to maximize sales and profits (as they should) despite a customer base with a variety of wants and needs. It's just not realistic to think that every camera will meet your personal requirements.
 
I think we need to be a bit more accepting of the fact that one size does not fit all, and understand that camera manufacturers are doing their best to maximize sales and profits (as they should) despite a customer base with a variety of wants and needs. It's just not realistic to think that every camera will meet your personal requirements.

I've seen the viewfinder/screen debate many times and find myself on both sides.

My first and second NEX both had no viewfinder, and I got along just fine. I can't imagine a camera without one and being limited to just a viewfinder.
 
I've seen the viewfinder/screen debate many times and find myself on both sides.

My first and second NEX both had no viewfinder, and I got along just fine. I can't imagine a camera without one and being limited to just a viewfinder.

I think there is an inexpensive solution. Years ago, many inexpensive film cameras and collapsible film cameras had pop-up wireframe viewfinders that would work perfectly well in all kinds of weather. They didn't provide 100% accurate framing, but I think they would be better than fighting reflections on a rear screen in bright sunlight.

Cheers, Jock
 
I don't mind optional EVFs, because I like the idea of modular cameras. That's absolutely no problem for me. However, I really dislike incompatibilities even within the product range of a single manufacturer. Although I can accept that manufacturers want to earn money with the gear I am buying (and they really need to do that!) I dislike the obscenely high prices of some very important optional parts of some manufacturers.
 
Back
Top