Recently, I went sightseeing with a friend. Of course, she wanted me to take pictures of her. They didn’t turn out very well. First, I can’t see squat on that little screen unless I cover it with a hand and my vision isn’t that good for something that small. This leads to the second problem, I can’t hold the camera steady with both hands. let alone one. It seems holding to my face would help steady it. I have an old film camera, which is hard to find film for nowadays. I pulled it out and it seems my hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, looking at Amazon, there doesn’t seem to be a camera with a viewfinder in thetop 100. So are cameras with viewfinders extinct or is there a niche market for them?
I have a Canon PowerShot A720 (purchased after soliciting recommendations on this very board) and it has a viewfinder.
try a monopod/foot strap or use the shoulder strap to help steady. use a large brimmed hat to shade screen.
inexpensive (small lower quality) cameras do have simple viewfinders.
All DSLRs have viewfinders (cameras like #1 and #2 on the Amazon list). A few compacts do, like the Canon G12 (#15), and some cameras (like the Panasonic GH2) now have electronic viewfinders…probably best if you can get to a well stocked shop and try some out for yourself.
There are a few digital rangefinders on the market like Fuji X100, Leica M8 and Leica M9. Also, a few of the larger, higher-end compacts like the Canon G12 or the Nikon P7000 have viewfinders (albeit pretty small and useless). And, as zombywoof pointed out, the SLRs all have viewfinders.
Are you half pressing the shutter before snapping the picture? It takes out a lot of camera shake (and reduces the blurriness of the picture).
When you half press the shutter button, the camera will adjust the focus and aperture (all the noises you here when you push the button), when you push it the rest of the way it’ll take the picture almost instantly.
The draw back is that the subjects have to be in about the same place so it’s not that you can run around with the button half pushed all day.
There are only 3 compact P&S cameras on the market today with optical viewfinders; Canon G12, Canon A1200, and the Nikon P7000 (the P7100 was just announced this week). They are all fairly small view finders but I find them useful, especially when shooting on snow and when following a fast moving subject (like a skier).
There is a class of ultrazoom P&S cameras (usually with 20x+ zoom range) that have electronic view finders but that isn’t the same thing as a true optical view finder. They are useful but have some limitations. If your main concern is viewing when composing the shot these may be sufficient but the cameras will be significantly larger.
DSLRs will have optical view finders as well.
Another trick is to use the 2-second timer feature. That helps eliminate some of the camera movement you cause when you push the button. The timer gives you enough time to push the shutter button and steady your hands before the snap.
A good unit, yes, but discontinued years ago. My sister loved hers so much she bought two others off eBay when she couldn’t find them new anymore.
Sadly, the market demands pocket cameras to be smaller and thinner and lighter with every new model, and eliminating the viewfinder was the best way to accomplish this. Add in the craze for double-digit megapixel counts and the quality of photographs goes right in the crapper.
As Telemark noted, there’s three left on the market, and the Powershot A1200 seems to be priced for the consumer market. The G12 would be my choice, for the range of features (manual control and RAW shooting in particular) but its $450-500.00 price would turn off the casual user, as would the Nikon’s $350-400.00 tag.
A shame, for when I shot film, I always had an Olympus Stylus in the bag along with my Pentax SLRs, now I’d rather use the 5D for everything. At least, until I win that lottery, then I’ll snap up a G12 in a heartbeat.
Are you kidding? Every good (read: DSLR) camera has a viewfinder, and it is an accurate one that goes through the lens via mirrors rather than a straight window. Professional photographers do not use the LCD screen to frame shots. It’s just the cheap shitty cameras that don’t have viewfinders.
I think the OP is referring to the cheap, shitty cameras. But I wouldn’t put the Canon G12 or the Coolpix P7100 in that category.
The Powershot A1200 on the other hand, which, while it has an optical viewfinder, lacks aperture/shutter priority and manual controls, does. But for about $110 it’s a P&S that fits the OP’s desires.
This is suggesting that more pixels = worse quality. Is this the case (seems counter-intuitive to me)?
The vast majority of cameras sold today are not DSLRs. Most people do not need the features or performance of a DSLR, and are not willing to put up with the complexity, price, and size. A big feature that all DSLRs now have is LiveView, or the ability to compose shots via the LCD. This has made them more popular among the masses.
But the biggest growth category in cameras are the EVILs (Electronic Viewfinders, Interchangeable Lenses). They are smaller and simpler than most DSLRs, they have no mirror or optical viewfinder, and all composition is via the LCD (or optional EVF). They offer the advantages of bigger sensors and interchangeable lenses without the size or expense of a DSLR, and the main way the manufacturers have delivered that is by removing the mirror and through the lens operation.
I don’t think DSLRs are going away any time soon, but the general public now has other high quality options; from EVILs to high end P&S cameras like the Canon S95 or G12.
It’s a matter of pixel density - there’s a point of diminishing returns where if the manufacturer tries to pack too many pixels on a sensor of a given size, image quality will suffer (digital camera sensors vary pretty widely in size, as you can see here - a typical point & shoot sensor has a small fraction of the area of a DSLR sensor.)
However the average consumer will assume (reasonably, as you did) that more pixels=better, resulting in a marketing-driven megapixel arms race between the manufacturers.
There’s always a tradeoff between pixel count and pixel size. Given the same chip size, more pixels = smaller pixels, and smaller pixel units have worse S/N ratios than large pixels. All the high-ISO monster type dSLRs have large chips (typically 24x36mm) and a fairly moderate pixel count (typically around 12MPx). So, for good high-ISO performance and low noise, you would want fewer pixels, not more. In fact, Canon unexpectedly did something right when the Powershot G11 came out. It had 10MPx, while the G10 had 14 and the G9 had 12.
There’s a limit to how many pixels you actually need. If you only print 10x15cm prints and the occasional 20x30cm, you don’t need 12MPx. And even at 12MPx, lens quality and operator error (can you say “camera shake”?) usually are more important for details in the image than the megapixels are. But since advertisement always tells us that more MPx=better, many consumers have fallen for the myth.
ETA: Damn, ninja’d by zombywoof
This is why I love my Bronica 6x6. Once you’ve looked through a medium format camera’s viewfinder, you will never want to go back to anything less. Here is a diagram comparing the film formats and you can see the enormous advantage to the larger formats compared to 35 (and most digital SLR sensors will be even smaller than the 35mm shown there.)
All this megapixel stuff is so absurd…film is so much more consistent in quality. I realize the advantages of digital (convenience) and still use it when I need to quickly upload a shot of something online or will be taking large volume of pictures.
Like others have pointed out, all DSLRs have viewfinders. Most point-and-shoot cameras do not, but you can still find them. That’s one reason why I like the Canon Powershots because they have many models that still have a viewfinder. BTW, the viewfinder is indispensable in certain lighting situations as well as when the LCD screen stops working or gets cracked (which happened to me :().
No, they don’t. Only the G12 (the top of the line P&S) and the A1200 (a low budget intro camera) still have optical viewfinders. The rest of the models on that link are long since discontinued. The only other Canon with a viewfinder is the big ultrazoom SX30, which has an electronic (not optical) viewfinder. All big ultrazooms have an EVF which is inferior to an optical viewfinder but understandable for a variety of reasons.
As I said upthread, there are only 3 cameras left that have optical viewfinders, and two of them are Canons. 2 is better than 0, but you’re not likely to see many more models from any camera maker. Canon really doesn’t have any more of a commitment to optical viewfinders than any other manufacturer. I wish it were otherwise, but I don’t think there’s enough of a market for them.
Well yeah, but if you want to take proper photos you should get a proper camera. GI/GO, you get what you pay for, etc. etc.
A somewhat related question: How do presbyoptric users usually cope with viewfinderless cameras? I am presbyoptric (need ~9.5 dioptres for distance, ~7 dioptres for reading), use a DSLR by preference but sometimes, for weight reasons, take a smaller camera. I have found that with my normal glasses I don’t get much use of the display for framing purposes - I’d have to hold the camera at arms’ length, looking at a sharp but tiny image. (I am one of those people who eschew bifocal or progressive lenses because I want a full field of vision).