Let’s face it, no one really cares about viewfinder accuracy - the LCD screen is more useful.
The interchangeable lenses is the more desirable trait. Yet it’s inexorably paired with the DSLR label. Let’s see a new generation of cameras for which we let go of the viewfinder and embrace the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. Time for a new label.
The problem with using the LCD screen is that you have to hold the camera away from you. You can’t hold it as steady as you can with it braced against your face.
Also, those little LCD screens don’t have good resolution compared to the actual images, or the eye looking through a viewfinder.
The viewfinder is good. An LCD screen is pretty poor in certain outdoor lighting conditions.
Using the LCD drains the battery really fast (because both the LCD and the CCD are working constantly).
Also there is significantly slower response. In a compact camera before taking a picture the shutter is opened and the CCD on. When you press the button the shutter shuts, the CCD turns off then the shutter reopens and the CCD captures the image.
Wrong! I care. I have a digital SLR that does both. I turned the Live View feature on one time and haven’t used it since.
The LCD does a very poor job of showing you sharp details. What looks good on a 2" LCD screen may look like crap on an 8" x 10" print or a 17" LCD screen. On the 2" screen, I often miss areas of over exposure (blowouts, as I call them).
The 2" screen is almost impossible to use for manual focusing.
Of course, most of my opinion results from 30 years of shooting photos using a viewfinder with an exposure meter built in.
Sorry, another vote for maintaining viewfinders. The segment of the market that will accept the results obtained from view-screen cameras already has them available on point-and-shoots. More advanced cameras also have view screens built in, if you want to use them when composing your pictures. Those of us who are, shall we say, a bit more picky still require a viewfinder for composition, and typically relegate view screen use to reviewing pictures.
I’ve been looking through SLR viewfinders for almost 40 years. Composing images by looking at a LCD screen is fine for point-and-shoot digiitals, but I much prefer using the viewfinder on my DSLRs. I would like to have an articulated LCD screen though, for shots where I’m holding the camera over my head, down on the ground, etc.
The metering through the viewfinder is much faster than with live view from the LCD, at least in all the cameras I’ve tried. Besides that it’s easier to hold the camera stable when it’s in contact with your head.
Also there’s no LCD in the world that can match a viewfinder under strong sunlight conditions.
What? A viewfinder is absolutely critical for a lot of professional shooting, especially tight in action shots. The LCD screen is just too slow and often blurry to be effective, and as others have noted, doesn’t do well in bright outdoor lighting conditions. The articulated display on some high end cameras does definitely have its uses for making static shots at odd or overhead angles, but it is no replacement for a viewfinder.
I’m not clear about your issue with lenses. All prosumer and professional DSLRs that I know of accept interchangeable lenses, and indeed, the availability of lenses is one of the things to look at when selecting a DSLR body/system. Of course, every manufacturer has their proprietary lens mounting interface, so you can’t use a Canon lens on a Nikon or Minolta/Sony, but cameras have always been this way. It is how camera makers keep you hooked into their system; you buy a camera body, you invest in a few lenses, and then when you upgrade, you buy a new camera body from the same manufacturer because you have ten times as much money invested in your lens system. Don’t like it? Go make your own proprietary camera and lens mounts.
Stranger
You can have my optical viewfinder when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
You can purchase interchangeable-lens cameras without going to SLRs. The new Micro4/3rds lines from Panasonic (GH1, GF1) and Olympus (EP-2) can mount almost any lens ever made via adapters and have just the lcd for composing.
Another vote for the need for a real optical viewfinder. I won’t buy any camera, including a P&S, without a viewfinder though they are getting much harder to find. The LCD is useful at times, but nothing like a view finder.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd yet one more vote for the viewfinder as utterly essential, for all the reasons noted above.
Put me in the viewfinder camp.
Maybe when shooting macros under the right light conditions, or trying to take a shot at some weird angle that requires extending the camera away from you. Otherwise I use a viewfinder exclusively. It is far more effective for all the reasons stated above.
ETA: As noted the new micro 4/3 cameras are a good compromise in terms of weight and size, splitting the difference between traditional DSLRs and pocket point and shoot cameras.
Not to mention all we hear about is mexapixels, when sensor size is often more important. We need cameras labelled with actually useful metrics of picture quality.
Agreed, I when I was looking sensor size was one of the factors.
For the most part, the MP wars have stopped. We’re into ISO wars now, without any regard to the quality of the images at those ridiculously high ISO. MP stopped around 15 for P&S cameras, and no one appears to be going beyond that.
The main advantage of a DSLR is sensor size, it always has been. Then next most important piece is lack of shutter lag.
Another vote for viewfinder.
What you you see on the screen is not what the camera will capture. An accurate view of what you’re shooting is essential under certain conditions.
Um, hell no. I far prefer the viewfinder for almost every use. If I’m rapid fire shooting (which is pretty typical for me), I want the camera glued to my face and feel like an extension of my body. Shooting with the LCD screen is much less instinctive to me and creates an unnecessary extra distance between the photographer and subject. It’s also far easier for me to see and quickly frame my subjects in the viewfinder.
I was very pleased to see that Canon went from 14 MP on the G10 to 10 MP on the G11; I used the G10 for underwater photography (until I forgot it in a taxi) and now have a G11 for the same purpose, there’s a good improvement in low light image quality.
I guess I should point out that for UW photography I use the screen almost exclusively, since trying to see through the viewfinder, and the UW case AND the diving mask it’s too much of a hassle most of the time.