Viewfinder superior. LCD inferior.
On a related note, does anyone know what the human eye is comparable to as far as sensor size and megapixels?
-Joe
How old are you? Some of us cannot see the blasted LCD with any fidelity. A viewfinder is the ONLY way I can think about taking photos.
There was a bit of recently discussion on that here. Basically, you can’t directly compare the two.
On a sunny day the LCD screen = point and pray. Must have a viewfinder.
Another vote for viewfinders. My Canon has live view and I only ever use it when shooting video. I find it very imprecise for still shots.
Hubby shoots with an Olympus E(insert some number here, 3 I think) and it has the articulated LCD screen. Very nice have both cameras to give us some added flexibility.
I also would much rather have a viewfinder than an LCD screen. Just get rid of it and save batteries. I’m not some teenager who is going to pass around the picture I just took so everyone can say “ooh”. And while you are at it, put some more knobs on the camera instead of those stupid menus, and make it about 10 times simpler. I have a computer that I can use to manipulate the photos later.
I always laugh when I see people holding their point-n-shoots at arm’s length, squinting as they try to see the LCD in bright sunlight.
The LCD-only camera is purely for amateurs - those people who think a good photo is a blurry under-exposed mess.
No, LCDs deserve to be on all digital cameras. They allow you to review shots to make sure you got what you wanted. They allow you to see if the settings you chose captured the image as you pictured it. The ability to review is a key improvement for digital over film.
And in some situations, such as on a tripod or shooting macro, the LCD is much better than using the viewfinder. And with the vast array of menus on some cameras the LCD is invaluable.
But I want a viewfinder too.
Some time next year, I will have taken my 1,000,000th photograph. LCD’s as viewfinders are useless.
I review my photos through the viewfinder. Works for me.
Yes, I agree an LCD is useful on a tripod. Good point.
Heck I have a hard time getting the brightness on my LCD screen to match what actually comes out of the camera so it doesn’t even give me an accurate idea of exposure.
View finder. I just occasionally ‘check to see I got it’.
Same here in terms of exposures (although I think I’m over a million at this point). As viewfinders, they are mostly useless. When I’m shooting from the ground level, the Live View on my camera is a godsend. I would also think an articulated LCD for over-the-head shooting would be quite useful, although I’ve gotten quite good at framing pictures without it.
In terms of other information they give you, like histograms and a general idea of lighting balance (like when you’re using multiple external strobes), they are indispensable. The key, Zebra, is not to judge your exposure on what you see on the back of the LCD. It’s learning how to read the histograms and how to use the “highlight warnings” display properly. Indoors, you can make a decent judgment of exposure based on the LCD image, but outdoors it can be impossible. Learn how to use the histograms, and there’s no problem.
That’s an LCD, just a tiny one. I use that on my ultrazoom but a) it’s not as good as a true optical viewfinder, and b) I still want a bigger LCD.
On an ultrazoom, you’ll probably never get a true optical viewfinder since they’d have to make a big zoom lens for the viewfinder itself, increasing the size of the camera. An EVF is a nice compromise, but nothing like an optical viewfinder in an SLR.
Viewfinder in a landslide.
I have age related farsightedness and there’s nothing more antithetical to the process of photogaphy than having to put on freaking reading glasses to attempt to see in a teeny little LCD screen if my shot is framed right. I’ll be buying a DSLR with a viewfinder as soon as I can save up for it.
Digital allows me to easily shoot more than 500 photos a day. I didn’t say they were any good.
This doesn’t seem to be going the way the OP expected. 
It’s like that old saying, do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall? Focusing focusing focusing. Or something like that…
Viewfinders, with the old-school microprisms or the new sensor dots within the viewfinder, are invaluable to taking great pictures with manual focus. I have yet to meet an autofocus that reliably grabs what I want when I want it, especially if I have a shallow depth of field. LCD displays just can’t cut it.
The modern professional dSLRs and a good number of the amateur dSLRs have excellent AF capabilities, given the right lenses, that surpass a human most of the time. The vast majority of the sports photographers you see on the sidelines are using AF, and have been since at least the early-to-mid-90s or so when AF technology began to surpass experienced manually focusing in most situations. (The EOS-1 series and then the Nikon F5 made AF the favored shooting mode of many photographers.) The only time I ever end up using MF these days is in really dodgy low-contrast lighting situations.