Optical viewfinders

I totally agree with you. I cannot *stand* a camera w/out a viewfinder, be
it just a hole in the camera optical, or an Electronic Viewfinder (my
preference)
I couldn't deal with an LCD
alone. When I"m looking at cameras, if it doesn't have a viewfinder, it's
off my list.
I've seen some Sony's with a viewfinder as well as an LCD.
->->Most Canons have a viewfinder as well as an LCD. I have 3 Canons, I love
them. They make incredible cameras!
The Camera doesn't have to be big to have a viewfinder, look at the newest
Canon digital Elph.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/sd1000.html

I don't get it, do the camera makers think that nobody is ever going to take
a picture in bright sunlight? The LCD washes out in bright sunlight, you
can't see it.

And as you implied, is there *any* more unstable position than holding a
camera at arms length to take a picture. (Not to mention, IMO it looks
funny:-))

Joe



> thoss wrote:
>> These seem to have completely disappeared from current compact cameras.
>> How do people manage without them? The viewing screen is no adequate
>> substitute.
 >> Stay informed about: Optical viewfinders 

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:50:01 -0600, "Joe Fisher"
wrote:

>I totally agree with you. I cannot *stand* a camera w/out a viewfinder, be
>it just a hole in the camera optical, or an Electronic Viewfinder (my
>preference)
>I couldn't deal with an LCD
>alone. When I"m looking at cameras, if it doesn't have a viewfinder, it's
>off my list.
>I've seen some Sony's with a viewfinder as well as an LCD.
>->->Most Canons have a viewfinder as well as an LCD. I have 3 Canons, I love
>them. They make incredible cameras!
>The Camera doesn't have to be big to have a viewfinder, look at the newest
>Canon digital Elph.
>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/sd1000.html
>
>I don't get it, do the camera makers think that nobody is ever going to take
>a picture in bright sunlight? The LCD washes out in bright sunlight, you
>can't see it.
>
>And as you implied, is there *any* more unstable position than holding a
>camera at arms length to take a picture. (Not to mention, IMO it looks
>funny:-))
>
>Joe
>

I am with you on this one.....
I've been shopping for a new digital camera and I was rather shocked
to find that most of them lack the viewfinders these days. I played
with some of them in the stores and I found a few brands that I liked
the way they worked and the way they have their features. Many of
these were in my price range and I liked the pictures they took even
though "in the store" pics are not the best way to test a camera,
especially under florescent lights. However, I could not see myself
holding a camera a foot or more away from my face to take a pic. It's
not just unsteady, but it's just no the way to take a pic. I spent
long hours reading photography books when I was younger, and I had a
high end film camera that took great pics. One of the first things I
learned was to hold a camera tightly against my face to steady it.
Well, thats not at all possible with a camera that lacks a viewfinder.
I dont care how large the lcd screeen is, it's just not the way to
take a pic.

Every one of the brands that lacked viewfinders lost my sale. One
brand/model in particular I would have bought when it was on sale,
because I had the money and liked the other features. But I just
could not get myself to buy a camera without a viewfinder.

I have seen that the Canons all have them, and I will just have to
save a little longer until I can afford the higher price, which is
nearly double what the other one would have cost. Hopefully a Canon
will soon go on sale. Or, maybe I will find an older model of another
brand name since most older ones still had the viewfinders. In all
honesty, I'd rather have less megapixels. I used a 3mp camera for
several years and was completely satisfied with the quailty. I dont
even want anything over 6mp because it just eats up card space for
nothing. I was told that at least some, if not all of these cameras
can be set to a lower resolution, so I suppose that would help, but I
still cant see the reason for such large MP sizes, except for those
that are trying to make huge posters. My former 3mp camera did fine
for a 6 inch picture.


>
>
>> thoss wrote:
>>> These seem to have completely disappeared from current compact cameras.
>>> How do people manage without them? The viewing screen is no adequate
>>> substitute.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Optical viewfinders 

wrote in message

> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:50:01 -0600, "Joe Fisher"
> wrote:
>
>>I totally agree with you. I cannot *stand* a camera w/out a viewfinder, be
>>it just a hole in the camera optical, or an Electronic Viewfinder (my
>>preference)
>>I couldn't deal with an LCD
>>alone. When I"m looking at cameras, if it doesn't have a viewfinder, it's
>>off my list.
>>I've seen some Sony's with a viewfinder as well as an LCD.
>>->->Most Canons have a viewfinder as well as an LCD. I have 3 Canons, I
>>love
>>them. They make incredible cameras!
>>The Camera doesn't have to be big to have a viewfinder, look at the newest
>>Canon digital Elph.
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/sd1000.html
>>
>>I don't get it, do the camera makers think that nobody is ever going to
>>take
>>a picture in bright sunlight? The LCD washes out in bright sunlight, you
>>can't see it.
>>
>>And as you implied, is there *any* more unstable position than holding a
>>camera at arms length to take a picture. (Not to mention, IMO it looks
>>funny:-))
>>
>>Joe
>>
>
> I am with you on this one.....
> I've been shopping for a new digital camera and I was rather shocked
> to find that most of them lack the viewfinders these days. I played
> with some of them in the stores and I found a few brands that I liked
> the way they worked and the way they have their features. Many of
> these were in my price range and I liked the pictures they took even
> though "in the store" pics are not the best way to test a camera,
> especially under florescent lights. However, I could not see myself
> holding a camera a foot or more away from my face to take a pic. It's
> not just unsteady, but it's just no the way to take a pic. I spent
> long hours reading photography books when I was younger, and I had a
> high end film camera that took great pics. One of the first things I
> learned was to hold a camera tightly against my face to steady it.
> Well, thats not at all possible with a camera that lacks a viewfinder.
> I dont care how large the lcd screeen is, it's just not the way to
> take a pic.
>
> Every one of the brands that lacked viewfinders lost my sale. One
> brand/model in particular I would have bought when it was on sale,
> because I had the money and liked the other features. But I just
> could not get myself to buy a camera without a viewfinder.
>
> I have seen that the Canons all have them, and I will just have to
> save a little longer until I can afford the higher price, which is
> nearly double what the other one would have cost. Hopefully a Canon
> will soon go on sale. Or, maybe I will find an older model of another
> brand name since most older ones still had the viewfinders. In all
> honesty, I'd rather have less megapixels. I used a 3mp camera for
> several years and was completely satisfied with the quailty. I dont
> even want anything over 6mp because it just eats up card space for
> nothing. I was told that at least some, if not all of these cameras
> can be set to a lower resolution, so I suppose that would help, but I
> still cant see the reason for such large MP sizes, except for those
> that are trying to make huge posters. My former 3mp camera did fine
> for a 6 inch picture.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> thoss wrote:
>>>> These seem to have completely disappeared from current compact cameras.
>>>> How do people manage without them? The viewing screen is no adequate
>>>> substitute.
>>
>
Just brought a Canon Ixus 70 from Amazon arrived today! - this has a view
finder - nice if you want a really small compact.

Nicks
 >> Stay informed about: Optical viewfinders