Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Herbc on September 28, 2013, 01:01:37 pm
-
I have a NEX-7, quite happy with it. It puzzles me that several of the "Fantastic""!!! (if you believe the reviews) do not have an eye level viewfinder, optical or electronic.
Do that many people really shoot from the lcd on the back of the camera? Those of us geezers cannot really use the lcd for serious work due to failing eyesight.
-
I don't think it's an age related factor - try shooting F1 using a waist level finder - or the LCD in live view. For fun I tried it at the Belgium Grand Prix in August - hopeless. In fact the eye level viewfinder isn't easy what with shutter lag combined with reaction time. Panning is a must when the cars are right in front of you.
Glenn
-
It puzzles me that several of the "Fantastic""!!! (if you believe the reviews) do not have an eye level viewfinder, optical or electronic.
Do that many people really shoot from the lcd on the back of the camera? Those of us geezers cannot really use the lcd for serious work due to failing eyesight.
... try shooting F1 using a waist level finder - or the LCD in live view. For fun I tried it at the Belgium Grand Prix in August - hopeless. In fact the eye level viewfinder isn't easy what with shutter lag combined with reaction time.
Some CSC's have EVFs, while others do not; the ones without EVF's tend to be cheaper and lighter, and some [millions of] people are comfortable enough using the two-eyed rear-screen viewfinder that they prefer this trade-off. There also exist people who are able compose with a rear screen while bracing the camera firmly with arms to torso, despite the endlessly repeated "arm's length" drivel from some members of this forum. (I use the rear-screen this way sometimes, though I personally prefer the EVF at other times.)
I do not understand why so many people keep making these sort of posts, complaining about the mere existence of products that do not suit their needs or wants when there are plenty of other options that do suit their needs. It is as if they think that every camera buyer should sleep in their Procrustean bed.
-
Down to cost cutting I think it's worth pointing out that CSCs' without viewfinders are not cheaper than DSLR's in general so it's a margin/profit grab strategy IMO.
In a way similar to normal compacts and even many bridge type superzooms having no viewfinder (many of them)
The industry does not always look ahead at times and makes poor choices, this is one example of that.
-
Barry,
Most of the CSCs without EVFs are considerably smaller than DSLR's, which is proobably their primary attraction for many buyers. And then, for customers having decided to go small and so ruling out a DSLR, the CSCs without EVF generally have an advantage in both bulk and price over those with.
-
Agreed. I have bought two CSC's, the original Olympus OM-D, and now the Fuji X E-1. They are each wonderful cameras in their own way. Both have EVF's and the EVF's are quite usable.
I would love to have a Sony RX100II but while I have been attracted by the size and image quality, pocketable is nice, I have been turned off by a $750 camera without an EVF. It must be a combination of size, though I'm certain Sony could get one in of they really wanted to, and price. In the RX100II Sony has the opportunity to sell you a $400 finder that costs 53% of the entire price of the camera! And I haven't even mentioned the lovely $2,800 Sony RX-1R which also has no finder. At least with the RX-1 the finder is a smaller proportion of the cost of the entire camera :)
-
Barry,
Most of the CSCs without EVFs are considerably smaller than DSLR's, which is proobably their primary attraction for many buyers. And then, for customers having decided to go small and so ruling out a DSLR, the CSCs without EVF generally have an advantage in both bulk and price over those with.
I get your point but I'm not seeing any price advantage here. Bar the odd blowout Panasonic or Samsung the CSC's are not really cheaper than DSLR's at that price point.
I also get the space saving argument, but I honestly do think it's more about cost savings myself.