Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: tom b on May 23, 2010, 11:21:08 pm
-
I got a phone call from thirty-something year old Renee, one our designers this morning. She had borrowed a camera from us and was taking some photos of a room on the other side of the city.
She thought the camera wasn't working. She had turned the camera on and no image was appearing on the LCD screen.
It took me a while to realise what was happening.
You've got to look through the viewfinder was my reply. Take the photo and then look at the screen.
She's just walked back into the office. "I worked it out" was her reply.
Have you used a SLR before?
"No this was my first time".
I think my chances of getting a small 35mm digital camera with a viewfinder are fading fast!
Cheers,
-
How to choke on one's coffee!
Rob C
-
I must confess that I'm surprised you're surprised. That's exactly the reaction I get, irrespective of age, pretty much every time I hand my DSLR to someone so I can actually appear in a photo (normally, for what I regard as pretty good reasons, I stay behind the lens!),.
Jeremy
-
I gave my son on his 21st birthday my dad's beautiful old wristwatch which I had re-conditioned at considerable expense. He loved the present and I felt great. He phoned 2 days later and said the watch doesn't work. I freaked and told him to send it back to me and I'de take it to where is was repaired.
Fortunately I asked the question, "Did you wind it". "No" was the reply. It wasn't even considered. . .
Brian
-
An acquaintance of mine, let's call him Chuck, a typical Finnish name, lent a bunch of old Led Zeppelin and other vinyl records to his nephew who had just gotten to the age where he started appreciating rock. A few weeks later he visits him, and they start listening to the records, sharing their favorite tunes.
As the record ends, Chuck gets up and changes sides on the record. His nephew is looking at this, mouth agape. It didn't even occur to him there are two sides on the records, and realizes he just doubled the amount of music available on them
And this was ten years ago...
-
My son is now 33. When he was about 10 I was given a refurbished old phone as a gift. It had a dial.
We plugged it in in the living room for occasional use, but more as a decoration. The next day he picked up the receiver to call a friend and stood there blankly. Eventually he asked, "Where are the buttons so I can "dial" the number"?
Michael
-
I know one young person who was thrilled when her new DSLR had something called "live view" -- now she can hold the camera out at arms length to shoot all her photos. Just like a "real" camera, she says.
-
An acquaintance of mine, let's call him Chuck, a typical Finnish name, lent a bunch of old Led Zeppelin and other vinyl records to his nephew who had just gotten to the age where he started appreciating rock. A few weeks later he visits him, and they start listening to the records, sharing their favorite tunes.
As the record ends, Chuck gets up and changes sides on the record. His nephew is looking at this, mouth agape. It didn't even occur to him there are two sides on the records, and realizes he just doubled the amount of music available on them
And this was ten years ago...
As we are talking Led Zeppelin, are you sure the nephew was really as dumb as he seemed?
Rob C
-
My son is now 33. When he was about 10 I was given a refurbished old phone as a gift. It had a dial.
We plugged it in in the living room for occasional use, but more as a decoration. The next day he picked up the receiver to call a friend and stood there blankly. Eventually he asked, "Where are the buttons so I can "dial" the number"?
Michael
Being just 20 days away from my 30th birthday can I point out that all the phones in our house when I was that age were still rotary dial? No doubt it being the industrialised North of England we were far from being as technologically advanced as over the other side of the pond...
-
I have the same fun when someone drives my car. You have to manually switch on the fuel pump, the indicators (turn signals) and windscreen wipers don't auto cancel...
-
I still keep an old manual phone in the closet for those times when we lose power here on the island. I was about to drop my land line when my wife brought up hurricanes and earthquakes, both of which we are subject to and either of which could knock out the cellphone towers, so we still have it.
-
I must confess that I'm surprised you're surprised. That's exactly the reaction I get, irrespective of age, pretty much every time I hand my DSLR to someone so I can actually appear in a photo (normally, for what I regard as pretty good reasons, I stay behind the lens!),.
Jeremy
The same here.
90% of cameras in this world are not DSLR, so I would expect a non photographer to be a little "disoriented" handling one.
-
I have the same fun when someone drives my car. You have to manually switch on the fuel pump, the indicators (turn signals) and windscreen wipers don't auto cancel...
But at least your steering wheel is on the correct side of the car!
Jeremy
-
The same here.
90% of cameras in this world are not DSLR, so I would expect a non photographer to be a little "disoriented" handling one.
Renee is in her thirties. It has only been in the past half a dozen or so years that digicams have been around for most people. Prior to that everyone looked through some kind of viewfinder and clicked to take a photo.
I wrote "I think my chances of getting a small 35mm digital camera with a viewfinder are fading fast!"
As a person who wears glasses I find looking at LCD screens to be a less than pleasant experience. I find it disturbing that it has taken such little time for people to forget about using viewfinders.
Cheers,
-
As a person who wears glasses I find looking at LCD screens to be a less than pleasant experience.
As another glass-wearer that's a strange statement to hear. I find using viewfinders with glasses a major hassle - eye relief is never enough so I have to move my head around ever so slightly to get the full frame, or mash my face, eye and glasses against the viewfinder. I much prefer using the ground glass on my TLR over any SLR/dSLR viewfinder I've used.
Not saying LCDs don't have their own major problems - the main one for me being lack of stability when holding a camera at arm's length. But it's far from a clear case of viewfinders winning over LCDs.
-
As another glass-wearer that's a strange statement to hear. I find using viewfinders with glasses a major hassle - eye relief is never enough so I have to move my head around ever so slightly to get the full frame, or mash my face, eye and glasses against the viewfinder. I much prefer using the ground glass on my TLR over any SLR/dSLR viewfinder I've used.
Not saying LCDs don't have their own major problems - the main one for me being lack of stability when holding a camera at arm's length. But it's far from a clear case of viewfinders winning over LCDs.
I wear reading glasses. So if I am out walking and taking photos I have to stop and put on my glasses if I want to view a LCD. Then I have to take them off when I start walking again. It's a real pain.
With a DSLR, I adjust the viewfinder diopter control and I don't have to wear glasses with the camera.
I may have to put on my glasses if I review images but that isn't necessary most of the time.
I'm long sighted so most viewfinders are to be preferred over no viewfinder (ie LCD)
A digital camera with a viewfinder still has to have a LCD. You can still have live view. It's not either/or, you can have both.
A viewfinder can give you speed, aperture, ISO info etc at the time of taking the image so you can make adjustments depending on the figures.
By putting the camera to your eye it is more stable and more discrete that outstretched arms (at least in my experience).
The choice some kind of manual focusing plus autofocusing is better that just autofocusing.
These are advantages that shouldn't be lost. Let's have our cake and eat it too!
Cheers
-
I wear reading glasses. So if I am out walking and taking photos I have to stop and put on my glasses if I want to view a LCD. Then I have to take them off when I start walking again. It's a real pain.
With a DSLR, I adjust the viewfinder diopter control and I don't have to wear glasses with the camera.
I may have to put on my glasses if I review images but that isn't necessary most of the time.
I'm long sighted so most viewfinders are to be preferred over no viewfinder (ie LCD)
A digital camera with a viewfinder still has to have a LCD. You can still have live view. It's not either/or, you can have both.
A viewfinder can give you speed, aperture, ISO info etc at the time of taking the image so you can make adjustments depending on the figures.
By putting the camera to your eye it is more stable and more discrete that outstretched arms (at least in my experience).
The choice some kind of manual focusing plus autofocusing is better that just autofocusing.
These are advantages that shouldn't be lost. Let's have our cake and eat it too!
Cheers
Ditto. Glad you made the distinction between full-time eyeglass wearers and those who need reading glasses (like me). I'd be happy with one of those Oly MFT cameras, but without a viewfinder I would not buy one. I have had a couple of P&S digicams that had no viewfinder and in my case I have to hold them a couple of feet away to be able to see the LCD when I don't have my reading glasses with me. That's going to get worse with age. It's not good enough. In my case I get a LOT of non-horizontal horizons, which hardly ever happens when I use a viewfinder. I recently bought a new P&S, some small Canon thing, because it has a viewfinder. I don't know what percentage of the scene it shows and don't care because I can compensate for that with practice, same way I did with almost every film SLR I ever owned.
I have a difficult time with the notion that viewfinders are being eliminated because of cost. I'd pay $50 extra for a Oly EP-n that had a viewfinder. Hell, even $100 extra. Compared to the cost of the camera, lenses, software, computers, that amount is forgettable. And I'm not stuck in the past either, the viewfinder can be an EVF, doesn't have to be optical. An optical viewfinder matters in sports coverage, obviously, but given the fact that everyone wants live view on their LCDs, an EVF should be fine. (I own a Sony R1 and it works fine in that old camera. If it would help reduce cost, if that's important, I'd even be happy with a B&W EVF. I can look at the real scene if I want to see the colours, who cares how colour-accurate the camera's screen is, I just want the viewfinder so I can frame properly.
-
Ditto. Glad you made the distinction between full-time eyeglass wearers and those who need reading glasses (like me). I'd be happy with one of those Oly MFT cameras, but without a viewfinder I would not buy one. I have had a couple of P&S digicams that had no viewfinder and in my case I have to hold them a couple of feet away to be able to see the LCD when I don't have my reading glasses with me. That's going to get worse with age. It's not good enough. In my case I get a LOT of non-horizontal horizons, which hardly ever happens when I use a viewfinder. I recently bought a new P&S, some small Canon thing, because it has a viewfinder. I don't know what percentage of the scene it shows and don't care because I can compensate for that with practice, same way I did with almost every film SLR I ever owned.
I have a difficult time with the notion that viewfinders are being eliminated because of cost. I'd pay $50 extra for a Oly EP-n that had a viewfinder. Hell, even $100 extra. Compared to the cost of the camera, lenses, software, computers, that amount is forgettable. And I'm not stuck in the past either, the viewfinder can be an EVF, doesn't have to be optical. An optical viewfinder matters in sports coverage, obviously, but given the fact that everyone wants live view on their LCDs, an EVF should be fine. (I own a Sony R1 and it works fine in that old camera. If it would help reduce cost, if that's important, I'd even be happy with a B&W EVF. I can look at the real scene if I want to see the colours, who cares how colour-accurate the camera's screen is, I just want the viewfinder so I can frame properly.
I too use reading glasses and the LCD screen is, for me, useless as I need to put my glasses on to see it but then cannot see anything that is not at reading distance. I had a pair of sunglasses made with reading lens at the bottom and a neutral density layer at the top and it does allow me to use my G 10 but I still much prefer my viewfinder cameras. For me no viewfinder = no purchase.
Dave
-
This whole issue is typical of the present-day triumph of style over substance. Taking a photograph with the camera held out in front of you is inherently poor practice. It's fine to view the image on a screen if the camera is mounted on a tripod, of course, but for hand-held shooting it is just silly unless you are using a 'Blad or Rollei with a WLF, in which case the camera is braced back against your abdomen. The demise of the viewfinder on compact cameras is also very ageist and discriminatory, because for anyone over 50 the new compacts become pretty unusable as you will need to wear reading glasses to see the screen. I have exactly the same problem with them, and I would never consider buying one.
And another thing, while I'm feeling all grouchy and sidelined by the the world and its nonsensical lack of respect for the lessons of the past. I went to buy a monitor yesterday, and found to my horror that the only things on offer at PC World were all ridiculous wide-screen travesties which were like looking at the world through a letter-box slot (does no-one print portrait format anymore?). I had to rootle around through piles of boxes to find a sensible 19 inch 1280x1024 panel which the salesman didn't even know they had ("Oh no, we don't do those anymore, sir"). And they only had two. So soon, if you want a normal proportion monitor, you will probably have to get an Eizo or other incredibly expensive device.
John
-
And another thing, while I'm feeling all grouchy and sidelined by the the world and its nonsensical lack of respect for the lessons of the past. I went to buy a monitor yesterday, and found to my horror that the only things on offer at PC World were all ridiculous wide-screen travesties which were like looking at the world through a letter-box slot (does no-one print portrait format anymore?). I had to rootle around through piles of boxes to find a sensible 19 inch 1280x1024 panel which the salesman didn't even know they had ("Oh no, we don't do those anymore, sir"). And they only had two. So soon, if you want a normal proportion monitor, you will probably have to get an Eizo or other incredibly expensive device.
John
One of the programmers at work has two Dell widescreen monitors. One is used in landscape mode and the other is used in portrait mode.
I understand your problem though. I was a bit grumpy when I got a widescreen at work but I must admit that as I was doing a lot of layout in InDesign it was great for working on spreads.
Cheers,
-
Back in 1989, when I was still doing the occasional still-life, I needed a vinyl record to use as a prop. So I ask my assistant to get me a few "LP records". I get a blank stare. Then after I explain to him what they look like, he still can't figure it out. I get them from a friend. Then he says "It's too large to fit into the tape deck!"
Kumar
-
Kumar, thanks for the best belly laugh of the weekend.
But you know, we should all stop this, we're starting to sound like a bunch of crotchety old geysers.
-
Hey, I'm only 51, and just getting into my stride
Kumar
-
Ah, 51!
Too young to be crotchety yet too old to be hip!
The Empty Quarter, then.
But it improves when you get the pension: then excitement re-enters your life as you wonder how well you will make it to the end of the week! Whether you will make it to the end of the week.
;-)
Rob C
-
Thanks to some great investment advisers - yes, there are some in India I already get annuities! And living in Japan is enough excitement!!
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Ah, 51!
Too young to be crotchety yet too old to be hip!
I'm 50. I've been crotchety for years: ask my wife. There are no rules!
Jeremy
-
The British/Australian description would be "Grumpy old men". Being one I should know.
Cheers,
-
That's what gets us curmudgeons a bad press.
Rob C
-
That's what gets us curmudgeons a bad press.
Rob C
When I think of curmudgeons, or Grumpy Old Men, I immediately think of Rob C, Ray, myself, and sometimes Russ.
Well, I guess any list would have to include Schewe, the undisputed Master Curmudgeon.
Eric
-
Back in 1989, when I was still doing the occasional still-life, I needed a vinyl record to use as a prop. So I ask my assistant to get me a few "LP records". I get a blank stare. Then after I explain to him what they look like, he still can't figure it out. I get them from a friend. Then he says "It's too large to fit into the tape deck!"
Kumar
It isn't only old technology that befuddles young people. I recently took a CD to Office Depot to have some contact sheets printed after my Epson acted up. The young lady who manages that department insisted that the CD was blank, so after several tries I decided to help. She was inserting it upside down! After the contact sheets were printed, she looked at them. " Architectural photography, oh I could do that ", she said. I should have asked why she was working at Office Depot then.
-
[quote name='Harold Clark' date='Jun 2 2010, 01:47 AM' post='369008']
It isn't only old technology that befuddles young people. I recently took a CD to Office Depot to have some contact sheets printed after my Epson acted up. The young lady who manages that department insisted that the CD was blank, so after several tries I decided to help. She was inserting it upside down! After the contact sheets were printed, she looked at them. " Architectural photography, oh I could do that ", she said. I should have asked why she was working at Office Depot then.
/quote]
Harold, she wouldn't have understood your point which, actually, is the point.
It's only the lack of understanding of what photography really demands from the photographer that gives rise to those kinds of remarks from the laity; feel sorry for them once they try.
Rob C
-
Harold, she wouldn't have understood your point which, actually, is the point.
It's only the lack of understanding of what photography really demands from the photographer that gives rise to those kinds of remarks from the laity; feel sorry for them once they try.
Rob C
We should probably not judge too quickly or too harshly. The expression "...oh, I could do that" might mean, "I wish I could that do that (instead of this)", rather than, "I am able to do that." We should probably welcome the enthusiasm, it means that she finds the work interesting and fun. That's a good thing.
-
We should probably not judge too quickly or too harshly. The expression "...oh, I could do that" might mean, "I wish I could that do that (instead of this)", rather than, "I am able to do that." We should probably welcome the enthusiasm, it means that she finds the work interesting and fun. That's a good thing.
Very good point, although in the way she spoke she felt she was capable of doing it. Now, maybe she is capable, but what the general public doesn't understand is that it takes a great deal of study and practical experience to develop one's ability.
I will readily admit to anybody that although I own a drill, I am probably not a very good dentist. Speaking of which, even my dentist tells me that patients arriving at his office these days claim to know more about dental procedures than he does, with decades of experience.
-
Very good point, although in the way she spoke she felt she was capable of doing it. Now, maybe she is capable, but what the general public doesn't understand is that it takes a great deal of study and practical experience to develop one's ability.
I will readily admit to anybody that although I own a drill, I am probably not a very good dentist. Speaking of which, even my dentist tells me that patients arriving at his office these days claim to know more about dental procedures than he does, with decades of experience.
I recently thought of a nice gift to give my son. After acquiring a 5D Mark 2 and 1D Mark 3 I told my wife I would give my son (23 years old) my 50D and 17-40mm L lens. She stated he might be overwhelmed. I proceeded to give it to him anyway, prefacing the conversation with how proud I was of him. After giving him 20 minutes or so instructions of how to use it, I could see him drifting off in to space.
After observing that he never opened the box nor manual I convinced him that I would take it back and sell it. He never blinked. It never occurred to me that he only used point-and-shoots from an early age. I guess this is the way I feel when I've observed more experienced photographers using Mamiyas and Hasselblads.
-
I recently thought of a nice gift to give my son. After acquiring a 5D Mark 2 and 1D Mark 3 I told my wife I would give my son (23 years old) my 50D and 17-40mm L lens. She stated he might be overwhelmed. I proceeded to give it to him anyway, prefacing the conversation with how proud I was of him. After giving him 20 minutes or so instructions of how to use it, I could see him drifting off in to space.
After observing that he never opened the box nor manual I convinced him that I would take it back and sell it. He never blinked. It never occurred to me that he only used point-and-shoots from an early age. I guess this is the way I feel when I've observed more experienced photographers using Mamiyas and Hasselblads.
Another thing to consider is that photography doesn't appeal to everyone and just as well!
I used to have a studio a few miles away from the family home, and when studio work fell off I let it go and yes, of course, no sooner did I do that than studio work came back for me. So I built a new one alongside the house and, as a consequence, Nikons and 'blads were left lying around the place in a not-so-subtle attempt to interest either my son or daughter in the gentle art. Not a one took the slightest notice.
Just as well, I suppose, but it was difficult to understand that it left them both stone cold.
Rob C
-
Re: "grumpy". Recent research shows that...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8339647.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8339647.stm)
-
Re: "grumpy". Recent research shows that...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8339647.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8339647.stm)
Uh oh! That report almost makes me feel happy, dagnabbit! I better not. The risk is too high.
-
I do believe there's something to the idea, but it doesn't follow that having a more clear mind leads to greater success in worldly terms.
I have noticed that it is the jolly, back-slapping networker who seems to pull off more work, drive the better car and be on more pleasant terms with his bank manager. Well, on the last point I'm just guessing. People, in general, seem to prefer the company of habitual laughers to that of sterner companions; as my late mothert-in-law was fond of saying: laugh and the world laughs with you, but cry and you cry alone. She was darn right.
For my part, I find the whole concept of the loud all-male bar group to be something I would avoid at all costs - I have managed to avoid it most of the time and don't feel I've missed a thing. But then, I have never sat through a reality tv show either...
But no, I don't bore myself at all; in fact, I have wonderful conversations with myself but with a major drawback: no conclusions ever get reached.
Maybe I need to get out more and laugh loudly at nothing.
;-(
Rob C
-
While we are being Grumpy Old Men, it is apparently good for my health to get this off my chest:
It is not necessary to hold a camera at arms' length in order to compose on an LCD (unless you have vision problems).
WIth my pocket cameras, I compose on the LCD with my upper arms pressed against my torso and the camera very stable. Use of a short neck-strap pulled tight is another often-described method of stabilizing with Live View.
Just because many casual snapshooters use rear LCDs at arms' length for convenience or out of ignorance or lack of concern for camera stability ("that's what IS is for") does not mean that there are not better alternatives for more careful photographers!
One would think that those who repeat the "arms' length" canard have never read any of the many posts from careful, competent photographers about "best practice" with Live View. But I should not be surprised, as it often seems that for some people internet forums are a "write only" interface.
-
But I should not be surprised, as it often seems that for some people internet forums are a "write only" interface.
Very nicely put.
-
While we are being Grumpy Old Men, it is apparently good for my health to get this off my chest:
It is not necessary to hold a camera at arms' length in order to compose on an LCD (unless you have vision problems).
WIth my pocket cameras, I compose on the LCD with my upper arms pressed against my torso and the camera very stable. Use of a short neck-strap pulled tight is another often-described method of stabilizing with Live View.
Just about everybody over the age of 45 or so will have vision problems, that's the point. In my case (and many others) I cannot see anything closer than about 3 feet with clarity unless I wear my reading glasses. If I do that, then I can't see the subject I am photographing or move around safely. With a viewfinder, I can do everything with my normal distance vision. Things like camera phones and point-and-shoots are very ageist and discriminatory for this very reason.
John
-
Just about everybody over the age of 45 or so will have vision problems, that's the point.
John,
I am not disputing the disadvantages of "Live View" on rear-screens (all of the time for some people; some of the time for all people), and would not accept it as the only VF option an anything but a very compact "24/7 availability" camera. But plenty of us do not need to use the "arm's length" method (and I am well past 45), so I will protest whenever yet another post claims that this is as a universal limitation of using Live View.
[Edit: after all, the first "arm's length" comment in this thread, post #7, is about a "young person" who likes Live View, not us presbyopic geezers.]
Also there are tools that can sometimes enhance Live View usage: tripods and bifocals!
-
John,
I am not disputing the disadvantages of "Live View" on rear-screens (all of the time for some people; some of the time for all people), and would not accept it as the only VF option an anything but a very compact "24/7 availability" camera. But plenty of us do not need to use the "arm's length" method (and I am well past 45), so I will protest whenever yet another post claims that this is as a universal limitation of using Live View.
[Edit: after all, the first "arm's length" comment in this thread, post #7, is about a "young person" who likes Live View, not us presbyopic geezers.]
Also there are tools that can sometimes enhance Live View usage: tripods and bifocals!
I think you forgot the main bit: a great big black cloth.
All that technical progress and yet back to square one!
Rob C