Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
May be it’s the solvents from those super-trick nano coatings they are putting on lenses, but something is definitely screwy.
But I get ahead of myself. Before we get to the subject at hand, let me relate a conversation I had with a photographer at GE’s Research and Development Center in Schenectady, NY, some decades ago.
I asked him why all of the photographers shot with Nikon cameras. At the time, I was a Pentax man, and I figured the difference was like Ford and Chevy, a matter of personal preference.
His answer: “Because Nikon is the only camera that what I see in the viewfinder is exactly what is captured on the film.”
It made sense: accurate framing is probably a good idea when you are a professional photographer.
And that brings us back to the present: why are compact camera manufacturers (A) doing away with viewfinders or (B) offering them as an add-on at punitive prices?
Back of the camera screens do offer accurate framing, a view of what the sensor is seeing, but they can be extremely hard to see in bright sunlight. (Not long ago, there was a review of rugged point-and-shoot cameras on dpreview and one of the cons for the top-rated camera was that the screen was hard to see in bright sunshine. This is as close to a fatal usability flaw as I can think of.) The problem of rear-screen visibility has led to an aftermarket of various devices to provide shading for the rear screen. I bought a Hoodman device for my D550 but stopped using it after a while because it was an annoyance to keep on the camera.
And even if you successfully shade the rear screen, you still don’t get the advantages of a proper viewfinder: ie, it provides an additional point of steadiness by pressing the camera against your face. Steadiness is the thing to have when you are shooting at low shutter speeds or high focal lengths.
So now we are offered cameras that don’t have a viewfinder, but you can buy one at additional cost, and the manufacturers are extremely proud of their viewfinders, judging from the prices. If you own a Ricoh GR, the tariff for an OVF will $200 or more; a Nikon A, about $400; Canon G1X MkII, $300 (EVF); Panasonic LX7 EVF, $150; Sigma DP1, $150; Sony X100 mk II, $450 (EVF).
Now notice this: you can buy an entire Canon point-and-shoot digital camera with a built-in optical viewfinder (albeit not a super precise one), an imaging chip, a zoom lens, software and other goodies for less than $100 brand new. Are the camera manufacturers going to tell us with a straight face that it costs more to manufacture an optical or electronic viewfinder than it does to manufacture an entire camera? Even if you take into account economies of scale, it still doesn’t make sense.
I tell you; I think the manufacturers have been sniffing the fumes from those nano-coating vats and have suffered some kind of vapor lock.
Cheers, Jock
But I get ahead of myself. Before we get to the subject at hand, let me relate a conversation I had with a photographer at GE’s Research and Development Center in Schenectady, NY, some decades ago.
I asked him why all of the photographers shot with Nikon cameras. At the time, I was a Pentax man, and I figured the difference was like Ford and Chevy, a matter of personal preference.
His answer: “Because Nikon is the only camera that what I see in the viewfinder is exactly what is captured on the film.”
It made sense: accurate framing is probably a good idea when you are a professional photographer.
And that brings us back to the present: why are compact camera manufacturers (A) doing away with viewfinders or (B) offering them as an add-on at punitive prices?
Back of the camera screens do offer accurate framing, a view of what the sensor is seeing, but they can be extremely hard to see in bright sunlight. (Not long ago, there was a review of rugged point-and-shoot cameras on dpreview and one of the cons for the top-rated camera was that the screen was hard to see in bright sunshine. This is as close to a fatal usability flaw as I can think of.) The problem of rear-screen visibility has led to an aftermarket of various devices to provide shading for the rear screen. I bought a Hoodman device for my D550 but stopped using it after a while because it was an annoyance to keep on the camera.
And even if you successfully shade the rear screen, you still don’t get the advantages of a proper viewfinder: ie, it provides an additional point of steadiness by pressing the camera against your face. Steadiness is the thing to have when you are shooting at low shutter speeds or high focal lengths.
So now we are offered cameras that don’t have a viewfinder, but you can buy one at additional cost, and the manufacturers are extremely proud of their viewfinders, judging from the prices. If you own a Ricoh GR, the tariff for an OVF will $200 or more; a Nikon A, about $400; Canon G1X MkII, $300 (EVF); Panasonic LX7 EVF, $150; Sigma DP1, $150; Sony X100 mk II, $450 (EVF).
Now notice this: you can buy an entire Canon point-and-shoot digital camera with a built-in optical viewfinder (albeit not a super precise one), an imaging chip, a zoom lens, software and other goodies for less than $100 brand new. Are the camera manufacturers going to tell us with a straight face that it costs more to manufacture an optical or electronic viewfinder than it does to manufacture an entire camera? Even if you take into account economies of scale, it still doesn’t make sense.
I tell you; I think the manufacturers have been sniffing the fumes from those nano-coating vats and have suffered some kind of vapor lock.
Cheers, Jock