Wieland wrote:
> Can somebody explain to me why the viewfinders are so bad these days? What is
> the problem?
I don't necessarily claim that they are "so bad," but my personal theory is
that a lot of engineering these days is devoted to taking cost out of
products while leaving in an "acceptable" amount of quality. What
"acceptable" means has to do NOT with what people LIKE, but WHAT THEY WILL
BUY. The fact is, certain features are more obvious from the spec sheet, or
from intuition, or are more easily gleaned from shared conventional wisdom,
and these are the features by which products are marketed.
I think part of the reason for poorer viewfinders is that they add a lot to
cost and manufacturing complexity, but they are not features that most
people are aware of before buying cameras. The reason for this is that now,
many cameras are purchased by mail order. We enthusiasts, who seek out
camera stores, may have the opportunity to handle and look through five
competing cameras before we buy, which might make it obvious to us which
ones have better finders. Most people don't have that opportunity. They buy
from reading about the product, comparing feature lists, and then ordering
by mail from discount houses far away. Then, when they get the camera, they
have nothing to compare it to, anyway, so whatever it is, seems acceptable.
Certain features are "up front," and those features are ones that the
manufacturers are careful to provide; because if they don't, they will lose
sales. But they have learned that most consumers are not very educated about
viewfinders, so this is an area where the manufacturers can skimp without
too much penalty.
An example of an "up front" feature is top motor drive speed in a premium
pro camera. Does it really make any difference if top speed is 5 fps. or 5.5
fps? Is any photographer really enabled to take better pictures at 6 fps
than at 4.5 fps? Maybe a few. But this is an obvious feature--it is easily
understood, it is easily compared. So people will BUY a camera with a faster
speed more readily.
Certain other features, such as viewfinders and shutter responsiveness
(shutter lag, the amount of time between when you press the button and when
the exposure is made) are important, but generally they're only noticed by a
tiny little segment of the market...namely, pros or serious photographers,
who tend to actually use their cameras a lot. So pro cameras are where you
find the manufacturers putting good finders and paying attenton to shutter
lag.
And, in fact, the manufacturers are probably right about their choices,
since, as the products are positioned more and more to the mass market, cost
becomes proportionately higher in importance as a factor in buying
decisions.
Let me ask you this. If you had the choice of two MZ-S versions, one that
weighed 18.5 ounces and cost $699, and one that weighed 21 oz. and cost
$1,029, and the ONLY difference between the two was that the latter version
had a 100% finder and better eye relief, which one would you buy? I'd buy
the latter without question, but I'm quite certain I'm in the minorty
market-wide. Probably a pretty small minority.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
