If the study were ever made, it's important to take into account the
features provided in viewfinder vs lcd. As Cotty mentions, the G2 e.g.
has a very poor finder, not i.m.o. optically, but because the features
it offers are limited to two leds for focusing and metering... That's
P&S functionality of ages ago. If you want a bit more, you *have to* use
the display.
On the other hand, there's Sony (don't remember which type), that
doesn't have an optical viewfinder, but one that shows a built-in
display. There you do have all features, but of course optical quality
is not superb.
Conclusion: viewfinders on (common) digital camera's have served as a
cost cut-down by the designers.
Groeten,
Vic
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I think Albano was talking about the cameras that don't have a viewfinder,
or which have very poor finders - the P&S cameras like the Optios, the
little Canons, Sonys, etc.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think that more experienced users tend to work with digital cameras in
much the same way that they shot with film. I know that when I first shot
digital, I was constantly staring at the LCD screen, evaluating the image.
Now, my eye rarely comes away from the viewfinder. I use the display (and
the histogram) only as an infrequent check. The act of shoting is the same
for me as it has always been.
Paul
I've been thinkin on this subject for a long time.
I think the use of digicams with LCDs is an unobserved
change in social life compared to the use of
viewfinders. Before, the camera was an extension of
the eye and face, blended with the shooter's face.
Now, it's "medium" role si more evident, the camera is
put between the man and the subject, within a
distance. This new body language is something hasn't
been studied yet.
Just a thought...
