Why new cameras does not have optical viewfinders?

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Chris Malcolm says...

Providing you define a compact camera as one which is too small or
cheap to have anything big enough or good enough to be useful in it.

Today's compacts are more or less credit card sized. There is not much
space left for a viewfinder.

So have yesterday's compacts now ceased to be compacts? And what
should we call those non-DSLRs of today that are the size of
yesterday's compacts?

LOL, Alfred is in error about the reason for the loss of the optical
viewfinder. It's all about cost. The excuse used is that a larger LCD
means no space for the optical viewfinder, but the reality is that the
larger LCD costs very little extra, while the optical viewfinder adds a
lot of cost.

There are still several sub-compacts with optical viewfinders, just not
a lot. I think that the SD800IS is an excellent sub-compact. They didn't
go overboard on megapixels (7.1) so it's not excessively noisy, plus it
has a wide angle lens (for a sub-compact anyway), and it still has the
optical viewfinder.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Chris Malcolm
says...

Providing you define a compact camera as one which is too small or
cheap to have anything big enough or good enough to be useful in it.

Today's compacts are more or less credit card sized. There is not
much space left for a viewfinder.

So have yesterday's compacts now ceased to be compacts? And what
should we call those non-DSLRs of today that are the size of
yesterday's compacts?

My ISP seems to like to use clothes sizes for the service bandwidth
offered. M, L, XL etc. There is, of course, no Small! G

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=2

David

In article , Chris Malcolm says...

So have yesterday's compacts now ceased to be compacts? And what
should we call those non-DSLRs of today that are the size of
yesterday's compacts?

Those were prosumer cameras, with bright F1.8 - F2.0 lenses.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:01:44 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Alfred
Molon wrote,
In article 97f51c13-c47a-484e-b340-
, zalek says...
I am looking a new camera to replace my Canon SD550 - most compact
cameras does not have optical viewfinders. To use LCD on a beach - is
very difficult.

Even if a compact had an optical viewfinder, it would be a tiny little
hole.

It's supposed to be. You hold it up to your face to look through it.

My compact camera has a viewfinder and it's very useful. I only
have a 3:1 zoom ratio, though. I guess it gets more expensive to
match the viewfinder to larger ratios that some people prefer.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Chris Malcolm says...

Providing you define a compact camera as one which is too small or
cheap to have anything big enough or good enough to be useful in it.

Today's compacts are more or less credit card sized. There is not much
space left for a viewfinder.

So have yesterday's compacts now ceased to be compacts? And what
should we call those non-DSLRs of today that are the size of
yesterday's compacts?

There are subcompacts, compacts, superzooms, and DSLRs.

David Harmon wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:01:44 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Alfred
Molon wrote,
In article 97f51c13-c47a-484e-b340-
, zalek says...
I am looking a new camera to replace my Canon SD550 - most compact
cameras does not have optical viewfinders. To use LCD on a beach - is
very difficult.
Even if a compact had an optical viewfinder, it would be a tiny little
hole.

It's supposed to be. You hold it up to your face to look through it.

My compact camera has a viewfinder and it's very useful. I only
have a 3:1 zoom ratio, though. I guess it gets more expensive to
match the viewfinder to larger ratios that some people prefer.

My compact has a 4X zoom, and an optical viewfinder. Of course, no
parallax correction, so it is useless for closeup work. In fact,
putting the dial on 'closeup' automatically turns on the LCD.
I suspect that putting an optical viewfinder on a 12X zoom camera would
get into serious problems, thus the EVFs on this type of camera. In the
end, it is all a matter of cost, price point, and user preferences. I
am sure that if you want to pay enough, you can find whatever
combination of features you like.

In article
,
zalek wrote:

I am looking a new camera to replace my Canon SD550 - most compact
cameras does not have optical viewfinders. To use LCD on a beach - is
very difficult.

Some Sony models are worth looking at. The cameras with a model number
that start with WSC have an optical viewfinder.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:30:40 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

David Harmon wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:01:44 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Alfred
Molon wrote,
In article 97f51c13-c47a-484e-b340-
, zalek says...
I am looking a new camera to replace my Canon SD550 - most compact
cameras does not have optical viewfinders. To use LCD on a beach - is
very difficult.
Even if a compact had an optical viewfinder, it would be a tiny little
hole.

It's supposed to be. You hold it up to your face to look through it.

My compact camera has a viewfinder and it's very useful. I only
have a 3:1 zoom ratio, though. I guess it gets more expensive to
match the viewfinder to larger ratios that some people prefer.

My compact has a 4X zoom, and an optical viewfinder. Of course, no
parallax correction, so it is useless for closeup work. In fact,
putting the dial on 'closeup' automatically turns on the LCD.
I suspect that putting an optical viewfinder on a 12X zoom camera would
get into serious problems, thus the EVFs on this type of camera. In the
end, it is all a matter of cost, price point, and user preferences. I
am sure that if you want to pay enough, you can find whatever
combination of features you like.
My Canon SD800 IS has a viewfinder, is very compact, and I find the
viewfinder very useful in well lighted situations. The lcd gets
pretty washed out in bright light. The viewfinder tends to show more
than the actual field, but the image can be cropped in your computer
if necessary. The best solution is a DSLR, but for walk-about
situations they are a bit heavy/clumsy. The DSLR is optimum under the
right situations. I use both.

"Jürgen Exner" wrote:

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote:
You wanna take movies...buy a movie camera...

Why take two cameras if one would suffice?

Because there is no eierlegende Wollmilchsau.

Requirements for a movie camera and a still camera are as dissimilar as a
those for a racing car and a dune buggy. Yes, you can use your family SUV
for both, but you won't play in the upper league in either discipline.

jue


Hello, Jürgen:

Please, clue in this native English speaker: What does "eierlegende
Wollmilchsau" mean, eh? g


Cordially,
John Turco

? "Jürgen Exner" ?????? ??? ??????
...
"David J Taylor" wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote:
You wanna take movies...buy a movie camera...

Why take two cameras if one would suffice?

Because there is no eierlegende Wollmilchsau.

Ja, richtig, es gibt keine eierlegende Wollmilchsau
:-)
Requirements for a movie camera and a still camera are as dissimilar as a
those for a racing car and a dune buggy. Yes, you can use your family SUV
for both, but you won't play in the upper league in either discipline.

Absolutely right.Compamy still camera (from Lidl, www.nytech.de , which
is 7 MP and has flash and a leaf shutter.My movie camera, though (Sony dcr
hc32-e) has an 800 kpixel sensor, has an IR mode, presumably much larger
pixel size, so can take video in total darkness.The still camera produces
high-quality jpeg stills, 2.7 MB each.The videocamera produces intraframe
compressed (DV-25 codec)video clips,wity stereo CD quality sound up to 80
mins with a suitable cassette, that can be converted to high quality
DVDs.The videocamera, can produce very poor 640X480 snaps.The still camera,
can produce very poor 640X480 30 fps crappy video.

Just my 2 cents...


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr