[Anvh]

Still is awful and would never do that. This image need a tripod (probably). Theres too little DOF; the whole subject is not in focus and the background is annoying...

Aren't you talking about taste now?

[magkelly]

All you need to do a shot like that through the viewfinder is the right position, IE laying down nearly flat on the ground. You think all shots like that used to be done with LV? No. LV can make a shot like that easier but it can be done just fine sans one. You just have to be willing to look like a fool and get dirty.

[Anvh]

You can also just use an angled viewfinder....

[rparmar]

Just make sure there are no people around, or they'll think you're having a heart attack or something.

Still is awful and would never do that. This image need a tripod (probably). Theres too little DOF; the whole subject is not in focus and the background is annoying...

Geez, I don't remember this being a photo critique thread. Even if it was, saying someone's shot is "awful" is generally considered to be quite rude.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Accepted, however I tried exactly this kind of shot yesterday with LV and it still took 6 tries to get the framing I wanted because the bloody LCD isn't articulated! Impossible to see at that angle without getting my knees down in the wet grass.

That is because the SLR LCDs are quite poor. But even so, having just your knees on the ground beats sitting flat on your belly.

You just have to be willing to look like a fool and get dirty.

Agreed. That's what the LCD screen can save you from.

[timh]

That is because the SLR LCDs are quite poor.

People keep saying this, but what device has a screen good enough for me to see a clear image on it from an extreme angle in direct sunlight? I've never encountered one.

I quite like electronic viewfinders but I maintain that taking photos by waving something like a small television around in the air is the least good way of doing it.

[keyofnight]

I think I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum…I find it difficult to quickly focus manually in LV. I've tried it a bit using micro 4/3rds bodies, and it's absolute murder not being able to look through that viewfinder. I thought the entire point of mirrored cameras was to look through the lens. That, of course, is not a normative requirement I've imposed: I just wonder what we lose if we use a mirrored camera as a mirror-less camera. When I look through the lens, I feel a certain intimacy with the subject because I can see them relatively unimpeded—that is, the light that hits the lens is the same that will hit my eye. When I'm looking at a screen to compose a shot, I feel like I've lost some of that intimacy.

I know "intimacy" is a vague term. Sorry.

[Jodokast96]

The advantage to using LV for manual focus isnt in the speed, its in the accuracy. Especially for those like myself that have a tough time with MF. Being able to zoom in on exactly the part of the sceneI want to be in focus and view it on a 3in screen vs. only being able to see the entire scene in the much smaller viewfinder is a huge plus IMO. Again though, this is only when using a tripod.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

People keep saying this, but what device has a screen good enough for me to see a clear image on it from an extreme angle in direct sunlight? I've never encountered one.

You are moving goalposts. In your previous post you complained about the LCD screen not being articulated and did not mention the direct sunlight:

Accepted, however I tried exactly this kind of shot yesterday with LV and it still took 6 tries to get the framing I wanted because the bloody LCD isn't articulated! Impossible to see at that angle without getting my knees down in the wet grass.

Yes, the LCD may not work in all conditions, but neither does the OVF. That is why cameras offer both LCD screens as well as VFs.

I quite like electronic viewfinders but I maintain that taking photos by waving something like a small television around in the air is the least good way of doing it.

That is a strawman argument. Where did you see people waving cameras around to take a picture? It's the same as saying that "taking photos by sticking your eye to a tiny hole is the least good way of doing it".

I thought the entire point of mirrored cameras was to look through the lens.

And that is exactly what you do when you look at the LCD screen.

[timh]

You are moving goalposts. In your previous post you complained about the LCD screen not being articulated and did not mention the direct sunlight:
[...]
That is a strawman argument. Where did you see people waving cameras around to take a picture? It's the same as saying that "taking photos by sticking your eye to a tiny hole is the least good way of doing it".

Goalposts? I hadn't realised it was a game, I could start treating it as such.
You're right though, I cut short my account of my experiences trying to take that particular photo because I felt that it would be an extremely boring thing for everybody to read. Nevertheless there was direct sunlight as there is most of the time outdoors when it's not overcast or nighttime. Atmosphere mostly nitrogen, pressure around 1 atmosphere, etc.

Incidentally I see people waving cameras around in the air to take pictures relatively often! Sometimes they unwittingly use on-camera flash to slightly increase the illumination of a distant major landmark or pop singer too. Sticking my eye to a tiny hole is generally very effective, I've found, and it seems to have worked well for most famous photographers of the past (tripod use excepted once again, of course).

And that is exactly what you do when you look at the LCD screen.

I think there's a distinction between looking through the lens (and a mirror and a prism which simply route the photons) and looking through the sensor. There are benefits to each, I would absolutely agree, but they're not entirely equivalent hence the buzz around hybrid viewfinders (best of both worlds).

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Goalposts? I hadn't realised it was a game, I could start treating it as such.

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think there's a distinction between looking through the lens (and a mirror and a prism which simply route the photons) and looking through the sensor.

There is a difference between *how* you look through the lens, but there is no difference in that you are looking through the lens in both situations. You may prefer one way of looking through the lens, but you cannot claim that it's the only way you can look through a lens.

[GeneV]

40+ years of camera use has put the optical VF as most natural to me. I use LV as another poster indicated--when the angle makes it difficult to look through the finder. I think I would use it far more if articulated so that it functions like a WL finder, especially for portraits.

[keyofnight]

And that is exactly what you do when you look at the LCD screen.

Right! …but it's fairly mediated: there's the sensor, the software doing the downsampling, and the display itself in its environment. For live view to work for me, I need that "zoom" feature that a lot of cameras have now…but I find that's too fiddly for me. I already shoot in manual mode: the more I have to play with the camera's features, the slower I am when I'm out taking pictures.

Ideally I'd never have to remove my eye from the VF—but I still have to for ISO changes.

Oh well. Different strokes. (;

[monochrome]

Oh well. Different strokes. (;

And that's the key. Photographyn is fun again for me with LCD focusing on the K-01.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Right! …but it's fairly mediated: there's the sensor, the software doing the downsampling, and the display itself in its environment.

So isn't that the point? To see what kind of image you are able to record? Do you think the viewfinder was made for people to admire views through it? It is simply a tool to frame and focus - and with AF, you just use it to frame and check camera settings while you do it. You can do all that on an LCD and then some.