[BarryE]

It's easier with a viewfinder than LCD screen on GR, or it is for me.

I recently returned home from a week on holiday, when I only took my GRiii and the wide angle attachment (excellent option, I think). I've come to consider my GR as a perfect snap shot (yes, as it's overkill for snap shots I know that ), because viewing the LCD screen at arm's length makes viewing and composition tricky. I have ways to work round these "limitations", which I'm fine with.

However, on return I dragged out my old K3 and 20-40 combination to compare on a day trip. After a week using the GR it was much better/easier to use the viewfinder to see the shot and make fine compositional changes. It was easier too to view the scene through the viewfinder and in TaV scroll through the shutter and aperture.

I love my GR (and its new attachment), but the natural way of raising the camera to my eye and fine tuning the shot is more satisfying and successful than using an LCD screen at arms length. The GR has advantages over the heavier DSLR, but, for me, DSLRs are hard to beat.

My larger K1 is nearly always used on a tripod, so I see this as a whole different experience.

Do others feel, or not, that the experience of a GR style cameras are less successful/satisfying when not just using a camera in snap-shot mode?

[Smolk]

The answer you might have expected: it depends on your style, presumably. Your experience was the reason I returned my GR iii, despite its excellent image quality. I'm not sure whether an optical VF would help: it would not have any visual affirmation but when relying on the camera's abilities it might still work.
The Fuji cameras with hybrid viewfinder could help out but they are considerably larger of course.
I had a similar issue with the Sigma DP cameras. But I also remember to have had a Rollei 8Mp camera in 2005 or so where I did use the LCD screen and had no issues with it.
These days, when I want to go light I bring a TLR... just the way it pans out. I'm trying to convince myself of a light set-up with K-3 iii and one, two or three lenses, but so far the TLR still wins.

[Pops]

I'll confess to having three camera systems, 1 Pentax 645Z for MF, 1 Canon 5D4 for everyday work and 1 Canon M6 ll for walkabouts. I guess the M6 is pretty close to the GR and I always use the EVF that clips onto the hotshoe. The little M6 is indeed a very capable camera and I really do enjoy using it especially for street photography. However I am definitely not a fan of using the screen for composition and shot taking. Even at arms length I can't see it properly without putting my glasses on. The only time that screen gets used is for ground level shots where I can flip the screen up and compose the shot from above. It's either that or lie on my belly which gets larger as I get older.

[Fogel70]

For me the main problem Is that I need reading glasses for the rear screen but for viewfinders I can adjust diopter instead.
So I prefer using viewfinders, unless I really need to use a screen. Like for a low or high shots.

[Lord Lucan]

For me the main problem Is that I need reading glasses for the rear screen

The other problem is seeing it in bright sunlight. This is not such a problen for younger eyes, but as eyes age the ability to resolve contrasts reduces.

[dms]

I use optical viewfinder on my DSLRs, and of course my non-DSLRs like my Q and Kodak Retina.

On most cameras (DSLR or non-DSLR) it is faster--you can see what will be entering the FOV, it is brighter/clearer, and if the magnification is close enough to the normal eye you can shoot with both eyes open (OK for my 35mm finder and perfect for my 50 mm).

These are important in theater photography, and likely so in team sports like basketball. I especially like a 35mm finder with a 35mm on FF or 20~24 mm (roughly 35mm equivalent) on APSC.

[Bob 256]

As others have said, it really depends on the use at the time. I prefer the OVF over the LCD most of the time (I too have presbiopia - old eyes), but when it comes to tripod use and critical focus, I like the LCD (with my glasses on). Sometimes, I need a high perspective (above my head), and can raise the camera with my arms while still seeing what it's seeing using the LCD. I almost always use the LCD to check on camera settings (ISO, shutter speed, etc.) and some things just don't show up in the OVF (and I wouldn't want them to because it would produce a cluttered display).

This question is a little bit like asking if you like apples or peaches. Both can be good (not counting those who don't like one or the other entirely). What's nice is that we can have both.

[BarryE]

For me the main problem Is that I need reading glasses for the rear screen but for viewfinders I can adjust diopter instead.
So I prefer using viewfinders, unless I really need to use a screen. Like for a low or high shots.

Yes, that's me too. I do use a Hoodman loupe with my GR which gets around the need for glasses and solves the sunlight issue. It also allows me to use the GR as I would a DSLR. A bit awkward occasionally, but with the loupe and/or reading specs on a cord I manage fine ... but it loses the spontaneity of the GR a little

---------- Post added 05-06-22 at 06:12 PM ----------

This question is a little bit like asking if you like apples or peaches. Both can be good (not counting those who don't like one or the other entirely). What's nice is that we can have both.

That's true. I was trying to see if I could wean myself off a DSLR, especially on holidays - I don't think I can, yet.

[Wasp]

With autofocus lenses, an optical viewfinder is indeed good to have.

However, with manual focus lenses a screen is what I need. Boheh monsters like a 50/1.2, 85/1.4 or 200/2.5 is just too tricky without a focus aid such as enlargement or focus peaking.

A screen also give you options like holding the camera low down or high up.

By way of example, this was taken with a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 on a Samsung NX1.

[house]

The GR shines at more casual/direct framing. For precise work I prefer the K-1 on a geared head tripod and composing using the viewfinder.

Different scenarios different tools.

[BarryE]

The GR shines at more casual/direct framing. For precise work I prefer the K-1 on a geared head tripod and composing using the viewfinder.

Different scenarios different tools.

That's me too. K-1 for studio and landscape/tripod and GR for casual. Or it was until I substituted the GR with K-3/20-40 combination for the casual stuff.

With a very small bag the GR (and wide-angle adapter). With a little more carrying the gap has narrowed. I've replaced the K-3 neck strap with a wrist strap and now the K-3/20-40 is a strong contender.

The GR gives me (in FF terms) 21 & 28 mm. The K-3, 30 to 60mm. So with a slightly bigger bag there's a lot of coverage and style/flexibility for walkabout on a cropped sensor. The K-3 has had very little use for a while after purchasing the GR. It's definitely back in the reckoning now.

[reh321]

Yes, that's me too. I do use a Hoodman loupe with my GR which gets around the need for glasses and solves the sunlight issue. It also allows me to use the GR as I would a DSLR. A bit awkward occasionally, but with the loupe and/or reading specs on a cord I manage fine ... but it loses the spontaneity of the GR a little

---------- Post added 05-06-22 at 06:12 PM ----------

That's true. I was trying to see if I could wean myself off a DSLR, especially on holidays - I don't think I can, yet.

I have never made a regular practice of using a tripod;
I have always been a peripatetic photographer, and dragging one along with me has always been a bother,
but as I get older now {I’m 74}, I ‘m experimenting with adopted lenses {my latest experiment is with a 35-105mm}
with my “Q” to see if I can reduce weight further. Of course, I use a ‘Hoodman’ so I can still see to focus and compose
since Pentax didn’t bother to provide an EVF.

added: my first digital camera was a Canon compact camera. It did have a zoom lens, but even so I list it as a “failure” because within nine months I was reminded why I had gone from rangefinder to SLR - it just wasn’t flexible enough for me, so I can’t imagine I would ever be happy with a GR with its prime lens. At least my “Q”s have multiple zoom lenses, and I can adapt others.

[Wheatfield]

It's easier with a viewfinder than LCD screen on GR, or it is for me.

I recently returned home from a week on holiday, when I only took my GRiii and the wide angle attachment (excellent option, I think). I've come to consider my GR as a perfect snap shot (yes, as it's overkill for snap shots I know that ), because viewing the LCD screen at arm's length makes viewing and composition tricky. I have ways to work round these "limitations", which I'm fine with.

However, on return I dragged out my old K3 and 20-40 combination to compare on a day trip. After a week using the GR it was much better/easier to use the viewfinder to see the shot and make fine compositional changes. It was easier too to view the scene through the viewfinder and in TaV scroll through the shutter and aperture.

I love my GR (and its new attachment), but the natural way of raising the camera to my eye and fine tuning the shot is more satisfying and successful than using an LCD screen at arms length. The GR has advantages over the heavier DSLR, but, for me, DSLRs are hard to beat.

My larger K1 is nearly always used on a tripod, so I see this as a whole different experience.

Do others feel, or not, that the experience of a GR style cameras are less successful/satisfying when not just using a camera in snap-shot mode?

The lack of viewfinder was why I never fell in like with the Q. I expect it's generational. People who have been brought up on cell phone cameras will probably be more ok with no viewfinder.

[dms]

The lack of viewfinder was why I never fell in like with the Q. I expect it's generational. People who have been brought up on cell phone cameras will probably be more ok with no viewfinder.

---------- Post added 05-08-22 at 12:59 PM ----------

I had just put this picture up in another thread, but it is useful in this dicussion. I also use 35mm optical finder on the Q. This image is Q with a 6x12 120 degree finder, so about same horizonatal FOV as the Q Fisheye lens.

---------- Post added 05-08-22 at 01:01 PM ----------

[Wheatfield]

I had just put this picture up in another thread, but it is useful in this dicussion. I also use 35mm optical finder on the Q. This image is Q with a 6x12 120 degree finder, so about same horizonatal FOV as the Q Fisheye lens.

I still have the little optical finder for the Q. I never quite got used to using it, and it did, at least to me, take away some of the advantage of the small size of the camera. It was also only accurate with the standard lens, and obviously didn't show things like viewfinder info and focus.