Why is live picture view becoming such a big deal?

[greghalliday]

Hello all.

I haven't been around the forums lately, so I thought I'd check in. I don't usually have any reason to start a thread in a forum, but today is different. In seeing some of the new ads for DSLRs on the internet and TV, I have to wonder: Why on earth is live picture view becoming such a valuable feature on a DSLR? Not to mention being an engineering headache, they are far less superior to a TTL view from a standard viewfinder. Yes, they are a requirement on a P&S, but their optical finders are, and always will be, crap. Whenever I transition from my P&S to my 20D, I am always so joyous to have that big bright non-laggy image. With a DSLR, the viewfinder quality has always been one of the big selling points (re: brightness, coverage, diopter adjustment etc, etc...) Why would we take a step backward?

I don't consider myself to be an elitist, but is the industry just pandering to the uneducated, neophytic masses? Is it because they believe these said masses are so unfamiliar with standard operating procedure that they have no idea that you have to look through the finder to see the image? I believe this is an unnecessary marketing step in the wrong direction. I guess options are good to have, but this seems like a stupid addition to me. What do you all think?

[Greg McCary]

When I first got my Olympus E3 I thought I would seldom use the live view, but I find the swiveling LCD screen great for several uses. I can swing the screen out and use it for street photography shooting candids, at 90%, without arousing attention. I also used it a few weeks ago shooting a night shot when I had my tripod sitting on top of a fence and had no way to look through the finder. Also after two back surgeries it sure comes in handy on those low angle shots as well. You still have to know what you are doing to get a good photograph. It just makes the camera more flexable. IMO It has it's place. I am old school as well.

[SmartWombat]

If the screen doesn't swivel, then I see less use for it.
I want it to save my back !

Seems to me that it's all about features and functions even if they are of little or no use.

Bullet-point-marketing gave us bloated useless word processors like Word, where 95% of the users use 5% of the features. And the one feature I want (paragraph numbering) has been broken since '98 which was the last version that actually was reliable.

Once one company does something, then everyone else HAS to do it because of the bullet-point-driven marketing-to-masses approach that's used.

Same as the drive to more and more megapixels, it's a number, and it's big - marketing love it because it's an easy sell to the ignorant.

With P&S wide angle became a marketing push "ours is wider then yours" sounds good, but when it's measured by a smaller number it's harder to sell. I wonder if they'll think of degrees field of view instead of focal length?

I think that's why the manufacturers use 35mm equivalent focal length, no beginner with a P&S is going to understand the 35mm focal lengths or have experience of them. The number are bigger and therefore better

Remember the face recognition rush at PMA? I tried using face recognition AF on Friday, it failed abysmally. I have no idea why it thought that a shelf of books was a face but it found three faces on the shelf - ignoring Stephen Fry sitting in front of the shelves signing my book and smiling

The big problem is that measuring QUALITY is hard, particularly since image quality can be subjective. I want a quality camera, with good image quality, particularly at high ISO, and that is a trade off against megapixels I'm happy to make. Give me 8M good ones instead of 15M of lesser performance in the same sensor size.

[OldClicker]

"I don't consider myself to be an elitist, but is the industry just pandering to the uneducated, neophytic masses?"

FAIL

Someone completely new to photography with nothing invested in equipment, knowledge or technique; really has to question the need for the optical viewfinder.

TF

[Greg McCary]

Operating a camera is easy. Taking a picture, right. Is the hard part. One reason I love my M6. It is fully manual. no bells and whistles. Cameras weren't designed for rocket scientist to use, they were designed for all.

[danic]

"I don't consider myself to be an elitist, but is the industry just pandering to the uneducated, neophytic masses?"

FAIL

Someone completely new to photography with nothing invested in equipment, knowledge or technique; really has to question the need for the optical viewfinder.

TF

...and this is where a P&S camera has a market. To someone with absolutely no idea.

I understand where Greg is coming from. Camera manufacturer's are catering to people who think that owning a DSLR will automatically take a better shot than a P&S, and in some cases, it might, if you leave it in gumby mode.

However, you don't spend +$1000 on a DSLR to leave it in gumby mode.

[mjs1973]

When the first DSLR with Live view came out, I thought it was a bit of a gimmick. My feeling was that it was the camera companies way of marketing to P&S users who use the LCD screen all the time. I figured if I ever got a DSLR with live view, I would never use it. I was wrong. I find myself using live view in the studio all the time. When shooting something sitting on a table, it is much easier to use the live view than to contort myself to get a good look through the view finder. Same thing when I'm out in the field and have the camera set low to the ground. Often times I still have to lay on the ground to compose my shot, but it's much easier to do with the live view screen than trying to look through the view finder. I still use the optical view finder for 99% of my shooting, but the live view is nice to have when I need it.

When I was using my first DSLR without live view, I had always wanted to get a right angle viewer. I could never justify the $150 they cost so I went without. Now that I have live view, I no longer need the right angle viewer.

[EOSThree]

"I don't consider myself to be an elitist, but is the industry just pandering to the uneducated, neophytic masses?"

FAIL

Someone completely new to photography with nothing invested in equipment, knowledge or technique; really has to question the need for the optical viewfinder.

TF

T
But if you know better, just a little bit, you know an optical viewfinder is superior in almost every way. Until these screens are as good as my optical viewfinder, they can keep them. I do believe this is a pandering to the masses, but that's what camera manufacturers do.

I am a bit of a purist, because I know what works, so far the screen doesn't, and is aimed squarely at those coming from a P&S background. So is the newest addition: movie mode. I can see some use for that, in PJ and Weddings. But as proof, I already have a friend who just wants to take photos of his kids, doesn't want to do anything serious, asking about the 5DII because he can combine his video camera, point and shoot and SLR into one device.

I think that's where Greg's question comes from. There is very little that is better than our eyes for seeing. When you put a lens between our eyes and what we are seeing our view is compromised, and sometimes enhanced(telephoto). Now add a tiny camera with a tiny screen in between that view and for me it becomes unacceptable in most situations.

I tried the EVF/Screen route with an S2, the screen was so bad I could never really tell what I was shooting. Manual focus was nearly impossible, I never did figure it out. I always felt separated from the scene I was shooting, it was like I was watching a movie or something. I went back to a G9 for that very reason, unfortunately Canon while including an optical viewfinder on the G9 chose not to point it at what the lens was seeing. So now I use a combination of both on my G9.

I guess I don't have a problem with adding features to a camera as long as it doesn't affect the image quality or compromise what a camera does. But this superfluous stuff tacked on to SLRs to make them more like a P&S camera makes me wonder what isn't being researched into making an SLR better, because the money is being spent on these cutesy features.

[brmill26]

Someone completely new to photography with nothing invested in equipment, knowledge or technique; really has to question the need for the optical viewfinder.

Hardly a "fail" in the least; certainly not an all caps version. Such a question only comes from a lack of knowledge and experience. For the vast majority of photos, the optical viewfinder is much preferred for a multitude of reasons. Probably the most glaring reason among many others is the ridiculously slow AF performance, whether it be via mirror flip or contrast detect.

I agree with Paul. Live View would would make the most sense with a movable screen, because that would allow you to shoot in positions in which you couldn't possibly use a viewfinder (such as overhead or on the ground). For me, a fixed screen Live View is only useful for macro work where you can see a true DoF preview.

An optical viewfinder will always be superior to Live View, so yeah, it's mostly "keeping up with the Jones's." Hopefully articulating screens will make their way onto all brands, but until then, for me, it's gimmicky.

[Greg McCary]

Live view or no other bell or whistle will make you a better photographer. There are some Leica users that wouldn't use AF if their life depended on it or an in camera meter either. When I first bought the E-510 I thought the LV was a big gimmick and I would never use it. But there are certain situations I have been in that maybe it didn't make the shot but the angle I was shooting a lot easier. Just like filters, meters ect. Anything that will help you raise the bar and get a better shot is not a gimmick.

[Greg McCary]

The screen on the live view isn't good enough ,for me anyway, to tell me if I have nailed exposure. I just can't see that small. But it really helps me compose the shot more than anything.

[greghalliday]

"Such a question only comes from a lack of knowledge and experience."

Hmm. I have no knowledge and experience? Maybe I'm reading your response incorrectly, but it is my knowledge and experience that led me to ask the question in the first place. One thing that I have gotten from this thread so far is the utility of the LCD screen in the studio. Since I don't do much in the studio, that usage never occurred to me. Now that I think about it, it could give you some help in that situation as it would allow better use of both of your eyes. One on the back of the camera, one on the subject. This use probably makes directing the subject easier. Thanks for pointing out the option.

[Mr Yuck]

I shoot and participate in autocross events and wished I had live view when I had my helmet on shooting the drivers just before me.

Same story when I'm shooting low, basically on the ground.

Or in crowds when you want to shoot over the other people's heads.

[brmill26]

Maybe I'm reading your response incorrectly

You were; I was writing to the post I quoted, not your original question. I agree in large part with you.

[OldClicker]

"Such a question only comes from a lack of knowledge and experience."

Hmm. I have no knowledge and experience? Maybe I'm reading your response incorrectly, but it is my knowledge and experience that led me to ask the question in the first place. One thing that I have gotten from this thread so far is the utility of the LCD screen in the studio. Since I don't do much in the studio, that usage never occurred to me. Now that I think about it, it could give you some help in that situation as it would allow better use of both of your eyes. One on the back of the camera, one on the subject. This use probably makes directing the subject easier. Thanks for pointing out the option.

"Since I don't do much in the studio, that usage never occurred to me."

And there is the problem. Thinking that everyone is (or at least should be) like them. Several have already pointed out valuable uses for even the current crude implementation of 'liveview'. In another thread, others have also pointed out the value of the optical viewfinder. Both seem to have value, which your original post denied. I would bet that there were many early photographers that proclaimed that that silly mirror contraption was just a gimmick. Remember that quote of the (I think) head of the Patent Office around 1900? Something like, 'There is no further need of this Office since everything of value has already been invented.'

And to brmill26 - The FAIL was the 'elitist' quote, not to the thoughts presented in the OP.

TF

[gracie_r]

One thing I love about the live view on our point and shoot is that I can make faces at my baby and get more smiles. I can't do that with my DSLR. It isn't enough of a need to go buy a new body that has live view, but I'd use it if I had it.

Just another example of how it could be useful...

ETA: So waht I am getting at is that you can have more interaction with your subject using a live view.

[Franglais]

If you have built Live View into your camera then in many cases building video recording in as well is quite easy. The main problem is that your precision autofocus system is usually built into the mirror and to do autofocus with just what's coming off the sensor you have to do some sort of contrast detection off the image itself and it doesn't work very well (so far).

I know what you're going to say - you need Video even less than you need Live View.

[SmartWombat]

nfortunately Canon while including an optical viewfinder on the G9 chose not to point it at what the lens was seeing

Ah, well that's a little harder, dealing with the parallax error.
Think about it, isn't that an advantage of the SLR ?

I was surprised the viewfinder on the G9 zoomed with the lens.
I can manage with that, compare the finder to the screen and see what the error is, then I offset it by eye to get an idea of what's in frame.
I can even get a car in the frame that way.

No way I could have done this without the optical finder ...

[SmartWombat]

stuff tacked on to SLRs to make them more like a P&S camera

Well if what was tacked on was a tiltable, swivelable, fully adjustable screen; I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. Unfortunately they copied the cheapest P&S layout, not a good one

Either for the overhead crowd shot ("hail mary" why it is called that? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...per/030620.htm) or the ground level shot, it means you can frame it and not rely on instinct or luck.

For shots on a tripod, either low or high, you may not be able to get your eye to the viewfinder. So live view on a wire to a handheld monitor, or even a TV link (2.4 or 5GHz is cheap now) opens up more opportunities - even without a decent screen on-camera.

[SmartWombat]

what isn't being researched into making an SLR better, because the money is being spent on these cutesy features

That is impossible to know.
But we have at last dust protection, which if really effective would save me the cost of several service/clean trips back to Canon.
We have in-camera IS by sensor-shift. An idea that seem to me to come straight from the Minolta A1 line of P&S - that was my first camera that had IS.
Sensor shift IS has pushed other manufacturers to include optical IS lenses in their beginning SLR line-up with no apparent hike in the cost of SLR kits.

I'm beginning to think this is along the lines of "what did the Romans ever do for us?"

[SmartWombat]

I know what you're going to say - you need Video even less than you need Live View.

I'm wondering about that. Video while shooting stills would make a great tool for teaching.

[EOSThree]

Ah, well that's a little harder, dealing with the parallax error.
Think about it, isn't that an advantage of the SLR ?

I was surprised the viewfinder on the G9 zoomed with the lens.
I can manage with that, compare the finder to the screen and see what the error is, then I offset it by eye to get an idea of what's in frame.
I can even get a car in the frame that way.

No way I could have done this without the optical finder ...

Maybe I didn't present it well, but the optical viewfinder is the reason I went to the G9 from the S2. I do wish, however Canon pointed it the same direction as the lens...Now I do like you do check the screen and compose about halfway into the scene to get a correct photo with my G9.

This error does anger me, as I feel Canon basically said "we'll include the optical finder, but we don't really care if it works or not". Basically I feel they are trying to tell me that I don't need the optical finder.

[Sebastian]

Live is great for one simple reason: it saves you about $130 that would otherwise be spent on an angle finder. Or, it actually allows some sort of control over the "lay down on the ground/hold camera above head and pray" sort of shots.

[Didache]

I can see why live view could be useful in certain circumstances when it would be difficult to use a viewfinder - so I would never object to it on some misguided principle.

However, my own "philosophy" of photography is that the camera is an extension of the eye and the heart. Somehow the link is more immediate and real when the camera is actually up to the eye, rather than being held at arms length. Seems to me that even a foot between the eye and the camera breaks a kind of mystical link.

So - I would probably use live view (if I had it) with some types of shots - but I suspect that, when I could, I would still use the viewfinder.

Mike

[Loupey]

I'm surprised that no one has brought this up yet, but when I use Live View (admittedly not very often), it is almost always as a replacement to Mirror Lockup.

Think of it as Mirror Lockup with advantages.

• It is completely vibrationless (in silent modes 1 and 2)
• It allows the subject to be monitored right up to the actual point of capture
• It allows critical focus to be checked

Since I shoot my subjects as-is-where-is, wind is ALWAYS a factor. On a tripod macro setup, I can watch my subject at 10x and wait for the wind to become the least intrusive.

I don't use it for anything else tho.