How absurd! Few cameras these days come with viewfinders. It’s only the pro cameras that do.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What makes a great picture?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not at all. Mine has one. I’m not a pro. I’d not consider a camera without one.
Yes, most P&S cameras do lack a VF. However, there are some around which do sport one. The excellent compact Sony RX100 series, which technically is P&S, albeit more sophisticated and with a larger sensor than most P&S cameras, indeed has full manual controls, offers RAW, and has an intriguing pop-up EVF. The larger Sony RX10 IV, which also is considered a P&S, includes full controls, RAW and an on-board EVF. It actually feels much like a DSLR in its handling, even though it has a fixed zoom lens.
I much, much prefer a viewfinder and a camera which offers the opportunity to shoot in full manual or to control my settings and many serious (amateur and hobbyist as well as professional) photographers feel much the same. I use my little RX100 VII infrequently -- it is more for travel purposes -- but when I do, I appreciate that EVF!
I much, much prefer a viewfinder and a camera which offers the opportunity to shoot in full manual or to control my settings and many serious (amateur and hobbyist as well as professional) photographers feel much the same. I use my little RX100 VII infrequently -- it is more for travel purposes -- but when I do, I appreciate that EVF!
a camera with a robust feature set does not make the person using it a pro. you know pro is short for professional, right? a professional is someone who makes money using their camera. not someone who who is good at their hobby and craft.
stop with this madness.
stop with this madness.
@Clix Pix You are correct, not sure where I got that idea, but I know Olympus now makes a small sensor WP camera that allows for RAW, so I must have thought that other manufacturers at the upper end of their P&S lines were doing the same.
BTW Panasonic makes a nice line of affordable very compact cameras with the 8.8x13.2mm sensor and an EVF. This is the direction I am exploring at the moment to replace the wife's ridiculously ancient Kodak z915.
BTW Panasonic makes a nice line of affordable very compact cameras with the 8.8x13.2mm sensor and an EVF. This is the direction I am exploring at the moment to replace the wife's ridiculously ancient Kodak z915.
If nothing else, viewfinders used correctly are extremely helpful for stabilizing the camera at slower shutter speeds and/or at longer focal lengths.
Back when I still had P&S cameras, it was a feature I always looked for, and could be found even on less expensive models.
Back when I still had P&S cameras, it was a feature I always looked for, and could be found even on less expensive models.
Like most P&S cameras, it has a manual mode, aperture priority, and shutter priority, and so on. Only JPEG still photos No RAW), and a video function.
I have gotten used to the viewfinder so much that I seldom use the screen. I do use the screen to change settings and things like that, or to view the photos I have taken. While I have used the screen on LiveView mode on my DSLR cameras, I find the viewfinder of my mirrorless one quite focus-accurate for macro photography. Maybe the screen is better than the viewfinder for video clips (?), but I am not into video.
oops, that came out a little bigger than i anticipated. sorry, screenshot from my imac.
I have to admit that I do use live view when doing some extreme macro work. I don't know of any DSLR with provisions for super-high-accuracy focusing like parallax focusing(which is what I use with 35mm-typically on a Nikon F2 with a focusing screen made for this and a 6x finder). That's kind of irrelevant though since live view with magnification is likely far more accurate than specialized focusing tricks. Live view also saves the separate step of having to lock up the mirror.
One of the things I do miss about Canons was how much I enjoyed tethered live view for macro. Even on my cheap Rebel XS, tethered I could see magnified live few on my computer screen AND use the lens focus motor to fine-tweak focus. On Nikons, you're still turning the focusing ring to get focus.
Viewfinders are still a big deal for me in general, though. One of the benefits to the higher end FX DSLRs is the big, bright 100% viewfinders and a nice ~22mm or so eyepoint. I still prefer the F2 and non-HP F3 finder(I like the higher magnification even though I wear glasses) even though the eyepoint is 19mm. The F3HP is 25mm, but there again comparing side by side I don't like the magnification hit. The F4 and newer are brighter, but the screens in general don't have the focus "snap" of the older F2/F3 era screens. I have an "L" screen for my F5, a 45º split screen(a REALLY nice surprise when I got the camera from KEH...), but it's not great for focusing outside the split. The F3 red dot screens, along with screens for the Canon New F-1 plus the "laser" original F-1 screens, may well be the best ever put in a camera for a combination of brightness and focusing ease.
One of the things I do miss about Canons was how much I enjoyed tethered live view for macro. Even on my cheap Rebel XS, tethered I could see magnified live few on my computer screen AND use the lens focus motor to fine-tweak focus. On Nikons, you're still turning the focusing ring to get focus.
Viewfinders are still a big deal for me in general, though. One of the benefits to the higher end FX DSLRs is the big, bright 100% viewfinders and a nice ~22mm or so eyepoint. I still prefer the F2 and non-HP F3 finder(I like the higher magnification even though I wear glasses) even though the eyepoint is 19mm. The F3HP is 25mm, but there again comparing side by side I don't like the magnification hit. The F4 and newer are brighter, but the screens in general don't have the focus "snap" of the older F2/F3 era screens. I have an "L" screen for my F5, a 45º split screen(a REALLY nice surprise when I got the camera from KEH...), but it's not great for focusing outside the split. The F3 red dot screens, along with screens for the Canon New F-1 plus the "laser" original F-1 screens, may well be the best ever put in a camera for a combination of brightness and focusing ease.
Yeah a viewfinder is good in direct sunlight and I wish my camera had one. But it does not so oh well. I can live without it.
Before going Digital with Canon, I used a Nikon F3 High Point. Also had the motor drive for it, and a few lenses. Took lots of photos of my kids with it using 35mm slide film, and later gave it to my oldest daughter as a what she called, "a sentimental value." I kept a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens, and then replaced to mount with a Canon FE one, but focusing is done manually.
Some of the most beautiful images of water drops I have seen have been the ones from an English fellow who goes by the name "Lord V." Last time I looked at his photos he was using an older Canon digital camera. But he is heavily into macro photography as you can see below. While there, take a look at some of his "equipment and test pictures."
I searched, "Lord V photos" and found one of his web pages:
Brian Valentine’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
Last edited:
BTW Molly you can resize your photos after they are uploaded and inserted. Just go into the edit mode, click on the corner of the photo and you should see a square box, then just drag that corner in towards the center, the image will be smaller. I have done that a number of times when the photo wasn't sharp enough or the subject didn't warrant such prominence.
To me, a great picture is an out of focus, monochromatic, shot lacking details that doesn't contain frogs. This kind of photo leaves so much to the imagination that it draws me in.
To me, a bad picture is one that contain frogs.. of any type. Where there are frogs, there are no mysteries.
I like properly cooked frog legs!
Going back to the original question and the title of this thread, I realize that I never actually responded to it. Others have already talked about the usual components: the important factors of light, composition, subject choice, technical skills, etc., so I won't repeat all that again. Digital photography encompasses a lot of skills, ranging from shooting the image in the first place to how it is presented. Some people are more interested in the technical aspects while others lean more into the artistic elements. Some are happy spending more time with the camera and less time editing images later, while for others editing and utilizing sophisticated skills in retouching are the more appealing part of the overall process. Many people are somewhere in-between.
Some people prefer to stick within one genre or type of shooting and are interested in developing their own style, while others tend to try exploring different genres, different types of shooting with different types of lenses and focal lengths, and somehow somewhere along the way their style makes itself apparent without conscious effort. In the end, the goal is the same: to offer an attractive, interesting, sometimes quite compelling image. Many photographers may or may not produce images meant for professional portfolios or hanging in galleries, images which are outstanding and attention-grabbing, but most of us usually recognize a truly great photo when we see it.
I've been reading Bruce Barnbaum's excellent The Essence of Photography, a book which addresses much of what goes into creating great images. He also has authored The Art of Photography, another excellent resource. Both books are illustrated with many of his own images, some outstanding examples of landscape photography, but neither discussion is limited to that one genre; he talks about what can influence an image and these various elements can apply to any photograph in any genre or style.
Something which is alluded to within this thread but not really discussed is the significance of creativity, which can play a key role in an image, from inception to final result. What is creativity? One partial definition might be: a new way of seeing, looking at the familiar, an exploration of potential emotional depths within the subject, which in turn can evoke an emotional response on the part of the photographer and subsequently an emotional response by the viewer. Creativity involves innovation, incorporates curiosity, usually has a spark, an enthusiasm for experimenting, exploring the unknown, and often will result in an image which is indeed different, with impact which immediately captures the attention of those who view it.
One starting point is the subject matter. If the scene or the object or the living creature in front of the camera is not of interest to the photographer, why would any subsequent image shot of that be interesting to the viewer? The photographer, by choosing to spend time with the subject, is already investing some of his or her own emotional energy in it, and often will spend time visually exploring the subject with the camera and a lens or two to discover the inherent possibilities which lie within. From this comes the meaning of the subject to the photographer, which then is conveyed to the viewer, sometimes with dramatic impact. A rapport with one's subject from the very start, the photographer's own feelings and response to the scene or the person or the animal or the object, is key to what follows once the shutter button is released and an image is created. If the photographer isn't interested in what he or she is shooting, that is going to come through in the image, and a viewer will sense that as well. If there is genuine interest in, or even love, for, the subject matter, that, too, will shine through and usually evoke an emotional response of some kind in the viewer.
Creativity is innate within most of us but sometimes it takes time to develop and flourish. An open mind, being on the lookout for interesting subjects with potential of being seen in new and different ways and the passion and enthusiasm for photography itself can be a valuable contribution to one's personal approach to the art and science of photography and the creation of interesting images.
Some people prefer to stick within one genre or type of shooting and are interested in developing their own style, while others tend to try exploring different genres, different types of shooting with different types of lenses and focal lengths, and somehow somewhere along the way their style makes itself apparent without conscious effort. In the end, the goal is the same: to offer an attractive, interesting, sometimes quite compelling image. Many photographers may or may not produce images meant for professional portfolios or hanging in galleries, images which are outstanding and attention-grabbing, but most of us usually recognize a truly great photo when we see it.
I've been reading Bruce Barnbaum's excellent The Essence of Photography, a book which addresses much of what goes into creating great images. He also has authored The Art of Photography, another excellent resource. Both books are illustrated with many of his own images, some outstanding examples of landscape photography, but neither discussion is limited to that one genre; he talks about what can influence an image and these various elements can apply to any photograph in any genre or style.
Something which is alluded to within this thread but not really discussed is the significance of creativity, which can play a key role in an image, from inception to final result. What is creativity? One partial definition might be: a new way of seeing, looking at the familiar, an exploration of potential emotional depths within the subject, which in turn can evoke an emotional response on the part of the photographer and subsequently an emotional response by the viewer. Creativity involves innovation, incorporates curiosity, usually has a spark, an enthusiasm for experimenting, exploring the unknown, and often will result in an image which is indeed different, with impact which immediately captures the attention of those who view it.
One starting point is the subject matter. If the scene or the object or the living creature in front of the camera is not of interest to the photographer, why would any subsequent image shot of that be interesting to the viewer? The photographer, by choosing to spend time with the subject, is already investing some of his or her own emotional energy in it, and often will spend time visually exploring the subject with the camera and a lens or two to discover the inherent possibilities which lie within. From this comes the meaning of the subject to the photographer, which then is conveyed to the viewer, sometimes with dramatic impact. A rapport with one's subject from the very start, the photographer's own feelings and response to the scene or the person or the animal or the object, is key to what follows once the shutter button is released and an image is created. If the photographer isn't interested in what he or she is shooting, that is going to come through in the image, and a viewer will sense that as well. If there is genuine interest in, or even love, for, the subject matter, that, too, will shine through and usually evoke an emotional response of some kind in the viewer.
Creativity is innate within most of us but sometimes it takes time to develop and flourish. An open mind, being on the lookout for interesting subjects with potential of being seen in new and different ways and the passion and enthusiasm for photography itself can be a valuable contribution to one's personal approach to the art and science of photography and the creation of interesting images.
Last edited:
Wow! You know your stuff. Impressive but it’s Greek to me as I am a hobbyist amateur.