MichaelHughes7A@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 22/05/2009 20:38:51 GMT Daylight Time,
dd-b@xxxxxxxx writes:
I doubt it has a viewfinder. But why would one want one?
For cameras without image stabilisation the use of the viewfinder
ensures that the camera is held firmly and in a controlled manner.
Holding a camera ay arms length (or somewhat less) to see a screen
makes the arms more likely to shake.
When weight isn't a serious issue, I can hold a camera considerably more
steadily out in a convenient position to see the screen than I can hold
it up to my eye. Holding a camera to the face is not a very stable
position, the face isn't shaped right to match the camera. (I've spent
40 years doing low-light photography with SLR cameras, I'm *really* good
at holding them steady; but I can hold a P&S out in "see the LCD"
position at LOWER shutter speeds and get sharp pictures.)
Certainly lots of people actually hold cameras, of every type, in not
very good ways, not very steady. But that's a question of ignorance,
not a matter of design of the cameras.
Here's how: grasp the two sides of the camera with your hands. Put the
strap around your neck. Pull your elbows in to your belly, and push the
camera out until the strap is tight around your neck. You've now got a
VERY stable shooting position (two triangular support structures meeting
at an angle).
Screens can be affected by incident light.
Sure, there really is a bit of a disadvantage sometimes. In the rare
cases when the photographer is in the sun. I don't find it serious,
partly probably because my habit is to mostly look directly at the
subject (another advantage of using a back-of-camera LCD instead of a
viewfinder is that it's easier to maintain situational awareness, see
what's coming, etc.).
That's my view (or prejudice)
I'll settle for view, or opinion. "Prejudice" would mean you hadn't
really considered it carefully, and you seem to have reasons that make
you prefer viewfinders for the work you do.
PS in the case of use by primary school children viewfinder cameras
might be less vulnerable to damage.
Or a P&S might be considerably less vulnerable than an SLR.
PPS bought in wholesale quantities in the UK disposable film cameras
can cost as little as £1.50. There might be a case for using them
initially and then moving on to digital if there was sufficient
enthusiasm for the photography project.
I can't imagine a way to make photography no-fun more thoroughly. But
then I 've never seen a disposable camera picture I liked; I got better
pictures with my Pixie 127 in 1962.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
