Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The point is not that they are superior but different and enable one to visualise in a (somewhat) different way. It is certainly true that an optical viewfinder and a ground glass (which includes an SLR v/f) are entirely different, since one is a virtual and one a real image. One big point is that an LCD allows you to frame with the camera NOT at your eye. That is fundamentally important since it makes the camera far more mobile. Watch a decent photographer shooting with an LCD and you will see them waving the camera around almost comically... now it is over their head, now at their shoes. While a few photographers might try to do this with a camera glued to their eye, most don't and in any case it's still harder (ever tried getting a shot while lying on the ground in torrential rain? I have, with a digicam). For critical work commercial work few people would rely on the LCD alone. However I am talking about personal exploratory work. You must be aware that many photographers (including me) do things like screw up their eyes to blur an image so they can see the compositional outlines, or like the GG because it's upside down. As usual it's entertaining to see you in a full spate of denial about something (and no doubt you'll deny that you're in denial) but the fact remains that I and many others find the LCD a liberating and inspiring tool on occasion and... yes... I wish that shot that I showed you earlier had been higher resolution, but it was better to have got it in the way I did than not at all... which was the option... since I had been quite unable to capture it using my 4x5, Leica or Rolleiflex. I also use pinhole cameras. Whatever works. On Sunday, June 1, 2003, at 10:34 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: > Of course I understand about different "ways of seeing" as you call it > (it's > really a different way of viewing the image, but I know you like the > ethereal terms ;-), as I use rangefinder cameras, SLRs (both 35mm and > MF), > TLRs and view cameras...but those three all have excellent viewfinders, > without a degraded image. The claim appears to be that this method of > using > a degraded view of the image you are taking is somehow providing you > with > superior usability, is a notion I do not accept, having used LCD > viewfinders > quite a bit. I find their usability very limited, and only limited to > P&S > applications where overall image quality is not required, and even at > that, > I don't believe they are better than a respectable optical viewfinder. > I > find they work better on video cameras than on still cameras. - -- John Brownlow pictures: http://www.pinkheadedbug.com warblog: http://www.unintended-consequences.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html