How important is a live view?

[OldClicker]

Attach that to a tripod and Live View can work just fine. I don't understand where you get this 'arms length' stuff. You really can't see past that being the only way to use it? - TF

 

[Dmitri]

personally i think the live view is useless, i love using the viewfinder, i just find it more comfortable and on the plus side no live view= longer battery life

Can't argue with anything he says here. If you like live view, go for it. But it is pretty useless and, as he says, you get longer battery life.'

On a related happy bit: People are more likely to get out of your way if you have the camera up to your eye, as opposed to have it in front of you like a tourist

 

[table1349]

Attach that to a tripod and Live View can work just fine. I don't understand where you get this 'arms length' stuff. You really can't see past that being the only way to use it? - TF

Apparently you didn't read the entire post. From my original post.

Live view can be useful in limited application such as macro on a solid support such as a tripod or when ever you have solid support and a non moving subject. Live view however is not something that should make or break a camera purchase as it is truely a minor feature in the DSLR world.

Live view like any tool has a purpose but on Christmas morning, kids opening up presents. You want to break out the tripod and have them pose? Birthday party, again you want to break out the tripod and have them pose? Kid playing sports or in the back yard, you want to break out the tripod and try to follow the action with live view? Dinner with some friends, Christmas party, or any of a thousand other times you want to take photos of the spontanious events going on are you going to set up a tripod?

If not then how do you plan on viewing the LCD screen? It doesn't work well if you put your eye to it like a viewfinder. The only way I can use my wife's Canon 870 is with it held out in front of me. My eyes don't focus well on an LCD screen a couple of inches from my face. In watching about everyone else I have seen using a P&S with an LCD hand held it is the same thing.

In the overall grand scheme of things, what do most people with cameras take photographs of. Spontanious events in their or someone else's lives. Right tool for the right purpose.

 

[sabbath999]

For my style of shooting, live view is completely useless 98 percent of the time... but the other 2 percent of the time when it ISN'T useless it has allowed me to get shots that I otherwise would have missed.

I like having it on my camera, but I don't consider it mission-critical for what I do.

 

[roadkill]

Do yourself a favor... get a D80 or a canonb XTI if your gonna drop thatkinda cash. It will open up worlds to you.

 

[roadkill]

Live veiw is CRAP.

 

[nymtber]

Even when I had my Canon S3IS, I used the viewfinder. I got better pictures that way, in fact I still believe that cameras were MADE to be held to the eye, and use a viewfinder to find your image, not a screen.

Of course I just bought my girlfriend a Canon A590IS which has a useless viewfinder. But she would use the LCD anyways. Much better than her old Kodak 4MP POS...!

I dont feel right holding a camera up and looking at an LCD. I like looking through the viewfinder and seeing whats going on that way. It does really make you concentrate on what the sensor/film sees and cuts out the rest of the world

It could be useful... I guess... for macro. some macro shots present positions that are a PITA to look through the viewfinder!

 

[Dao]

If they are basically the same, you can spare the extra cash and you will use the liveview a lot, go with the liveview capable one.

At this point, I do not have a chance to use the liveview on my camera. So all my shots were taken with the viewfinder. I do understand that in some situation, liveview is nice. But it is not a feature that I will use much, then it is not important to me.

If the feature is something you use all the time, it will worth every single penny you spend on that feature. If you are not going to use it that often and it cost a lot more. You need to think about it. (Unless cost is not a factor)

For example, air conditioning is a good feature to have in the car, however, if the car is being driven in a place where temperature is pretty cool or cold year round (You may only need it for one or two weeks), then I may not want to pay extra for that feature. However, if someone weight 400 pounds and sweat a lot. AC maybe needed in that situation even if he/she need to pay a thousand more.

 

[skieur]

Live view is really useful and the Sony 70 to 300mm is less weighty and easier to use than the Canon 70mm to 200mm. Besides an 18mm to 50mm macro is what is usually on the camera for all around shooting and that is not a problem at all to hold.

It is certainly not for all shooting, but definitely extremely useful in some situations.

skieur

 

[TBAM]

Live view, has only had 2 uses for me:

1. Enabling me to properly compose a shot, both handheld, and on a tri-pod that otherwise I would be unable to get due to my eye not reaching the viewfinder.

2. Adjusting settings on my manual lens to ensure correct exposure and focus. The viewfinder is just way-too dim to manual focus an f1.8 by eye. Live-view lets me zoom in and focus very accurately.

In saying that I use an E-420 which is the smallest / lightest DSLR on the market, and I usually only use Live-View when I'm using my OM 50mm f1.8, which is also very light. So no problems with hand-held.

Only technical thing I don't like about live-view is that it effectively doubles your shutter-count.

P.S.
For those nay-sayers about live-view. Live-view also provides the handy function of giving you real-time feedback on whitebalance and exposure, prior to taking a photo. You can also hook your camera up to a monitor or TV and see your picture real-time on a larger screen.

 

[reg]

Only technical thing I don't like about live-view is that it effectively doubles your shutter-count.

You mean when the mirror flips?

That's not the shutter.

 

[TBAM]

From what I thought:

- The shutter is closed natively.
- You turn on Live view, the mirrow flips up and the shutter opens allowing the sensor to "see" (like a P&S sensor).
- You take the photo, the mirror flips down, the shutter closes, the photo is taken as per normal, then the mirrow flips back up and the shutter opens again.

Is that right?

 

[skieur]

From what I thought:

- The shutter is closed natively.
- You turn on Live view, the mirrow flips up and the shutter opens allowing the sensor to "see" (like a P&S sensor).
- You take the photo, the mirror flips down, the shutter closes, the photo is taken as per normal, then the mirrow flips back up and the shutter opens again.

Is that right?

Not on the Sony version of Live View. Two sensors are used, so no mirror flip and the autofocus is much faster than with the other live view versions.

skieur

 

[samleo]

Very,very useful for tripod,macro,and acute angle photography. I agree with the comments regarding the advantages of using optical view finders,but there are times when live view is an absolute boon. I have the A350 and that semi articulated screen enables me to get some great low down shots without prostrating myself on the ground. Live view is here to stay,so learn how to take advantage of it!

 

[PhilGarber]

personally i think the live view is useless, i love using the viewfinder, i just find it more comfortable and on the plus side no live view= longer battery life

I agree. Live view (to me, at least) just screams "LAZY".:thumbdown: