Question on DSLR

[ss1074]

In normal digital camera, we shoot pics just seeing the LCD view finder and don't see the actual view finder at all.

But I heard that in DSLR, we can't do that. We have to shoot pics but seeing from view finder and we can't shoot by seeing LCD. Can I know if there is option in DSLR to shoot pics seeing LCD. I don't want to keep camera close to my eyes and shoot.

 

[Don Simon]

Some Olympus DSLRs let you use the LCD. A Canon 1DS MkIII will too but it's much, much more expensive. There is something called the Zigview which provides an additional LCD at a right-angle for waist-level use; it's available for most if not all SLR systems but I don't know if it's any good.

But to be honest, if you don't want to keep the camera close to your eyes when shooting, a DSLR isn't the best choice.

 

[Digital Matt]

First of all, what is a "normal" digital camera? Seeing things on a screen is not natural, and not something sought after in a camera. For point and shoot cameras, it is an improvement over the parallax error ridden plastic viewfinder. A Digital SLR uses a pentaprism to give you a bright clear view of exactly what the lens sees. This is a benefit, not a detriment.

 

[table1349]

In normal digital camera, we shoot pics just seeing the LCD view finder and don't see the actual view finder at all.

But I heard that in DSLR, we can't do that. We have to shoot pics but seeing from view finder and we can't shoot by seeing LCD. Can I know if there is option in DSLR to shoot pics seeing LCD. I don't want to keep camera close to my eyes and shoot.

Having owned one of the first "Normal" digital camera's we did not shoot pics viewing an LCD screen. It is a screen, not a view finder. The first digital cameras did not have LCD screens. We shot with a view finder. LCD screens were added later when the technology was available. View finders were still part of the camera. Over time the camera companies discovered that snap shot shooters were using the view screens and went with the flow. As P.T. Barnum said: Well you know that one.

The LCD screen has turned into another one of those lazy man devices that are so popular today. A view finder provides instant information, apeture, EV value, shutter speed, focusing, etc that an LCD screen does not. It allows for a clear view of the shot that is being taken and allows for minor adjustments in composition. It also forces the photographer to use the best stance and position for holding a camera for steady shots. Have you ever seen an engineer place an object on two filmsy supports and expect it to be rock solid. They don't do it because it is not structually sound.

The LCD screen is good for reviewing information and photos taken. When properly adjusted you can get a good gage on the exposure of the photos taken along with the histogram.

I would love to see someone shooting a DSLR with a well made 70-200 telephoto on it from a LCD screen. No one has an image shake reduction system that can compesate for that much bounce. Before you condem using a tried an tested tool you might want to learn about it and what it's function is. Give it a try and shoot a friends DSLR. You might just find that it works better than you thought. As you do so, learn to hold the camera the right way. Here is a good link to teach that very thing.
http://www.camerahobby.com/EBook-HoldingCamera_Chapter5Sub.htm The whole site is good for those interested in becoming serious hobbist. http://www.camerahobby.com/EBook-TOC.htm

On a small P&S the LCD screen can work fine. On a DSLR the viewfinder is a valuable tool, not a liability.

 

[Remi M.]

ss1074, you will get used to it real fast. I know when I switched from a point and shoot to a DSLR it was a little strange at first. That feeling went away about as fast as it takes to transfer the first set of photos to a computer.

 

[photoman720]

I like looking through a viewfinder than a screen. Much, MUCH more precise shooting than a PnS camera.

 

[Don Simon]

A view finder provides instant information, apeture, EV value, shutter speed, focusing, etc that an LCD screen does not.

Actually an LCD should be able to display most of those... at least the ones I have used have.

It's a personal choice. Using an SLR isn't the only right way for serious photography. The waist-level finder on a TLR doesn't show what the taking lens sees, but it has other advantages. So does a rangefinder system. And so does an LCD screen. But as you say you would not want to compose looking at an LCD screen at arms length with something like a long zoom.

As Matt and Gryphonslair have said, a viewfinder is a benefit - a benefit of an SLR system. Try using one and you will probably soon see why it is a good thing. But obviously if you still don't feel the benefits and think having your eye away from the camera is better, then a dSLR system is not for you.

 

[jstuedle]

The biggest disadvantage to a P&S with a viewing screen IS holding the camera away from you. It is impossible to hold a camera steady at arms length with any lens attached, much less a long zoom or Tele. Think of yourself as a portable tripod. The camera pressed firmly against your face helps anchor it. Your left hand supporting the camera around its lens with the left elbow pushed into your abdomen does as well. Feet apart with one foot slightly in front of the other, and you have a stable platform to shoot from. This is much more stable than holding a box away from your body and suspending it in mid-air.

 

[Don Simon]

The biggest disadvantage to a P&S with a viewing screen IS holding the camera away from you. It is impossible to hold a camera steady at arms length with any lens attached, much less a long zoom or Tele. Think of yourself as a portable tripod. The camera pressed firmly against your face helps anchor it. Your left hand supporting the camera around its lens with the left elbow pushed into your abdomen does as well. Feet apart with one foot slightly in front of the other, and you have a stable platform to shoot from. This is much more stable than holding a box away from your body and suspending it in mid-air.

It's much more stable, yes, but I completely disagree that it's "impossible" to hold a camera steady enough for any shot at arms length. With a fast enough shutter speed (with good lighting), assuming a short and possibly even 'standard' focal length, it's entirely possible. It's not something I do. But I get the feeling that we're now saying that our SLR systems are the best of all worlds and there can be no benefits to the alternatives, and I don't think that's the case.

 

[table1349]

It's much more stable, yes, but I completely disagree that it's "impossible" to hold a camera steady enough for any shot at arms length. With a fast enough shutter speed (with good lighting), assuming a short and possibly even 'standard' focal length, it's entirely possible. It's not something I do. But I get the feeling that we're now saying that our SLR systems are the best of all worlds and there can be no benefits to the alternatives, and I don't think that's the case.

OK, so if you are going to limit yourself to a short or possibly even a "standard" focal length lens, why not just stick with a good P&S. Why spend the money on a camera and not use the features of the product? What happens when you need the longer lens?

In my response I was not saying that the SLR is the best of all worlds, what I was trying to imply was that I would not drive a car off a cliff and expect it to fly me to another destination like an airplane will. They are both wonderful modes of transportation, but they have to be used properly to get results. The OP was asking about DSLR's. They are different beasts than the compact P&S.

 

[Don Simon]

OK, so if you are going to limit yourself to a short or possibly even a "standard" focal length lens, why not just stick with a good P&S.

Why not exactly. I don't disagree with that at all. I didn't say composing on an LCD was a good idea and it wasn't my intention to give that impression. That post was in response to jstuedle's post in which he said: "The biggest disadvantage to a P&S with a viewing screen IS holding the camera away from you. It is impossible to hold a camera steady at arms length with any lens attached, much less a long zoom or Tele." So my reply was a defence of LCD screens on P&S cameras, not on dSLRs.

I actually agree with most of what you've said, and my reply was mainly to the post before mine; jstuedle's last post.

dSLRs are indeed different beasts from P&S. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, in fact the opposite. The OP asked about dSLRs and his question was answered, but it occured to me that he may not yet be completely intent on buying a dSLR if he's only recently realised that they involve the use of a viewfinder. Therefore I suggested that if he's so opposed to that way of shooting then a dSLR may not be the best choice.

 

[jstuedle]

It's much more stable, yes, but I completely disagree that it's "impossible" to hold a camera steady enough for any shot at arms length. With a fast enough shutter speed (with good lighting), assuming a short and possibly even 'standard' focal length, it's entirely possible. It's not something I do. But I get the feeling that we're now saying that our SLR systems are the best of all worlds and there can be no benefits to the alternatives, and I don't think that's the case.

Let's compare apples to apples. Lets say just for grins and giggles that we have a 6 MP P&S and a 6 MP DSLR. Compare images of the same subject from the same point of shot with the same equivalent focal length. Why is the P&S image SO much worse? 1) The image chip is smaller, smaller photosites. 2) Smaller lens elements, much more difficult to manufacture accurately. 3) A less stable platform to shoot from. I.E. Holding the camera at arms length.
Now, if what I said originaly sounded like I was saying it's impossible to ever take a good shot with a P&S, I apologize. That was not my intent. Let's just say it's much more difficult, and the % of good to fair to crud shots will slide toward the good end more often with the DSLR. Thats not to say the DSLR doesn't have a greater learning curve than the P&S. Picking up both with no experience, the average snap shooter will do OK more quickly with the P&S.

 

[Mike_E]

Look there really isn't a problem here. A DSLR is so much faster that if you want to hold it just like a P&S then go ahead. Just snap the shot and then click play to show the image on the LCD on the back of the camera. If you don't like that one just keep doing this until you are satisfied. It will wind up taking about the same amount of time to take a shot this way as it would a P&S so there is nothing lost.

mike