If it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, I don't want it. Electronic viewfinder equipped cameras are decent for shooting static (non-moving) subjects in good light, but are less than useless for following action of any kind, or when used in dim or dark conditions. I've found this to be true regardless of what brand name is stamped on the camera. Of course, if you only take pictures of non-moving subjects, and you're looking for the most compact camera you can buy, then you might be happy with an EVF equipped camera. They are definitely not for me. My advice, try it before you buy it.
Please briefly comment on your thoughts about this new breed of digital cameras.
- Log in or register to post comments
They do advertise them quite cleverly showing these little cams inside a DSLR but sorry, not the same. I always shoot with an SLR for a reason, picture quality and usability/control. There is a place for good little cameras, just not with me.
Good & Great photographers will take compelling photos regardless of equipment Snapshot takers and the Best Buy crowd will have a much more powerful tool than a standard point & shoot. Some people will mangle shots - but they are fully capable of botching shots with a D3, point & shoot or ICL compact.
After 6 months of using both a DSLR (my 3 year old Nikon D300) and live view (LV, as I think they should be called) cameras (Olympus E-P1 and EPL1) I have retired the DSLR (gave it to my son, actually) and am using the Olympus exclusively. The picture quality is near identical and once familiar with the menu's, the camera can be customized to my style of use like the DSLR and adapted to any situation just as easy. Big bonus: the smaller weight and size means I carry it with me all the time instead of a compact camera (I've been through 5 of them looking for one of acceptable quality).
I just got a nex3 and i personally think that this is the future of cameras. Small, light and extremely capable. At this point it is only the beginning. The only thing lacking that I see is the choice of lens which is a small problem since we're still in the early stages. I hate to think that we professional are condemned to a future of the old DSLR "film" camera design... Like the old rock song goes: "Somebody's got to change"!
I've used the Canon Elph cameras for years. I stopped buying them when Canon eliminated the crude but invaluable optical finder, and have remained happily with the stabilised SD700. It's tiny, and fits in a leather belt holster that is less bulky than a pager or cell phone. I put it on automatically whenever I go out the door. You can't imagine the pictures you get when you wear a camera as comfortably as you carry your wallet.
For me it is not a question about chip size. It is a question about results. There are many situations where I am just not happy with results from my compact camera. However, having said that, in the right situation the results are just fine. For this reason I always carry both cameras.
It is most important to be at the right place at the right time with the right light and have a plan about what it is you want to get into your photo. A small camera that is always carried with you might yield a higher percentage of good photos.
Designers and manufacturers need to rethink the "small screen at the back" idea, and go back to a method that allows us: 1. to see the screen in a dark environment--that is INSIDE the camera, not out in the glare of day. 2. to brace the camera with our "built in tripod"-our two arms and neck, and not have the camera waving in the breeze 18-24 inches from our faces/heads! I know they can do this, if they just try.