dreamon

I've not seen a lot on this subject on UHH before. When I was younger, my eyesight was a lot better. Now that I'm in my sixties, the viewfinder has taken on far greater importance--if I can't see my subject, what's the fun of trying to take good pictures?

For me, at least, a good viewfinder (digital or otherwise) has become an absolute must. How do you feel about cameras you've shot, and is excellence in viewfinder design, magnification, percent of coverage, etc., important to you?

fourg1b2006 Loc: Long Island New York

If i were you i'd look for a camera that has live view. That might help you.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So far the diopter adjustment in the viewfinder has worked well for me.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Most modern DSLR's have Diopter Adjustment Control features...
These are a excellent adjunct for those with vision challenges (within limits)

Edit: Longshadow just covered this while I was typing my post... Yes Diopters are a wonderful feature...

btw, vintage film camera's view finders were far brighter than the current DSLR's since manual focusing was obligatory...
Sometimes I pickup my Nikon F3 w/ 50mm f/1.4 lens and wonder what DSLR's would be like if they could match the clarity and brightness latent within...

Hope this helps...

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I adjustment the diopters in the viewfinder and leave my glasses off so I can focus manually.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I was convinced a viewfinder was an absolute necessity because I mostly shoot outdoors in the sun and LCDs were often unusable. I'm not enamorered with great viewfinders...happy with average and like WYSIWYG of EVFs.

But the LCD on my new LUMIX GM5 is changing my mind. It works amazingly in bright sun and is touchscreen. I find myself using it to compose more and more.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I don't think the perfect viewfinder will ever be invented, but we are getting closer to wonderful with each iteration.

My first cameras as a kid had separate optical viewfinders. They suffered from parallax error, OR they displayed a mirror image of the subject, AND parallax error. Enough said...

Since my first SLR experience in 1968, I have absolutely hated the reflex mirror and pentaprism system, for two reasons.

First, foremost, is viewfinder blackout at the moment of exposure. At least with a TLR, you could see the moment of exposure. You knew a person's expression was "on" or "off". But the SLR hides that (and the dSLR does, too). At nearly six frames per second, my Nikon F3 was very hard to keep pointed at a moving subject, let alone focus manually!

Second, is that it is difficult to see depth-of-field at smaller apertures when pressing the DOF preview button. And, of course, the converse advantage of this is that you focus the lens at maximum aperture, so it's easier to establish precise focus, at least with wide aperture lenses.

When electronic viewfinders came along, they weren't very good, at first. They were low-resolution, had smearing and other color artifacts when panning or recording action, and they lagged the real-time event you were photographing so severely that action photography was impossible. By the time the action peaked in the viewfinder, the subject was out of frame when the shutter opened. Yuck.

Now, however, the EVF has been refined to the point where it is actually quite usable. Most digital cameras made in the last few years have much better EVF performance. So now, I actually prefer them for all applications except, perhaps, fast-moving sports. Yet with the latest cameras, electronic shutter speeds are so fast that the delay is livable.

EVFs show you a bright, processed bitmap image that looks like the JPEG that will be saved by the camera. You see the DOF, if you use a manual aperture lens. You see the actual effects of ALL menu and exposure settings. If you don't like them, you can adjust your settings and KNOW you got the image you wanted, because you saw it before you took it! Want to work in black-and-white, but do it in post-processing? Set the camera for B&W, view in B&W, but save a raw (color) image you can convert later, any way you want... including using it in color!

Of course, cameras without optical viewfinders OR EVFs have been around for over a decade. The most popular single "camera" on the planet, the Apple iPhone, has no viewfinder, just a large LED-powered LCD display. While the latest round is almost bright enough to use outdoors, it is still lacking.

That said, I have my iPhone at all times. It is the best camera I have, when it's the only one I have around.

I'm not sure I would say a viewfinder is the most important part of a digital camera. That, I believe, is the same as it was with film... YOUR BRAIN. Seconded by that is the LENS. Then the SENSOR. The viewfinder is somewhere down my list.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

If the sun ever comes out again, I'll give the LCD a try on my new-to-me Lumix DMC-G7.

I have a refurbished bridge camera, Canon SX50, with a poor viewfinder. I tried the next generation, sx60, and though the viewfinder is much better, I didn't like the rest of the camera.

I agree that a sharp viewfinder is much welcomed at "a certain age" (one where I'm reading large print library books). My Canon dslr, T3i, is fine so far with the diopter and my prescription eyeglasses; and my new mirrorless camera (the Panasonic mentioned earlier) has an awesome electronic viewfinder. With that camera, as burkphoto points out, you see your exposure before you press the button too.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

I have slight Parkinson's in my right hand. A quality viewfinder is absolutely essential for me. I can't use Live View, without shaking. With a viewfinder, I can anchor my arms against my body. Good post!!
Thanks,
Mark

dreamon

I don't need suggestions; I've already found my solution. For me, it's the EVF on my Sony A65. It has a 1.09 magnification and a 100% view, diopter, 2.3m dots. I'd recommend cameras with a similar setup for those of us who are facing sight problems.

The best film cameras with great viewfinders that I've used (and I've used many) were the Minolta Maxxum 7 and the Nikon F6.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It is most important for me too, most important to get aquainted with a camera (to get a good feel of it). I really like the bright and clear viewfinder in my Mf camera/s, the ones in my 5D's are, aahh ok, but I prefer a real nice bright one, that to me, is what makes the experience of photography a joy, or cumbersome!!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

But if you go that route, than you have to take your glasses off, everytime you look through your camera. (that's why I adjust my diopter to the strength of my glasses, so I don't)!!

rafikiphoto Loc: Spain

Although or because I have varifocal spectacles and I hate using cameras and binoculars with them on I always have them attached to a cord so that I drop then down when I need to.

In so far as the best EVF is concerned the Leica SL is 'retina quality' in Apple speak. 4.4 million dots! It is fantastic and no lag.

dreamon

Thanks. What got me thinking about this subject happened years ago, when I looked at a few entry-level DSLRs and noticed that the 'view' in the finder seemed as though it was at the end of a tunnel and quite far off (small). I wondered how anyone could view and shoot meaningful pictures with them. I regard the viewfinder (or a great screen) as the link between the camera/lens and the brain, and without a good link, there really can't be top-flight results.

I can see why you need a good viewfinder, even if it's for a different reason than mine. You make an excellent point!

Leitz Loc: Solms

The sensor is kind of important, too.