rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

And for the last time, consumers {at least in the West}, did not swallow it.

MILCs here became successful only when the manufacturers started providing EVFs. Pentax has stuck to LCDs, did not succeed, and decided “MILC is not for us”; only their pocket-sized GR has done well, that because {as far as I know} it is the only “APS-C” pocket-sized camera.

I made my Q-7 ‘useable’ by purchasing a Hoodman, which turns the back LCD into a viewfinder.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It does, but AF speed is more related to the type of sensing device and scheme used (phase detection or contrast detection or a hybrid approach).

In the grand scheme of things, image processing is more time intensive than AF operations. In any case, they happen sequentially. Autofocus, then auto diaphragm actuation, then final exposure evaluation, then either a frame grab (electronic shutter mode) or close and open the shutter (mechanical shutter mode), then process the exposure, send it to buffer, read the buffer to flash card... Of course, all the time the camera is in viewing mode, it is capturing a frame of video at 30 to 240 fps and displaying it either in the EVF or on the rear LCD, depending upon which you are using. So that processor is moving HUGE amounts of data. That's one reason mirrorless digital camera batteries don't last long.

radiojohn

I think we are talking about difference classes of cameras.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I went back and re-read your original post a couple of times. It's easy to see how most of us who use interchangeable lens cameras misconstrued your point.

Yes, some early compact cameras had an optical "finder" in addition to the rear LCD. They were universally awful. Yes, early LCD screens were unusable outdoors, which is why Hoodman was created. It is also the reason EVFs were created.

Yes, there was a HUGE price squeeze-out of low end digital cameras that started on 06/29/2007, when the first iPhones reached the general public. The squeeze-out really accelerated about four or five years later, as smartphone cameras got much better with the iPhone 4s and their LCDs gained some brightness.

As a lecturer at the (then) Photo Marketing Association International meeting in Anaheim in 2010 put it, "Why would anyone pay $500 for a one trick pony camera when they can buy a smartphone that does two million things?" He accurately predicted the impending "hollowing out of" the low and middle ranges of the camera market.

It was INCREDIBLY clear to some of us that the biggest two camera manufacturers of the early decade of this century had no clue what people really wanted, nor the guts to design it. Panasonic and Olympus, then Sony and Fujifilm, figured it out first. Canon and Nikon mostly sat on their laurels until the general public noticed there were alternatives, and that the alternatives were pretty good.

The first time I saw a digital interchangeable lens camera with no optical finder and no EVF — JUST a rear screen — was at that 2010 PMAI show in Anaheim. My first question to the guy in the booth was, "Can you see this screen in bright daylight at the beach?" He ignored me and turned to the next guy at the counter. I took that response as an emphatic, "Hell, no, go away, smart-a$$."

Oh, there were point-and-shoot, non-MILC digital cameras with no OVF or EVF, but I never looked at them. I already had a smartphone! It was enough to steer me in the right direction. For me, that was a MILC with both EVF and OLED touch screen.

Fast forward to 2022, and now we have phones with 1000-nit brightness and 2000-nit peak brightness displays. They are useful in sunlight, although with sunglasses, they are still a challenge for some folks. But, as I've said many times, people buy smartphones for the apps and the services, not just for the phone or the camera or the Internet.

If you're like most folks buying a camera, it has to be a lot better than a smartphone camera, and that makes it expensive! It's going to have an EVF and an LCD or OLED touch screen display.

Bill_de Loc: US

I bought a Panasonic point and shoot with no viewfinder. I bought it specifically for shooting table top in a light box.
To use a viewfinder I would have to get down on my knees.

Turned out I don't need a viewfinder to shoot while I'm enjoying my morning coffee. I just stick that little camera outside on a tripod and wait.

There are many different ways to skin a cat, and many different style cameras that will get the job done. It's a matter of learning how to use what's in your hand, or on your tripod.

---

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Got that...

Again, it's about cost and market segmentation

Big players play on multiple leagues simultaneously... say industrial cameras, compact cameras, bridge cameras, pro cameras, etc.

They cannot allow one segment to compete with the other... for instance, the most important traits of compact cameras are
a) low cost
b) better than a cellphone

(a) implies stripping the camera to the bare minimum... so, no OVF or EVF, cheappy LCD, small sensor, short zoom, plasticky body, no advanced features, etc.

If they'd add those features, it would be more expensive, and it could compete with the next - more lucrative - category.

OVS, to be any good, are *also* expensive. I did own the A1200 you mentioned... and believe me, I hated that minuscule crappy OVF so much that I ended using the LCD instead.

I gave that crap to my children in the hope they would learn something about photography, but they've chosen to use their phones instead.

(b) implies - of course - that the only compact cameras that are still kicking are the premium ones... like the Sony RX100 series, which incidentally do have most of the advanced features, and... is also expensive.

Incidentally I have a RX100M3 **AND** it has a pretty decent EVF too. The same camera with an OVF would be completely unusable. The EVF is the HEART of the camera... you compose and *expose accurately* with it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I avoid cameras without viewfinders.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Awesome results utilizing a great idea ✨⭐✨⭐✨

APSHEPPARD

Just a quick observation from a different viewpoint. I have severe glaucoma that is unresponsive. I cannot even use the cell camera outdoors except for deep shade so have EVF's on 2 Canon's and 1 Olympus mirrorless. It has taken a bit of adaptation but less than I expected, and I have found the EVF's yield outstanding results. Getting the full image of the sensor is a great plus compared to the slightly reduced area of the DSLR's optical viewfinder. For my purposes I find it better near dusk or dawn as well. I just hope some of the Mirrorless Companies do not decide to cut costs and go to the LCD screen alone or a variant thereof.

gwilliams6

Bill_de Loc: US

Thanks Joe!

---

gwilliams6

nealbralley Loc: Kansas

I just checked, and I found that all my optical viewfinders very much alive and well! As a special additional benefit my DSLR cameras' batteries are all strong and healthy as well! Long live the DSLR!

Tell Paul to take a "chill pill," have no fear, I have mirrorless cameras, too!

OldIkon Loc: Indiana, USA

One other aspect of an electronic viewfinder - or optical SLR viewfinder for that matter - is that prior to image stabilization it was an essential point for stabilizing the camera and reducing motion blur. One thing I have noticed with the conversion to digital photography - besides seeing many more women than men using DSLRs - is a loss of proper handholding technique. I have a niece who recently finished a college photography class and I still had to show her the "correct" (old school) method of holding her camera. She has thanked me for that advice, since it has improved the number of her acceptable shots.