[Faust]

I have owned a digital camera for quite a few years now, and given the advances in the technology thought I might look at a new purchase. Not that there is anything wrong with my present camera, except I find the slow start up and waiting for the next shot somewhat tiresome. However, I became somewhat dismayed to say the least after looking at my local camera store. Nearly ever brand I looked at appears to have dispensed with the optical viewfinder - WHY? I rarely use the LCD screen for a number of reasons - 1. unable to see screen unless it is a dullish day, and 2. It is much easier to compose a shot and keep the camera steady when the camera is held up to the face and against the eye, FACT. To hold a camera away from the body almost inevitably invites camera shake. Is this just a cost cutting exercise by the manufacturers? whatever the reason I am not impressed.

Is it just me, or does anyone else share my views?

You also missed that using the LCD display instead of a view finder significantly reduces the battery life...

It's all down to how much you want to spend etc, there are still a number of mid range models out there with an optical view-finder, but they are becoming fewer and further between... That said, the low end D-SLR's aren't "horrendously" expensive any more...

[stevelup]

I second that.

Take a look at the cheaper DSLR's they are fantastic value for money now and give results far better than any of the point 'n' shoots.

Steve

[SeanT]

Some of the prosumer cameras (eg. mine) have LCD viewfinders aswell as the viewing screen, giving a good combination of the benefits of both (eg. OSD on the actual image with eye pressed against it, gaining up in low light, SLR - style WYSIWYG viewfinder without cutting out when CCD is exposed)

[Faust]

Originally Posted by salnajjar

You also missed that using the LCD display instead of a view finder significantly reduces the battery life...

It's all down to how much you want to spend etc, there are still a number of mid range models out there with an optical view-finder, but they are becoming fewer and further between... That said, the low end D-SLR's aren't "horrendously" expensive any more...

True they are not an expensive item anymore. However, the drawback with this type camera is the same as it has always been - size. I want something I can pop into my shirt pocket when out walking or sightseeing, I don't want anything swinging around my neck. Any pointers in the 4 to 6 megapixel point and shoot category?

[ahaydock]

Originally Posted by Faust

I want something I can pop into my shirt pocket when out walking or sightseeing, I don't want anything swinging around my neck. Any pointers in the 4 to 6 megapixel point and shoot category?

I have just been through similar thoughts.

The Nikon 7900 has a viewfinder and LCD, although I have opted for the Panasonic FX9 after lots of investigation. Just hope the LCD is up to the job.

Hope that helps.

[ush flynn]

Originally Posted by ahaydock

I have just been through similar thoughts.

The Nikon 7900 has a viewfinder and LCD, although I have opted for the Panasonic FX9 after lots of investigation. Just hope the LCD is up to the job.

Hope that helps.

perhaps looking at all the fancy small ones, its been dispensed to make way for big flashy LCDs, if you stick to 2" and maybe up to 2.5" you will find some of the better cameras have viewfinders. as for composing a shot is better with viewfinder? not on a compact imo, paralax errors mean you never really get what you thought you had, and you can forget about macro shots. You have to remember what these ultra slim models are designed for, extreme portability and good looks. black glassy circles on the front of the camera can ruin the look!