Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by BOB-R, Aug 9, 2015.
I don't know why we stopped using flint tbh.
It seems to me that a touchscreen is more of a nicety than a serious aid to better quality images but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. The buttons would still be required anyway as a touchscreen would actually be a hinderance in some situations.
I'll be joining a camera club shortly so I'll be able to try out some of these fancy ideas, along with maybe one of those Canon or Nikon things too. But until then I cannot imagine how something as large as a finger can quickly choose a point small enough to give me the kind of precise focus I require.
I suspect the greatest benefit of touchscreen in a camera with a proper viewfinder is not much improved practicality but rather a greater appeal to the smartphone generation who are simply used to and expect touchscreens.
If we had, somehow, bypassed the pentaprism in the development of cameras and gone to the LCD directly, would anyone even consider the SLR design?
I freely admit that I lack a clear opinion on this but it is an interesting mental experiment to put yourself in the position of meeting the bulky, noisy dSLR after only ever using silent, small LCD equipped cameras. Would you pull out your wallet?
If you offered me a full frame DSLR vs a whatever with no viewfinder, LCD touchscreen clearly meant for the 'easy' generation it is no contest!
Hand a compact without a touchscreen to folk who are used to smartphones these days and you might find that it takes them a while to find out how to zoom if the usual screen gestures don't work and I doubt they'll get as far as trying to mess with AF point selection if touching a bit of the screen doesn't work.
I think it's mostly about user friendliness. Bright shiny screens that people seem to know how to use instinctively seem to work pretty well in that respect.
A good question. My preference would still be for the 'bulky' DSLR. The noise is of no consequence to me since my subjects don't require a stealth camera. There is of course no doubt that the electronic viewfinder will improve with technology and prove advantageous in low light. Battery technology, or at least battery charging technology, needs a quantum leap in innovation to cope with the increased battery drain to fully exploit the capabilities. However, my hands will not shrink. I have a camera which I feel is very well suited to my hands and I wouldn't want anything smaller for general use. I also like a bit of weight to give balance to a lens and also to aid with holding the camera steady, lighter objects are more difficult to hold steady. Also, have you noticed how people tend to get out of the way when you have a larger camera and especially tripod mounted? They really do. I really couldn't do without a viewfinder at all - I need a big window on the world close to my eye to consider the all important margins of composition, so that limits me to the rather more expensive mirrorless models, Finally, it pretty much all boils down to the image quality for me and I think SLRs are rather cheaper than their counterparts for the similar iq. In fact bargains in comparison. So DSLR for me for a while yet and probably always.
indeed. I was issued a blackberry at work after being used to an iphone and basically never used it. I am using an ipad now for this forum - wonderful for browsing but I need a full-sized keyboard to type efficiently.
I think that if you don't have to hold the camera so tripod or (better) tethered shooting, a touch screen must be fantastic. At your eye - useless.
Probably not - as much because of familiarity as anything else. My first ever digital camera was a DSLR and that was as much if not mostly because it was the first digibox I'd used where I could make it do what I wanted rather than what the designer back in Japan wanted. If I had been as familiar with digital compacts rather than an SLR then a typical CSC would seem oh so very familiar...
That's more like it, it's like you're holding up a mirror in front of me.
Andy, that pre-supposes that a photographer (real or less so) only ever uses that sort of camera (real or somewhat less so) on a tripod for static subjects. Do you really, while shooting sport or wildlife or on the street, use a touchscreen to change your focuspoint to suit the subject? My jaw is already dropping in anticipation of your answer ... Cheers, Oly
Ol' Vic Blackman will be spinnin' in his grave over some of these posts ...
Geoff Crawley would emit a slightly heavier breath and purse his lips a bit.
Doctor Bell would be spinning like a top knocking out 2000-word essays left, right and centre.
Spot on. Been using both my 6D and my (EOS) M3 every day for the last week or so, and for tripod use, I really miss the speed and precision of the M3's touch screen on my DSLR. Despite the M3 having a full set of more "traditional" controls, for normal use with such a camera, i.e. a viewfinderless one, the touch screen is massively easier, quicker and just better to use. And no, it doesn't leave greasy smears all over it. It's very clear that those making negative comments about a touchscreen interface for a camera without a viewfinder have never used one. At eye level, it's completely useless, of course.
I frequently set the AF area to suit my subject while shooting handheld, yes. Indeed I have done since I got my first SLR with multi-point AF, a Canon EOS 50E in about 1995. Of course with certain types of subject it's not practical. Then again, I don't just shoot sports, wildlife and street.
Technical Editor, Amateur Photographer
I agree that the touchscreen is completely useless at eye level on most cameras, including the EOS M3. But I've just been testing the Panasonic GX8, on which you can use the touchscreen to set the AF area while shooting with the camera up to your eye. This doesn't work perfectly for me as I'm left-eyed, so I keep on activating nose-controlled focus by accident, and have to tilt the EVF to make it work sensibly, but the concept is excellent and much quicker than any physical control I've used for the purpose (and believe me, I've used them all).
I suspect many people don't move the AF area around much while they're shooting because their camera makes it awkward to do so, or is clearly more accurate with the centre point (EOS 5D Mark II for example), or they've just got into the habit of focus and recompose and see no reason to progress. But the moment I came across cameras that made it easy to work with off-centre AF points, I started using them and never went back. Touchscreens simply take this to its logical conclusion, while also making it much, much quicker to change other settings (which again means you're much more likely to use the camera's features).
Technical Editor, Amateur Photographer
On the reviewed camera, it takes a half second (max 1 second) to change the AF point whilst continuing to look through the viewfinder. How is that awkard?
Forgive me; exactly which 'reviewed camera' are we discussing now?
My personal favourite method of focus point selection was Canon's Eye Controlled Focus, less so on the 5 and 50E, but particularly on the 3 and 30V, both of which worked outstandingly well for me. The most logical system of all IMHO.
That would be interesting with a modern system. I quite quickly turned it off with the 50E having got fed up trying to capture eyes right to eyes left action - either the focus system was too slow or right/left focus points were not far enough apart.
Separate names with a comma.