Do you really need Live View?

af_thefragile

I guess this is gonna be my last query before i finally get my 1st dSLR.
Lately i've been looking at the Nikon D40 which seems brilliant value for me to get. Though the only thing about it that is giving me 2nd thoughts is the lack of live view for its LCD.

Now being evolved to stare at LCD screens to take picture and squinting through viewfinders seems to have become a thing of the past, now being deprived of the luxury to stare at LCD screens again feels like a huge leap backwards.

I do plan on upgrading to a full frame SLR (maybe something like D700 if i go with the Nikon) in about a year or two, when i've gained good knowledge of photography with SLRs.

Well, so right now my options are the cheap Nikon D40 or the much more expensive Canon EOS1000D and the only thing thats keeping me from buying the Nikon is its lack of live view for its LCD.

So to sum it up, do you really need the live view a lot while taking pics or is it just more of a luxury than a necessity??

Borderfox

For the few times I use it, it can be very handy. I have used it when setting up the camera on remote under a jump and live view can be handy instead of lying down. I would suppose it comes on a lot of new cameras anyway so you will get it depending on the model. Autofocus would be far better using the viewfinder as liveview depends on contrast detection

AnCatDubh

Well, my first DSLR had no live view and I upgraded to one which had live view. Eh.... tbh, the live view had nothing to do with it and I haven't used it as yet. It is reputed to be useful for awkward shots where you can't get the camera to your eye. For a first DSLR, I wouldn't worry about it if its going to save you a few quid.

More the point is that you are happy with the 'system' you are buying into and you basically aren't going to go wrong with either the Nikon or Canon systems so a purchase of the D40 will be a great buy.

Good luck with it. Go forth and take lots of nice photographs (and don't forget to post some in these parts!)

Stephen

My D90 has live view but 99.9% of the time I use the viewfinder. I find I have much more control over things using the viewfinder, and autofocus is much faster than when using live view. The only times I do use live view are when I'm using it in some weird position that would require me to lie down on the ground or get mucky or something to get my eye to the finder. That and when I'm using the D90's video mode - cos it requires you to use live view.

I would not let it influence your decision on which camera you're going to buy, especially if its going to be a cheap one that you plan to upgrade at a later date anyway.

If you go with Canon, keep in mind that the EF-S lenses will not work on their full frame cameras if you upgrade in the future. Nikon DX lenses will mount on their FX cameras but you will have to either live with dark borders or set the FX camera to DX mode, which reduces your available resolution but makes the DX lenses perform as if they were on a DX camera.

CrowdedHouse

I got a D300 with live view this time last year,I think I might have switched it on to have a look and haven't used it since.

CabanSail

I have Live View on my D300.

Up until now I have never used it. My nephew wanted Live View at Christmas & I couldn't remember how to turn it on (only 3 glasses gone at that stage too)

So it may have limited specialty uses, but it's not a feature I would put high on my list for a DSLR body.

On the G9 I use it as it's useful on a compact.

af_thefragile

Aaah, this is one of those last minute decisions where i think i'm shifting from Canon to Nikon.
I like the way Nikon looks and the D40 is really affordable for me to buy.
I also like the way you can use the D40's DX lens on a full frame Nikon.
I don't like the lack of live view but i don't know how much really i'ld need it. From what you guys say, i presume i wouldn't need it much!

About Canon,
I'm a bit more familiarised with their system of lenses though i don't think it'ld take me long to get familiarised with Nikon's system.
I like the way you can connect and control the EOS camera from your computer.
And it has live view which i presume would be handy for just fast random point and shoot photography, though it might create bad habits?!
But then the Canon is a whole €100 more expensive than the Nikon.
And the EF-S lenses would be useless with the full frame canon.

So yeah, i can't really decide which way to go... Though right now i feel i'm leaving over towards Nikon...!

GhostInTheRuins

I upgraded from a D60 (Very similar to the D40) recently and not once did I miss not having it. I've got live view now on my D90and to be honest I've turned it on a few times but have never really used it.

whyulittle

At the risk of pushing you towards Nikon, you don't need Liveview. You may find it handy to have now and again, but it is not a necessity.

pete4130

I never though I'd use it but found a use for it once or twice when shooting REALLY low down to the ground with the camera angled upwards, alot easier to compose instaead of lying down as borderfox said. It's definitely not essential. Maybe for tripod mounted shots. the AF is slower for sure. People have lived without it on SLR's for decades so if your camera doesnt have it, you can probably live without it.

Carrigman

af_thefragile wrote: »

....and squinting through viewfinders seems to have become a thing of the past....

For compacts, maybe (even though when I'm asked to take a photo with a compact I will always use the viewfinder..if it has one. It provides greater support - thus helping to avoid camera shake - and makes composing the shot easier. I think the norm of people holding their cameras at arms length when taking shots is ridiculous. Just because most people do it doesn't make it right).

For DSLRs, definitely not. If you have a DSLR with Live View and use that as the means of composing most of your shots you will in effect announce to the world that you have purchased a camera beyond your capabilities. People will snigger at you behind your back (well, I would anyhow).There may well be occasions when Live View might be useful but I can't think of any offhand.


Live View is not "necessary" on an SLR. It's a gimmick with very limited practical applications. You should not let it be the determining factor when deciding on a camera.

Mycroft H

af_thefragile wrote: »

Aaah, this is one of those last minute decisions where i think i'm shifting from Canon to Nikon.
I like the way Nikon looks and the D40 is really affordable for me to buy.
I also like the way you can use the D40's DX lens on a full frame Nikon.
I don't like the lack of live view but i don't know how much really i'ld need it. From what you guys say, i presume i wouldn't need it much!

About Canon,
I'm a bit more familiarised with their system of lenses though i don't think it'ld take me long to get familiarised with Nikon's system.
I like the way you can connect and control the EOS camera from your computer.
And it has live view which i presume would be handy for just fast random point and shoot photography, though it might create bad habits?!
But then the Canon is a whole €100 more expensive than the Nikon.
And the EF-S lenses would be useless with the full frame canon.

So yeah, i can't really decide which way to go... Though right now i feel i'm leaving over towards Nikon...!

One thing about the d40/d40x/d60 series of cameras is that they have NO autofocus motor built in to the body - i.e you will have to buy the 'usm' lenses which can often cost 100 to 200 euro over one that dosent.

I was in the same position as you are now what budget dslr to buy.... I was going to buy the d40 or the sony alpha 200. It was the inclusion of the af motor that swung me for the alpha.

I can now autofocus on all minolta/sony lenses going back twenty six years. Plus the alpha is just as cheap as the d40 and it has 10mp (4 more then the nikon), in built body image stabilisiation (i have i.s on every lens I connect - pretty cool). Also the d40 felt a bit small in my hands, just not comfortable and the a200 was slightly bigger and felt better

smelltheglove

As soon as you get used to viewfinder which takes about 10mns or so you will see how much better it is.

I find the viewfinder almost puts you outside the picture, like you are looking at a photograph already taken with a black surround, it makes it easier to see what is wrong and what is right.

Mycroft H

smelltheglove wrote: »

As soon as you get used to viewfinder which takes about 10mns or so you will see how much better it is.

I find the viewfinder almost puts you outside the picture, like you are looking at a photograph already taken with a black surround, it makes it easier to see what is wrong and what is right.

+1 from the expert

af_thefragile

I think i'm gonna go with the Nikon D40.
It looks like a very basic dSLR camera for me to start on. It should be easy to get used and and easy to learn on. So by the time i get good at using it, i should have become pretty decent at SLR photography before i move to a bigger, more advanced camera...!

AnCatDubh

sounds good! go for it

af_thefragile

Cheers!
Quite a last minute decision where i shifted from Canon to Nikon!
But soon i'll get my 1st SLR and then i can start posting some cool pics for ye guys to check out too! I think i'm already pretty decent with my camera phone so a SLR should be a huuuuge leap forward for me!

nilhg

To the OP, if you are not going to use a tripod, you won't need liveview, myself I have used it on my Olympus to check precise focus when I have the camera on the tripod.

I have to say I have found it very useful in certain situations, when you can have a live histogram overlaid before you shoot, or want to have the tripod lower or in an awkward position.

As the others have said its not something that you will use very often, but its nice to have and something I'd be slow to leave behind.

Mycroft H

af_thefragile wrote: »

I think i'm gonna go with the Nikon D40.
It looks like a very basic dSLR camera for me to start on. It should be easy to get used and and easy to learn on. So by the time i get good at using it, i should have become pretty decent at SLR photography before i move to a bigger, more advanced camera...!

Remember its a brand your buying into not a camera - you will probably stick with that brand for life and on a side note its a bloody expensive hobby too

af_thefragile

Don't think i'll get a tripod till i reallly feel the need for one. Till then i'll try to make maximum use of my arms, benches, ledges etc.!

landyman wrote: »

Remember its a brand your buying into not a camera - you will probably stick with that brand for life and on a side note its a bloody expensive hobby too

Yup, i have considered that and thats why my choices were confined to either canon or nikon and i've herd only good thing bout either so i guess there shouldn't be much of a difference whether you're using canon or nikon.

I do realise its pretty expensive thats why for now i've gone for the cheapest decent option i could find. But then you never know you could like make a little earning out of it too! :pac:

AnCatDubh

af_thefragile wrote: »

But then you never know you could like make a little earning out of it too! :pac:

Ahem.... well not to pour cold water on that thought but maybe have a read here.

But yea, not unheard of so you break the mold! :pac:

CabanSail

You will not go wrong with either of those cameras. Both are good to learn with.

Look forward to seeing some of your work soon.

Morrisseeee

I use LiveView on my Olympus (similar to what 'nilhg' has said), but its mainly for landscapes and when I'm using my old prime lenses, ie. Nikon, Pentax or old OM lenses on my E510. I think if you have a good (or very good) auto-focus lens then you probably don't need live-view.

But its invaluable in situations like this, ie. awkward low shots, etc.

Calina

I use LiveView for some self portraits (when someone goes and says we need a photo of you and I don't have a recent one handy) remoted into the computer and also could see myself using for some macro type work as well.

M.T

When you take a photo you get an instant playback of it, which is just as handy as liveview, so in some respects it is not an essential. But it can be handy at times but in my simple opinion, not an essential on a camera when it comes to making a purchase.

Soarer

I'm a complete novice as regards photography, but I bought a Sony A350 yesterday and one of the main reasons was it has Liveview.

Now to the enlightened amongst you (those behind-the-back-sniggerers :rolleyes:) might look down yere noses at this, but coming from compact camera land, I feared going straight to a viewfinder. Plus, to get herself to use the camera, it'd have to have the Liveview.

So to the OP, I feel the A350 with Liveview gives a nice stepping stone from compact to DSLR.

Fionn

it's great if your blind drunk!! coz you'll never see anything in the viewfinder.
for sober situations it's not very important!!

dreamer_ire

I've just bought my first dslr (Nikon D60). Initially I did wonder how I would manage without live view... and for the first few pics I took I automatically looked at the monitor so see what I was getting in the pic! Just a few days later I am more than used to using the viewfinder... and have to say I think it enables me to focus more on the composition of the shot. Still a long way to go for me but I'm really glad I took the step into the dslr world.

CabanSail

Waaaaay back in the dark ages (2000) when I first got a Digital Compact it took me ages to get used to compsosing photo's on the back of the camera. It felt so strange, as I was used to Film SLR cameras. I don't think I ever really got the hang of it & still used the inadequate viewfinder rather than the LCD.

I was so releived to get a DSLR again.

dazftw

Live view is for point and shoot cameras tbh.

Thirdfox

I don't have it on my camera but I can definitely see uses for it (and in fact have come across situations when I have thought "it'd be great if I was using a D90" etc. - just like how some people even nowadays pooh pooh automatic metering - I see it as an extra feature that can be quite valuable at times. Of course auto-exposure is almost always valuable )