Optical viewfinder - necessary or not?

sceptre

Relatively quick question I suppose. Getting a digicam, looking at some of the Casios (s500 or perhaps the z500 or maybe the z750 for that nice 7MP feeling), had previously pretty much decided on an Ixus 700 but given that I'm looking for something pocket sized I don't want it to be any thicker than about 23mm max.

Anyway, the question - how often do you guys actually use the viewfinder as opposed to just using the LCD? Would you be bothered if your camera didn't have a viewfinder at all? (I notice it's a growing trend with new cameras) I'm aware that holding the thing at arms length can feel a bit plonkery but I'm also aware that your typical non-SLR viewfinder shows about 80-85% of the image that will actually be produced so it's not as though it's that accurate in the first place.

Thoughts appreciated. Also, will I really benefit from say getting the z750 with the extra 2MP (7 as opposed to 5) and viewfinder instead (dpreview.com gave the z750 a simply stunning review)? Or if anyone can point with definite experience at any of the above cameras and say "that's crap because I found in my experience of using the thing that...". I'm specifically not looking for anything akin to "I reckon X make the best cameras because (even though I've never even seen the one you're looking at)"

Ta muchy.

joolsveer

I have an Olympus 5000Z and never use the LCD when taking shots. In fact I turn it off. I wouldn't buy a camera without an optical viewfinder as in sunny conditions the LCD is nearly impossible to see. I also have a Canon 350D and the LCD is only used for reviewing shots already taken.

Oriel

Same, I only use the LCD for reviewing photographs, not taking them.

S.

Enygma

The Fuji S5500 has a small LCD inside the viewfinder.

Taking photos with the camera at arms length will cause more camera shake, you should have the viewfinder up against your head and your elbows in for stability.

I only use the LCD to review images after a shoot, it just wastes the batteries.

sceptre

Enygma wrote:

Taking photos with the camera at arms length will cause more camera shake, you should have the viewfinder up against your head and your elbows in for stability.

I suppose I didn't really mean "arm's length" as in actual "arn's length", more what you're saying.

Thatnks for the comments so far, anyone else feel free to stick yer oar in.

Shrimp

My LCD has been broken for about 2.5 months now, and i have the cam about 3. I actually dont feel restricted without it, the only problem is changing the settings without a been able to see whats been changed, but thanksfully there's a secondardy screen on the top, telling u all the vitals. As for optical viewfinder, yeah, i think they are very helpful, def. needed, esspecailly on a DIGISLR, or SLR.

JackKelly

if you plan on moving up to an slr at any time, they are necessary. Its the only way on slr's. Using the optical viewfinder also helps steady the camera and prevent shake.

PurpleFistMixer

When I was shopping for my current camera I had a look at.. probably the Fuji S5500. It was one with an LCD viewfinder anyway. I found it dire. Almost imposisble to tell if anything was in focus, which is just a shade pointless. I would say avoid at all costs.

The camera I finally decided on was the Canon 350D and as people have said, the LCD is only used for reviewing. I use the viewfinder perfectly happily. I think if it were an option between LCD and viewfinder I'd go for viewfinder.

The only useful thing about using the LCD, I think, is that you can hold the camera at odd angles or in odd places using your hand and still see how the picture will come out reasonably well, whereas with an optical viewfinder you have to have your eye up to the camera, so it's somewhat restricting.
However, having to do that prevents a degree of just 'point clicking', so you put more thought into the composition and such.