HikeArizona.COM

I take snapshots when I hike...not a lot of thinking or composition, just lift the camera hanging around my neck, look through the viewfinder and snap.

I like decent quality, light weight, and reasonable zoom. I've been using a Canon A700 (7Mp, 6X zoom) for 4 years and I'm happy with it. A few weeks ago I started looking at new ones: I figured it couldn't hurt to go to newer techology and I was particularly interested in the higher resolution video new point-and-shoots take.

Of course what I found out is that no one includes an optical viewfinder anymore. The closest I saw was a G12, but that's a lot heavier, more expensive, and probably more than I need.

So I hope the forum could make some suggestions. If no one knows any hardware that fits the bill maybe comments on how other people with middle-aged eyes have adapted to LCD screen only composition in bright sunlight.

Kodak Z series. Doesn't have an optical viewfinder, but does have a shaded LCD in a normal "viewfinder" location and orientation. Pretty neat.

Hansenaz wrote:The closest I saw was a G12, but that's a lot heavier, more expensive, and probably more than I need.

Canon now has a G12 introduced, seems like less than a year ago they introduced the G11. I have a G10 (and also more bells and whistles than I really need) and I am past middle age and with corrected lenses my vision is less than 20/20. I have never used my optical viewfinder. I have found that on my G10 with 5x zoom, the nicer sized ~2"x 2.5" (actual) LCD screen works well for me and not that much of a problem with bright sunlight. Many quality digital cameras have a smaller size LCD screen than mine that is just too hard for me to see. Also, not sure about the G11 and G12, but I was initially disappointed to discover that on my G10 (buried in the manual) that when viewing through the optical viewfinder, that one is only seeing ~78% of the actual picture scene, where as on the G10 LCD screen, it was close to 98%-99%. Wendy and Eric should comment here on their nice, much smaller, and fully loaded Canon S90 with the same LCD screen size as the G10,G11.. but I"m not sure if it has a viewfinder or not (and if it is also only ~78% like my G10) and I believe the optical zoom is to 4X, but a very sweet choice evidenced partly by the quality pics they take and post!

We suspect the Canon G13 specs will include a 12MP+ sensor and possibly an improved video mode at the very least. Something that we’d love to see changed in a Canon G13 is the Canon G12’s most pointless optical viewfinder.

@Hansenaz you may find that LCD screens are better in sunlight these days ;)

ive (re)found that a viewfinder is so cool.. what were we thinking by ditching them for larger LCD? i like the immediate focus and composition i have with my evf over a screen anyday.
where composition is still important, as in nature shots, the off-balance display that most p&s ovf's have make them useless to me. "i dont remember taking this photo!"
the ovf i had on kodak, sony and casio was so bad that i had to go in shop and crop the pic, but risked losing the original point of the photo.
ive recently given up on pocket cams and opted for a micro 4/3 (think of it as a mini dslr) - so the lumix g1 weighs a pound, no biggie. i dont take it out in the wilds, but its my go-to camera for most of my life.

My personal opinion is that the Canon S90 (now called S95) is a superb camera. It does not have an optical viewfinder, however the LCD is of high quality and is excellent for analyzing photos prior to shooting. So many people buy ultra slim "pocket" cameras with marginal image quality when the S90 is available with only slightly larger physical dimensions. The S90 is a pocket camera with tremendous landscape image quality potential. For my personal backcountry use, the S90 is a no-brainer. I love it.

same could be said for the lumix zx3/5/7

Last year when my son heard I had a chip in the lens of my Canon S5-iS he bought me a Canon S120 for my birthday. While yes, it was lighter and smaller than the S5, I was not happy with it at all. With no view finder at all, whenever I was taking a picture with the sun at my back, I could not see the screen at all, it was way too glossy. But then although it had 10.3 megapixel over the 8 for the S5, I didn't like the quality of the photos. So I went on a hike with both cameras, taking the same photos with each, sometimes using a tripod to keep the variables to a minimum. Since I don't get involved with manual settings (and I'd guess that's like the majority) I stuck with the Auto setting, or sometimes the automatic 'Landscape' setting on.

Then I compared the photos side-by-side, and even with a few chips in the lens of the old S5, in my estimation they were consistently better than the S120. Unfortunately (or possibly 'fortunately') when I took a weekend trip back to MN in June, to travel light I brought the S120, and while at a Farmer's Market the camera was misplaced, and by time I realized it someone had already made off with it. Ok, so I wasn't too broken up about it, except that as small as the case was, it had all the SD chips I owned.

I still have the S5-iS, which Tracey uses when she wants to take pictures, but for my main camera while hiking I'm using a late-series S3-iS refurb, which works great for me, not too heavy, yet it has a great lens. It's small and light enough with it in the case strapped to my chest, I can still take it out and take a photo without stopping my bike if needed. Some of my best rattler shots have been taken that way.

So, from my standpoint, it isn't necessarily the amount of mega-pixels that makes for better photos, but the lens is equally important, if not more so. But just like foot gear, hydration packs, backpacks and the rest of our gear... it's up to what works for us.

ssk44 wrote:So many people buy ultra slim "pocket" cameras with marginal image quality...

Reminded me of my first camera. It fits this description perfectly! (c.1982)

Can you imagine taking that into a Ritz or Walgreens and asking a twenty year old associate to develop it

@ssk44@te-wa@CannondaleKid So much for optical viewfinder as the topic

IMO there aren't any horrible digitals out there like there were ten years ago. You pretty much get what you pay for and point-n-shoots will only go so far. Only a few shots ever get published but most aren't interested in that anyhow. Photography is mainly about capturing light, composition is mighty important but not the top dog in my opinion. Although you can capture light through a pinhole onto a pinhead sensor the results will never match larger formats without some major breakthrough. To me they look flat and lack DOF compared to even the cheapest SLR with a kit lens

I know Eric loves his S90. I've heard it in his voice while watching his eyes dilate to the size of quarters and wish I could get as excited... just can't

@te-wa what the heck, you bought a micro 4/3 but don't take it out!

joe bartels wrote:I know Eric loves his S90. I've heard it in his voice while watching his eyes dilate to the size of quarters and wish I could get as excited... just can't

:roll: If I'm not mistaken, isn't this topic only about P&S cameras...

Yes and Hansenaz did ask for comments. That's what you offered so my first line was ridiculous. Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers!

You are welcome to disagree with my opinions and comments.

Thanks everyone for the input...a lot of experience and expertise here. Can't say I see a consensus but there are a few nominees for me to check out...and confirmation that the P&S optical viewfinder really is dead.

EVFs: I also like those (it's putting it up to my eye that's important...can't stand the stiff armed approach: my arms are long but my eyes are getting longer). But they only put those on the P&S super-zooms which aren't so compact, right?

I may have to face the fact that I may not be happy upgrading my A700!

joe bartels wrote:@te-wa what the heck, you bought a micro 4/3 but don't take it out!

hey! you mentions something about the g1 not being very dustproof.. and that ascared me a little.

the g1 is offically a "p&s" since there are no mirrors, and it is roughly the same size and weight as the g12, but with interchangable lenses. that is what sold me..

yes, hansenaz- the evf is very cool. the cam is a bit heavy for my taste, at 14oz but it is so, so much better than an "auto" mode p&s. I do support eric's love of the s90. got one for a friend, and one for my sister as gifts. they are full-feature tools.. im sure i could have fun with one.

doh! that was a big caution on the original production
It's been a long time since I researched that, at the time they said the next version, model or something would be improved. So I'd bet yours is fine unless it's two years old. Letty (seems like she got one... maybe I'm mixing members up) probably knows more, perhaps never experienced any issues either.

On our ridgeline hike today I used the EVF almost exclusively. I have to admit it really increases your attention to composition!

um, i think letty had posted pics of the newest of the micros, a nicon iirc.

they cool thing about the evf is it remains off until the sensor "sees" your eyeball. and, you can use all of the g1's primary functions thru the evf. saves mucho battery life over the lcd screen.

I insist on the EVF, especially for my near sightedness. My Panasonic FZ35 fills the bill for me. It has 18x wonderful zoom and I think it takes pretty good movies too. Even tho it looks like a heavy camera, it's not. Most folks are surprised when they pick it up. I think you might be able to get the camera for around $300.

Good luck on your research and search. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

Thanks for the suggestion Tibber...it's a reasonable one. Before I got my current (light) Canon I had a couple Olympus super-zooms with EVFs and they were fine. But I still sort of lean toward the smaller, lighter (2 AA batteries!) ones. I've started to look into the S95 and Lumix equivalents (though I'm a little prejudiced against Lumix because they seemed to usher in the "no OVF" trend). I'm surprised to see how pricey they are - I guess that's the price for good optics and sensor.

A couple other reactions to the great comments here. I'm not at all bothered by the fact that the OVF shows less than full view: I almost always crop on the computer. And I'm probably an oddball/dinosaur but I NEVER use the LCD screen to review photographs. Also as an experiment I tried to use my LCD screen to compose photographs on a hike this weekend .... couldn't do it all all. But I agree with Joe's comment that they're probably better these days.

i just uploaded a set taken with my lumix g1
if you dont like THAT blue sky, ya need yer eyes checked!