The Single Most Important Issue in Modern Photography

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
Lexington, VA
Steve
is, of course, Tilt-Only vs. Fully-Articulated LCD screen. (Warning: this is a mini-rant.) My collection of cameras has both represented so my feelings are not as strong as many. However, I was just looking at the DPR comments on the Canon RP body (This thread got me curious: Canon - Anyone Canon RP users here?) an they specifically say " The flip-out articulating screen encourages waist-level shooting, but makes for a wider – and more conspicuous – overall package than a screen that simply tilts." OTOH, in the full review they say: " Articulating screen allows subtle from-the-hip shooting" and specifically list the screen as a "pro". I have no problem with the difference of opinion because it's a legitimate preference depending on the way your shoot. OTOH, DPR will almost always list the lack of a fully-articulating screen as "con" in their cameras reviews. This bias always annoys me because, like it or not, it influences camera makers because many new buyers read these reviews.

I'm done. I feel better. I have some friends coming over latter for some socially-distanced, outdoor beer drinking which I clearly need.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Apr 2, 2018
Finland
A Fully Articulating screen would be cool, if only they fully articulated. Namely there's missing the vital position where you can shoot waist-level but also keep your nose directed forward, not at an angle.

Another good argument against FAS is how it is slower to activate. Flippy screens only need a flip, with FAS you have to first swivel it 180 degrees and then another ~180 by another axis.

Fuji X-T3 has the perfect implementation. I love that thing. Didn't Pentax K1 also have a swell system?
 

Tilman Paulin

All-Pro
Nov 15, 2011
Vancouver B.C.
Tilman
Fully articulated is more versatile, but - I admit - also more fiddly.
(My guess is that the level of versatility is the reason why it's implemented more often these days)

I prefer FAS, because it allows me to take ground level macro shots in portrait orientation.

For street photographers who are worried about becoming conspicuous just because of that small extra rectangle at the side of your camera...? I don't know if that's really all the difference between being conspicuous and inconspicuous ;-)
(and in theory FAS would allow you to shoot at a 90 degree angle - looking in a completely different direction. Or backwards over your shoulder :) )

The Fuji solution seems to be a great compromise (except for not allowing VLogging or selfies).

One thing that I start to appreciate more and more about FAS is that I can leave it folded-in all the time - as if my camera didn't have a screen.

In the end it's a subject I found my peace with... There's arguments for either - and I have managed to take nice photos with either :)
 
Last edited:

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
It's funny . . . I used to think I had to have a flippy screen, and didn't like a FAS. Now that I have an X-E2 and Pen F, I find I use either one just fine without any heartburn either way. Some day when the price has come way down, I might get an X-Pro3 to see what that type of screen is about.
 

Tilman Paulin

All-Pro
Nov 15, 2011
Vancouver B.C.
Tilman
I just think reviews should note whether the screen is one or the other and not treat it as a pro or con.
I agree, that's kind of silly... Or it might be pro or a con for a specific usage purpose...

On the 'plus side' - dpreview is barely doing any reviews any more... So even though their user base is certainly pretty vocal - I don't expect them to have a huge influence on the mass market's buying decisions...
 

gordo

Veteran
Jul 6, 2017
Arizona
Gordon
Between flippy screens and "fully articulated" screens, I tend to prefer flippy. Exception below.

<snip>
Fuji X-T3 has the perfect implementation. I love that thing. Didn't Pentax K1 also have a swell system?
The K-1's moon lander setup is a bit unique - you can position the screen in just about any position within it's range of motion, as it the base doesn't have any hinges, and the screen can tilt on one axis from the base. It's a neat setup I happen to like. edit - hopefully to clarify my comment.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
Lexington, VA
Steve
Oh- this is clearly the second most important issue in photography.

"Black or Chrome camera body" is the most important decision that you, the photographer, can make...

View attachment 227410

View attachment 227412
One of my favorite movies. Jimmy Stewart was such a great actor he could make you believe that Grace Kelly was in his apartment and he was more interested in looking out the window.
 

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
And what about those who prefer a fixed screen?
I used to think I had to have a moveable rear screen, and while they do come in handy for low angle compositions, I am finding I like the X-E2 a lot. The only mild annoyance is that Fuji inexplicably put the tripod socket offset, forcing the removal of the tripod plate every time I need to charge the battery or remove the SD card. A center-mounted tripod socket and weather sealing are the only things I think the camera is missing.
 

BrianS

Legend
Jul 7, 2010
The answer is simple. The camera should implement imagery over Blue-Tooth that connects to a screen that you wear over one eye like a Borg Eyepiece. The electronics themselves would simply be an external viewfinder, like the VF-4 that clips into the shoe mount. Use Blue-Tooth for the data link. The screen on the camera would remain stationary, simplifying the mechanics and reducing size of the body. The user would have all degrees of freedom to move the camera, including mounting it on a remote-controlled tripod.

giphy.gif


And now, how the invention would look during marketing.

 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
Lexington, VA
Steve
I went out today with my fixed screen, no evf EP1. I was constantly being balked trying to frame shots, never mind focus. I really liked the XE3 but in the end it was sold. I just shoot at too many different angles to do without anymore. Except of course for photo challenges.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
Interesting to see this come up - again.

Let me first state that I still do prefer viewfinders over screens by a huge margin, and optical over electronic, too - though EVFs have become so good that I'm not bothered by them anymore at all, and they do have advantages (exact framing - but "pre-chimping", too). Anyhow, especially in bright light, screen have more downsides than advantages. So, one of my gripes with the otherwise amazing Ricoh GR line is the fact that there's no reliable viewfinder available (the available optical ones don't meet my expectations - they're too simplistic and have not enough eye-relief). The GR III's touchscreen makes up for this to a certain degree - and yes, I did change my view on touchscreens in that respect in the last two years - the Olympus PEN E-PL7 initiated this with its very responsive unit. But again, I'll take a - sufficiently reliable - viewfinder over the best of screens every time ...

All in all, I tend to use screens for reviewing images, not shooting - but I have a lot more use for fully articulating screens for actual shooting because I often choose portrait orientation, and that's generally easier with this type of screen. And you can also protect the screen very easily. Flip screens, I tend not to use a lot at all ... to the extend I sometimes have to fiddle with them to remind myself how to move them ;)

Oh, and btw., the from-the-hip thing I usually do without looking anyway ... Though I'm no longer any good at this type of shooting. However, there's no faster way of shooting ...

M.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom