The Single Most Important Issue in Modern Photography

[drd1135]

While I have used tilt screens occasionally when I've owned cameras which have them. I find that I prefer fixed screens. And at least with the Pro2 vs T2. The rear screen has more resolution as a trade off of not being tilty or twisty.

The X Pro 3 has the same res screen and it tilts. I never really thought of this as an issue.

 

[Bobby Tingle]

The X Pro 3 has the same res screen and it tilts. I never really thought of this as an issue.

That's why I mentioned the Pro2/T2 specifically. Fuji changed their ideology going into the T3/4 and Pro3. My thinking is that Fuji did not intend for the Pro3 screen to be used in the manner a flip screen is constantly used. But it is capable of being used that way for people who want to. And to your point, no it is not an issue. The implementation of it on the Pro3 is perfect for people like myself.

 

[drd1135]

Just to note, in the XT4 review on DPR, they state under cons:
“Fully articulating screen may not be your preferred option for stills shooting.” At least they finally acknowledge the preferences.

 

[mike3996]

The engineers are pretty clever. Some day they're going to announce a system that's both FAS and tilty. That will mark the end of mobile phone photography!

 

[MoonMind]

The engineers are pretty clever. Some day they're going to announce a system that's both FAS and tilty. That will mark the end of mobile phone photography!

I was looking into something very similar this morning - a monitor stand that was versatile enough for my specific needs (little room, aesthetic necessities). They exist

That said, miniaturising that will be tricky

M.

 

[drd1135]

I recently acquired the book “Vivian Maier, Street Photographer”. The cover shows here with her Rollei TLR. I immediately thought of the screen issue. I do like waist level shooting, which is probably why fixed screens frustrate me. I also note the new X100v has a nice compromise. The screen tilts, but folds in nearly as tidy as a fixed screen. One thing for sure, the camera companies aren’t going to make three flavors. At best, the screen could be an interchangeable part.

 

[William Lewis]

I have never owned a camera with a moving screen. I wonder if the "fully articulated" ones are actually articulated enough to flip them around to hide the display so I wouldn't have to look at them?

I'd actually prefer no screen except for menus and settings - I almost never view images on camera and absolutely despise trying to take photos on one of them. That's never going to happen so I just tolerate them and turn off as much as possible.

 

[drd1135]

I have never owned a camera with a moving screen. I wonder if the "fully articulated" ones are actually articulated enough to flip them around to hide the display so I wouldn't have to look at them?

I'd actually prefer no screen except for menus and settings - I almost never view images on camera and absolutely despise trying to take photos on one of them. That's never going to happen so I just tolerate them and turn off as much as possible.

Yes, most of the FA ones will do that.

 

[Lawrence A.]

It's interesting what is or is not absolutely necessary for one photographer or another. Articulating, flip, or fixed screens are all fine by me. I do use the articulating screen on the Pen-F now and again, but not often. What is absolutely necessary for me is an eye level viewfinder, or, as with the Leica type 113 or the X1, the ability to attach one. And again, it doesn't have to do much more than allow me to frame my shot by holding the thing to my eye. I'll admit it: I'm old, and a lot of the sturm and drang about what is or is not absolutely essential in a camera strikes me as much ado about nothing. You know, "unless it's full frame and does the laundry, it's useless; and if it doesn't go up to iso one million, don't even think of taking available light photos indoors at night with it." I'm thankful for some of the gadgetry in modern cameras, but very little of it - other than the eye level VF- is a dealbreaker for me. I've caught up with modern photography and find it has lots of "nice to haves" but way more than I personally need to enjoy photographing. Everyone has there "must haves". My two favorite cameras du jour? The Pen F and the Leica D-lux type 109, and I'm actually glad the D-lux has a fixed screen.

 

[melanieylang]

As someone who really struggles with fully articulating screens, I was very excited when the Fujifilm X-T100 was released with a clever tilting screen, which also hinged to face forwards, unlike the one on the X-T3. It allowed for easier angling in portrait orientation, if one was willing to turn the camera in the opposite direction (which worked for me, as I don't have a set direction). To my thinking, this was the best possible solution, but it was ditched from the X-T200 in favour of FA.

 

[drd1135]

As someone who really struggles with fully articulating screens, I was very excited when the Fujifilm X-T100 was released with a clever tilting screen, which also hinged to face forwards, unlike the one on the X-T3. It allowed for easier angling in portrait orientation, if one was willing to turn the camera in the opposite direction (which worked for me, as I don't have a set direction). To my thinking, this was the best possible solution, but it was ditched from the X-T200 in favour of FA.
View attachment 227790

Fuji has really made some nice choices for this low end model. The X-T200 actually has a bigger screen (3.5 in) at a higher resolution.

 

[legine]

The X Pro 3 has the same res screen and it tilts. I never really thought of this as an issue.

... flip out screens! Surely the most important single issue in digital or analog photography today is to make a print. There is likely no legacy of billions of current images without.
I’m just saying...

 

[Dean Smith]

My Speed Graphic didn’t have a flip out screen, just a ground glass screen. Maybe that’s why I‘m not interested in articulating screens.

 

[drd1135]

... flip out screens! Surely the most important single issue in digital or analog photography today is to make a print. There is likely no legacy of billions of current images without.
I’m just saying...

The title was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

 

[tonyturley]

The title was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

Levity on a photo forum? Is that allowed?

 

[kyteflyer]

Screens... arghhh. I never wanted a tilty screen but I have one on the TZ90. I use it more than I use the miniscule viewfinder, which I would use more if it were larger. In bright sunshine its handy for using your own bod to shade an otherwise almost unuseable screen. I’ve always preferred the variable angle screen, partly because it can be turned in to face the camera body, and thus remain unscratched or otherwise damaged. In actual use... I don’t find it better or worse than tilting screens except that in recent years the tilt has been more about selfies than various angles for shooting. eg, overhead has become n/a it seems, or if it does overhead, don’t expect to be able to get it down on the ground and see the screen which now points the wrong way.

Overall, though, give me a nice big bright viewfinder and I don’t care if its EVF or OVF.

 

[drd1135]

Levity on a photo forum? Is that allowed?

I wonder how often I laugh at serious posts.

 

[mike3996]

Leica, offering solutions to satisfy both camps

 

[legine]

The title was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

Levity. Difficult to tell on this forum!