Wow, eh?
I always use the viewfinder (rather than the viewscreen) on my big camera. Little cameras don't have viewfinders. I wondered how much I would mind......
As it turns out, I haven't been missing it. I can't see the screen well enough to tell if an image is in focus, but I can't do anything about focus on this camera, anyway, as it's all automatic.
I can see well enough to see if things are framed more or less as I want them.
I am verrrrry happy with this camera!
5 comments:
You are like my husband, we both have exactly the same camera but where I always use the screen he always uses the viewfinder. He doesn't get as many out of focus photos as I do so maybe I ought to try the viewfinder too. The trees in the previous posts are beautiful, I love to see the shapes of the bare trees in winter especially when they are covered in snow.
My big camera has a manual focus option. The manual focus is useful when I am better at focusing than the camera -- usually when there are no clear contrasting lines in its focusing area.
So for manual focus, I have to use the viewfinder (as my own ocular equipment can't focus comfortably on the screen!). There is a handy focus thingie for the viewfinder, so I can look through the camera at something at a distance of about 3/4 metre, where my eyes can focus by themselves just fine, and adjust the viewfinder's focus so I can actually tell if I am focusing the camera properly.... The viewfinder also draws less power than the viewscreen so my battery lasts longer.... :-)
I have been so impressed with how many sharp pics this little camera gets. The technology in cameras is mind-bending.
I think I paid $200 for my old Pentax, in 1985. Of course I used that camera right up to the purchase of my first digital camera in fall 2004.... With only a couple of $5 battery changes in all that time.
My new camera cost $150 (wonder what that is, in 1985 dollars?), and is SO much more capable than the Pentax.
It doesn't stop motion as well, but it zooms, has macro capacity, even takes video (though without sound -- I haven't tried that yet)....
I did have to buy it a battery charger (it takes AA batteries) and a set of NiMh batteries....
I resisted going digital for a very long time, and now I am totally sold. I love it and would never go back to analog..... :-)
Oops -- forgot to say "thanks"!
I'm glad you like my tree pics.
That was such a lovely day. I was so glad I had time to meander to work that day!
Lucky you to have a camera that can focus so closely....mine certainly does not!
I resisted digital for a long time, because I was offended by the notion that I would have to keep buying a new camera all the time.
Now I look forward to a new camera, because I expect that it will be even more capable than the current one! :-)
My little camera is last year's model. I watched for sales, and got it for $150 at Target. I did have to turn around and buy it a battery charger (it takes AAs), so that plus batteries was $40.
On the other hand -- my big camera cost me $400, 2.5 years ago, and it was the previous year's model, too. (It has a proprietary battery, and came with its own charger.)
The brand new model (came out in January) of my big camera is $350.
Just like with computers, the technology just gets better and better, and relatively cheaper and cheaper.......
I was surprised to learn, reading reviews recently, that some brands of camera don't have image-stabilizing software. I pretty much do not need a tripod at all, even with the zoom full out, as long as I take a few exposures of each thing I want to capture. At least one of them will be clear, pretty much every time.
Image stabilization is like magic.....
Post a Comment