Digital cameras forum: Poll: How often do you use the viewfinder on your point-and-shoot digital camera?

I cannot see anything on that little screen, especially outdoors. Pitiful. I would never have a camera without a viewfinder. Screens are not functional.

I suspect many (older?) people use viewfinders with their digital cameras out of habit, because they did so with their film-based cameras. I certainly find myself often doing so reflexively, without thinking.

In most cases I prefer to use the viewfinder, but there are situations where it is useful to use the screen to frame a shot. For example, you can hold a digital camera high up over your head and still get a good shot by swiveling the screen to set it up.

I always go to the viewfinder. I've been taking pictures since the 1950's. I can't help it. My Canon has a pretty good evf.

".....Much prefer to use the screen as you get an exact WYSIWYG view, and being Dyspraxic using them viewfinders quite often means that the picture is slightly offset, so screen is so much better and more practical....."

I'm not sure what you mean by the picture being offset. A dSLR, by definition, will show you exactly what the lens sees. The final image may, in most consumer SLRs, be very slightly larger than the viewfinder shows but it will be aligned.

I lied in my answer, because the choices went from "Always" to "almost never, or less frequently." I DO use the LCD screen when light conditions allow it, but when I am outside light conditions almost never allow it.

I was really surprised to find that the LCD screen shows MORE than what appears on my final pictures; I had a cutoff head recently when using the LCD. I want to check this out comparing the two for accuracy in placing the borders. And this was with a Nikon L18, of all companies to not have accurate viewfinders/screens.

As snapshot2 points out, popular 4x6 prints are 3:2 aspect ratio. If the majority of your printed pictures are on 4x6 photo paper, you are doing yourself a favor to set your camera's aspect ratio to that ratio. This saves having to crop pictures prior to printing in most cases. If, on the other hand, you seldom print a picture and view your pictures on a 4:3 monitor screen or on a 16:9 Widescreen monitor or on a 16:9 flatscreen TV, you should set camera aspect ratio to that ratio.

What surprised me about this Nikon L18, is that the actual picture area recorded should be exactly the same as shown on the LCD, or larger. Nikon has always touted the accuracy of the viewfinder image at the edges of their film cameras; to neglect this in digital cameras is not very reassuring, quality-wise.

I always use the view finder. Taking photos for over 40 years. The digital screen is useless in sunlight. I only use the screen, when i use the video function, in order not to get a headache. The camera is more steady, when using the viewfinder. I take a lot of sport photos, and have to see where the subject is. if they take it off SLR cameras, it would be a shame.

The digital viewfinders (not optical!) on my Fuji cameras are invaluable as they let you compose the shot knowing you will get exactly what you see.
I cannot understand this fashion for dispensing with a viewfinder and the reliance on the screen; I feel quite sorry for those snappers standing with their camera at arm's length trying to compose a shot in bright sunlight, very difficult. The only time I use the screen is for Macro (close up) shots.
I would not buy a camera that did not have a digital viewfinder.

There is no choice here for those of us who use a viewfinder for the vast majority of our photography. I would not want to be without the screen view for occasional situations, but I just feel more comfortable using a viewfinder. Very often, the screen is totally unable to be seen due to ambient light or glare.

I use my optical viewfinder (OVF) almost all the time. Far too often the LCD screen is virtually invisible due to the high ambient light level My most recent purchase (following the accidental dropping of my tiny Sony 7.2 mp camera into a rock pool) was difficult to make, because almost all of the cameras in my price and mp range have no OVF. Eventually I settled for a Canon Powershot A1100IS, slightly bigger than the Sony, but with 12.1 mp and OVF. This gives good results, but there was very limited choice. I heartily deplore the modern tendency of manufacturers to drop the OVF in favour of a few more square millimeters of LCD screen. I wonder how much real market research they have done to arrive at this decision.

On my P&S camera (an Optio 33LF), I use the optical viewfinder about half the time if not slightly less. It doesn't auto-focus any faster regardless of whether the screen is used or not. Also there is just enough offset of the viewfinder optics where it's better to use the screen when doing up-close shots. In fact the screen is necessary when doing manual focus, since the camera in this case has a stepped focusing mechanism and being off by one tick is often blurry. The screen gives me a better idea of what I'm getting.

Now on my DSLR (a D5000, which is a bigger and different breed of camera than the P&S) I use the optical viewfinder whenever I can. Using the screen via live-view mode makes auto-focusing much slower. (Its about the same as the P&S in that mode.) And because of the reflex mechanism, not only is using the viewfinder advantageous in terms of speed, it also shows me exactly what I'm getting through the lens. Using the screen also works better when the eyepiece cup is swapped out with the eyepiece cover, which can be a moderate pain because leaving it open causes artifacts or throws off the metering and it's dealing with extra piece of tiny gear that may be easy to lose. Yet the screen on my DSLR is repositionable like that of most P&S cameras letting me see and take shots from otherwise impossible vantage points, not to mention being handy for doing video. So I still consider it a good feature despite the trade-offs.

The funny thing is that while it's more advantageous overall to use the viewfinder on the DSLR, but the DSLR has has a much better screen in regards to bright light visibility. Yet the P&S has the screen swivel positioned much better such that I can actually use it when getting in shots during tripod shooting. (While it makes more sense to use the P&S in situations when you're not lugging gear around.) Can't have it all I guess.