Post by Chris J DixonPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)I suspect the main problem, as krw has said, is the desire for a
viewfinder.
Yes
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)What's your objection to no viewfinder? I can think of
several: in many (all?) cases electronic "viewfinders" are lower
resolution than the sensor, so you can't really check with them; and
they're hard to use in sunlight (impossible unless they're a rubber-cup
type)
That's not my experience - are you claiming that a screen in
sunlight is better than an eyepiece?
No. My present (old) camera has two electronic viewfinders - one in the
normal place on the back of the camera, and one small one with a rubber
cup to view it with/through; I can switch whichever one it uses. The one
with the cup is the only one usable in sunlight, of course, as they are
both backlit using camera power. Against backlit-using-camera-power
screens, optical finders are usually better in sunlight. They're
_always_ (AFAIK) better for focusing, as the electronic type never has
the same resolution as the sensor.
There is _some_ advantage to optical by electronic in some respects:
there's no parallax, and you can also be aware of any shortcomings of
the electronic capture mechanism (e. g. contrast, flare, etcetera).
I did use at work _many_ years ago (in the floppy disc era!) a Sony that
had an electronic screen, but backlit optionally by ambient light: it
had a diffuser bar across the top, which redirected sunlight as
backlight. I thought that an excellent idea, and have never understood
why it disappeared - not just for cameras, but for e. g. 'phones and
laptops too. But it has (disappeared that is). [That one might even have
had the same resolution as the sensor, given that that sensor produced
images you could put several of on a floppy.]
Post by Chris J DixonPost by J. P. Gilliver (John). And they require power (though so does the zoom - I don't think
I've _ever_ seen a digital camera with a zoom that can be operated
_without_ the power on). Probably others too.
Not an issue.
No, batteries have improved a lot. Though it still irritates me - I'd
like a mechanical zoom control. (Not least so I could leave it where I
want it!)
Post by Chris J DixonPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)Other than _wondering_, is there anything about your present camera that
is making you think it's not up to what you want nowadays?
Not particularly. A selector switch is a bit temperamental, but
not a big issue. I was sort of thinking that perhaps things had
moved on technically in 10 years, OTOH better resolution means
bigger files.
Chris
As well as resolution (a decidedly mixed blessing as we both agree),
there have been improvements in what might be seen as gimmicks - face
recognition, and so on. While old photographers like us might not give
much weight to these, I can see their usefulness (e. g. when combined
with autofocus - as long as they can be turned off!).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to
be doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor
(1889-1945)