Hacker News Reader

Comment by nottorp | Hacker News Reader

Ok silly non specialist and even non hobbyist question.

The only reason I own a DSLR (the cheapest Nikkon I could find) is because I hate looking at a LCD. With how (d)slrs are set up what I see in that view finder is what i get in the photo.

Mirrorless cameras only have the LCD right? Is there any option that fixes that?

Note that there may be a camera category that I don't know about that fixes my problem. If yes, please tell me which it is :)

View on HN

Lots of mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders - you have a conventional-looking viewfinder, but you look at a tiny screen, rather than a prism and a mirror. Because you are seeing an image captured by the sensor, it is precisely "what you see in that view finder is what you get in the photo" - including things like adjusting exposure compensation, which you would not see in an SLR viewfinder.

This also allows various helpful features to operate in the viewfinder, rather than just on the back LCD. I use magnification a lot, and there is also focus peaking and highlight and shadow indication. It can be really useful to have those a couple of button taps away while i'm composing a shot.

I was given a Sony camera to take photos at an event recently.

After two days, I noticed that the viewfinder would be dark when I turned the camera off. This was different than my usual Canon, so I wondered why.

Turns out it was a mirrorless camera, where the viewfinder is a screen. And I didn't notice that I was looking at a screen the whole time.

Edit: this was a Sony Alpha 7c. I really enjoyed using it. It's comfortably small and has the silver retro design of something from the 1930s.

It's the smallest (usable) full frame camera from Sony (there's another smallrer one from Sigms but it doesn't have a viewfinder). Its weight is 509g / 1.1 lb, has the same sensor as the Sony Alpha 7III and better autofocus (tracks humans as well as animals with eye detection - for photo and video).

I recently bought it and like it very much.

the problem is the success of the viewfinder varies between models, whereas most DSLR viewfinders were decent to good by nature of the SLR system.

Leica M cameras and Fuji X-pros have optical viewfinders.

Fuji’s specialist X100 series actually have both optical and electronic viewfinders.

I’ve had a few. First generation I mostly used the optical finder. Over time they’ve improved enough that I mainly use the electronic one now.

I like that you can see how the film simulation and exposure will look before you take the shot.

> I like that you can see how the film simulation and exposure will look before you take the shot.

This is an important insight. Optical viewfinders show you what will hit the sensor. Electronic viewfinders show you what you get.

Not even, actually. Optical viewfinders have a different optical path, and you will see a different image. For example, you'll get incorrect behaviour at large apertures.

That’s true for rangefinder style cameras but not for SLRs.

Most optical viewfinders will allow you to stop down for preview at the correct aperture.

There’s a useful feature on the X100 series to give you the framing offset.

No, it's also true for traditional SLR cameras, due to the nature of focusing screens and other issues you don't get accurate depth of field for very fast lenses, for example.

Actually, it is true for SLRs too. The pentaprism and other elements in the optical path are not large enough to transmit light at an aperture over f/2.8.

Stopping down isn't an issue. The issue is... not stopping up to the max aperture.

It is of course ever worse for rangefinder.

The viewfinder on the xpro shares the same hybrid design (Leicas do not have this feature, however).

That's the key feature of the design - there is no _real_ optical viewfinder because there is no mirror & pentaprism, which would be needed to redirect the incoming light from the sensor to a viewfinder.

Some mirrorless cameras have viewfinders, but it's either a digital display of what the sensor sees, or an actual optical path that doesn't go through the lens system. In either case it's not actual light redirected from the lens. A few illustrations:

- https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d28f27_00f04a01eccc4831b9...

- https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5c17fb063917ee...

Oh i looked at a few models and indeed some have what looks like a viewfinder. If there's a lcd inside instead of a direct optical path I don't think it matters for my simple needs. As long as I don't have to hold the camera at arms length and still not see anything on that external lcd because of the sun...

The one mirrorless i played with didn't have the viewfinder so I assumed that's how they all are.

Looks like I just need to be careful what I buy. Thanks!

A modern mirror less cameras typically have a digital viewfinder, often OLED, that replicate the optical viewfinder to varying degrees of success.

The viewfinders in mirrorless (at least in Canons) are all electronic. I know, it sounds weird, I know it sucks up battery life, I know there are concerns about lag. However, I resisted them for a long time until I actually used one.

They're pretty awesome, I recommend anyone that they're zero issues, and yet, I still don't feel right about them.

My Sony A6100 has a 120hz oled viewfinder which is smooth and good enough that I don't believe that the advantages of a real viewfinder outweigh the benefits of a new mirror less camera body.

I believe you can have an optical view finder but the actual photo will be framed slightly different that what you see through the view finder.

you can have a digital viewfinder but not an optical viewfinder without DSLR like design. mirrorless cameras don't have the prism-mirror system.

Modern mirror less cameras have an OLED screen inside the viewfinder, which in my humble opinion is a lot better than a normal viewfinder.

An electronic viewfinder or a hybrid viewfinder like the fuji xpro/x100.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com