Digital on a budget, yes, more ramblings!

[oldgreygary]

A couple of things over the past week that I have learnt about the Canon G2. Looking through the viewfinder doesn't give the true picture of what you see. I think in the manual it says that it covers 84% of the subject/view. That accounts for when I have been looking at the result in the LCD spurious objects appear on there which didn't show through the viewfinder! By experimenting a bit it seems as though I need to position the viewfinder just above the point of focus to not get bits that I didn't expect. Ahh, you say use the LCD then. Yup, thats ok but at the moment I don't feel that comfortable using that as a way of viewing the subject. Maybe, thats just getting used to that way rather than a problem? I guess it also could increase the possibility of motion/camera shake problems?

Just a bit more about the LCD before I sign off. I have noticed that when using it in low light the output on there is or seems to be enhanced in terms of brightness. As when I have checked images when I got back they have been badly underexposed. That's another lesson. What I thought I would try and do is in effect set my exposure make a 'test' shot then check the histogram. Then adjust as necessary (re-check histogram) etc. until I get it right.

The issue I can see with that is that sometimes the right 'moment' comes and goes in an instant. I guess that's a reason to use program/aperture/shutter priority mode instead of manual on occasions when that situation is likely to occur.

Cheers for now

Gary

[FrankMi]

Hi Gary, if you like the camera in all other respects except the 84% view and you have the ability in post processing to crop the image, then you have a benefit of changing the crop without loosing anything you saw in the viewfinder. For a lot of subjects I shoot with a slightly larger scene than I want in the final image just to be able to modify the crop after I see it on the monitor.

[Geoff F]

Like Frank, I normally allow for a bit of cropping during editing. If nothing else, it allows sufficient space for a bit of straightening.

One thing to remember with your camera is that it isn't a dslr so looking through the viewfinder will never be exactly the same as looking through a lens.

On a distant landscape there usually isn't much difference but it can make a lot of difference when closer to your subject. Which is why they recommend using the LCD for macro work.

And I was never that keen on shooting with the LCD either. For some reason I always struggled to get a straight horizon. Bright light can also cause problems.

There are two brightness levels for the LCD screen.

But even with more expensive cameras I still sometimes get caught out by the screen brightness and, doubting my own abilities, make adjustments which eventually prove to be unnecessary.

If in doubt, I would always prefer to be slightly under exposed than over exposed. Dark areas can be improved with editing but blown highlights are lost forever.

[oldgreygary]

I see your point both Frank and Geoff. But, I do think to do that then I will have to forget about the viewfinder and use the LCD. That then would give me the option to crop. One instance that comes to mind is that I was shooting a stream through a wire fence. Everything looked fine through the viewfinder but when I looked at the LCD there was a piece of the wire fence at the bottom. In this instance it leaves no choice about cropping as the wire fence has to go which then makes the picture unbalanced. So I think that to give the best opportunity to crop with the G2 would would be provided by using the LCD.

I will have to give it a try and just use LCD and see how it goes.

Cheers for now

Gary

[rpcrowe]

My Canon 7D viewfinder shows 100% of the image I will acquire. Using the 7D, I am quite careful not to cut off any tiny area (like part of the foot or tail of a dog) that I want included in my image.

I think that the viewfinders on some cameras (both optical and through the lens) show an abbreviated portion of the image because the manufacturers consider it more important for the user to be able to crop out extraneous details than for the photographer to miss important parts of their image when framing the shot. Of course, it is probably also technically easier to make a camera without 100% viewing.

I have shot for years with viewfinders that do not show he entire image as I also have a lot of experience in using non-parallax corrected optical viewfinders. However, after using through the lens viwfinders on film SLR cameras for many years, I had a bit of a problem framing with my first digital camera, the Olympus 2000Z point and shoot, because of parallax problems.

[oldgreygary]

Richard, could you explain parallax problems? I haven't heard that term before.

Its good for me that I am coming across these issues as it does make me ask questions. The responses that I get, added to what I discover myself means I can apply solutions that give me the opportunity to move forward.

Thanks

Gary

[enaiman]

I think I know what Richard is talking about.

When you are not "looking through the lens" and the viewfinder is not placed above the lens, the image will be different in the viewfinder and in the photo. Similar to different images seen with one eye closed, the content kinda "shifts laterally" between images.

It's not a big issue when you are photographing something at distance (infinity) but it is worse when the subject is close.

[rpcrowe]

Right on Eugen... This only a problem with cameras in which you do not view the image through the lens. It was relevalent in rangefinder cameras in which the viewfinder was usually above and off to the side of the lens and also a problem in twin lens reflex cameras in which the viewing lens was above the shooting lens.

As Eugen states, this is primarily a problem when shooting subjects fairly close to the camera. Some cameras had lines in the viewfinder to provide the photographer a rough approximation of the actual framing. Some later (and more expensive) rangefinder 35mm cameras such as the Leica M-series and Nikon S-3 and SP had viewfinders which corrected somewhat for parallax.

I got lazy after shooting for many, many years using a single lens reflex film camera and forgot about parallax. I was reminded when I viewed my first sets of digital images when shooting with the old Olympus P&S camera. I suspect that parallax correcton is one of the reasons some photgraphers like to shoot with live view. With liveview, they see what is actually being shot, even with a P&S camera.

[oldgreygary]

Thanks, Eugen and Richard for clarifying.

Cheers for now

Gary