Durability is a big factor. If I was buying a camera only for photography, I’d have no need for an articulating screen. I’d much prefer a better quality screen, more durable, and way more resistant to dust and moisture.
As I use my camera 60% for video, I would NEVER go back to a camera that didn’t have a front facing screen option, however it was done.
I’m looking more and more at getting a modern camcorder. What they lack in advanced photography/video features, they make up in good integration and pipelines for actually producing bulk video.
It seems like Sony tend to go for a vertical flip rather than a horizontal one and the EVF on that model would definitely get in the way of that. I suspect that’s the main reason my RX100 IV has a screen that swings all the way up, but my NEX6 only tilts (again the NEX 5 with no EVF flips all the way up).
As for why they don’t go horizontal, you’d have to ask them, but Luke’s durability suggestion is a reasonable starting point.
The durability argument seems good if you just use common sense. Something with a hinge like that definitely seems like it could snap off. Drop your camera with the screen folded out, and poof, detached screen.
That being said. I don’t know if the evidence pans out. I’ve never in my entire life seen a camera with a flip out screen have the screen get snapped off. I think that could only happen in the most extreme possible environments. Even then, when you are in a tough spot you can just keep the screen unflipped. Even better, the flippy screen allows you to have it face inwards towards the camera. Much better than having a screen protector on there, as I see on so many DSLRs.
If durability is the reason, then the default should still be flippy screen. A special durability model should be the only one without it. As we well know, camera manufacturers have no problem making a ridiculous number of different models when they can probably get away with like, five or less.
One reason I bought a new DSLR (my Canon 80D) was that the flippy screen on my 60D had issues. I’d flip the screen around but whatever switch made the screen show in mirror mode didn’t work, so I could see what was on the screen but it broke my brain every time I tried to use it to line something up side to side.
Due to not being able to fly with electronics in the cabin on a recent flight, I used my old camera for a few weeks and once again my brain was breaking. I also used a 2010 MacBook Pro again for two weeks, and that’s coming from a 2016 MacBook Pro, which was quite a step back in time!
Anyway, if I was a professional photographer, I wouldn’t want or need a moveable screen at all. The only thing I’d need it for is reviewing photos taken using the view finder. I’d much prefer the better weather-proof-ness of few moving parts.
My GH4 has the flippy screen, and is very very weatherproof. I took it out in rain on multiple occasions no problem. Once I even took it out in a blizzard strong enough to cancel work.
Also, even if a pro photographer takes most shots with the viewfinder, having the flippy screen is still occasionally useful. Having it is better than not having it. Get shots putting the camera on or near the ground. Get shots when the camera is right up against a wall. Get shots with the camera on something very tall.
There is also an argument to be made that most cameras these days let you control them with wifi from your phone, including live view. In that case, does the camera itself need a screen at all? That line of thinking has already been taken to its extreme, though it didn’t seem to catch on.
Yes. Everyone wants the thing to have a dedicated screen, no matter how shit the thing’s screen is or how amazing the phone’s screen.
If you really need a screen that has to move around, why not just attach a portable LCD?
Or get a dSLR with WiFi and use your smart phone as an external screen.
If using an external screen was built into both the camera and the screen/phone, this would be great. For example, using AirPlay between devices and the Apple TV works like a charm. It’s one of those things that just works, and makes everything less stressful and way easier and each device more capable.
I have the option to use my phone as a screen for my GoPro and my Canon 80D. It’s nothing but a pain in the arse. The cameras connect via wifi, and become their own wifi bases. Convincing my phone to connect to the camera instead of another network is a nightmare. They disconnect all the time at any excuse. It only works without any hitches about 30% of the time, maybe 50% of the time after multiple attempts, and maybe 20% of the time I just give up.
Then the apps are shoddy. Canon and GoPro use different systems and designs and UI ideas. It’s a complete shit show.
I really like being able to transfer images and videos from these cameras to my phone to edit or share on Instagram and stuff, but I’ll avoid using the apps for image previewing at every opportunity.
If Apple had a camera and phone connection that just worked like AirPlay, I might be tempted, but as a real solution to someone who uses a camera a lot, the current “phone as external camera screen” options aren’t close to being ready yet.
It is indeed not an elegant solution to make the camera into a wifi hotspot that your phone connects to. I do it, and it works, but it’s still a pain. The worst part is that my phone has to disconnect from the Internet.
When using the GH4 I at least have the option for the GH4 to connect to wifi. If my phone connects to the same wifi network, then voila! Even so, that is also an inelegant pain. I wish it would just always be connected with bluetooth constantly whenever it was in range, like with the Pebble Watch.
I have solved this by paying a bunch of money for the Lightning cable to SD card adapter. This lets me transfer raw photos to my iPad or iPhone from any camera faster and easier than with wifi. It’s way overpriced, though.
I have heard rumors that the newest Nikon cameras with SnapBridge do not suck at the wireless thing. I can not confirm or deny.
I was excited about it before the actual product appeared. It’s not actually an optical Polaroid camera. It’s a digital camera with a printer attached to it.
Considering how expensive Polaroid film is (https://eu.impossible-project.com/) digital wins!
I really like the design. Just hope the price is reasonable.
£249.00 for the cam
£8.99 for film (10)
Maybe £150~ I’d pay for the camera. £8.99 is reasonable for film.
Lots of camera stuff to talk about since this thread last updated.
First off, that Instax SQ10 was a disappointment, but Lomo to the rescue!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomoinstant-square-camera/description
A fully analog instant camera that uses Instax square film. For $15 they’ll sell you a piece of plastic that lets you also use Instax mini film. SOLD.
Also, I finally got around to trying to sell my GH4 on eBay. it’s going well. Plenty of interest, despite the broken HDMI port, and plenty of days left.
Other than sports photography and also video, I’ve mostly been using my analog film cameras. I have a Canon F1-n, a Fuji GW690ii (medium format 6x9), and a Canonet QL17-GIII (rangefinder. The thing is, as much as I enjoy film, it is starting to get annoying to have to go to the lab, pay for development, etc. And as much as I like the negatives and prints, it is very hard to share them online. I still don’t think I’m very good at photography, but at least I’ve improved somewhat. I just can’t show my improvement without spending hours on scanning.
So I figure, when I run out of the film I’ve got, I will switch back to almost always shooting digital. I’ll still do analog when the occasion is right, but not carrying an analog camera every day like I am now.
The thing is, for non-video and non-sports, the GH5 isn’t very pleasurable to use. Despite being micro 4/3, it’s still big. The viewfinder is not optical. It’s not a camera that is nice to carry around everywhere, even if I stick the pancake lens on it. I’d really like a camera that feels like my film cameras, especially the rangefinder, but happens to be digital.
Until now there were only two cameras I knew about that fit the bill. The ridiculously expensive Leica M, with even more ridiculously expensive lenses. I mean, this is basically the perfect camera for what I want. It works exactly the same as an actual Leica M rangefinder, with the same lens mount even. But it happens to be digital. Full frame, too. It’s the only full frame digital rangefinder (non-SLR) camera I know of. Other mirrorless cameras that are full frame like the SONY, do not have optical viewfinders.
The other camera I knew about was the Fuji X-Pro. This has an APS-C sensor, and a fancy hybrid viewfinder. Sometimes it’s optical, but flippy flippy now it’s electronic. But is still kinda big, and expensive, and I don’t want to get involved in another non-micro 4/3 lens system.
Only recently I learned that there is actually one other camera. The Fuji X100. The X100F is the current incarnation, but there are older ones. It’s basically the X-Pro, but it has one lens, and that’s it. This makes it much smaller and cheaper, but otherwise pretty much just as good. It just so happens that the lens it has is a 35mm f/2 equivalent, which is exactly the lens I would want anyway. If I won a lottery and got the LEICA, I would likely only be buying a 35mm f/2 lens for it.
The thing is, the X100 is also quite expensive. Over $1000, but still cheaper than the alternatives. I’m going to start saving my moneys now, and when I run low on film, I’ll pick it up. But also, this camera is already almost a year old. The previous incarnation lasted for two years. Maybe I can wait about 1.5 years and get an X100V or whatever they decide to call it.
I’d recommend the Samsung NX500 (what I use) because it’s an absolute gem to carry around with the 30mm pancake lens on… but they discontinued it.
I do not look forward to the day it breaks and I have to change systems.
That’s what happens if you invest in a system that is not very popular. Even if Pentax becomes good, I can recommend it for this reason. I originally chose micro 4/3 back when I knew way less about photography. But what I did know is that it was an open standard with at least two companies making cameras for it. I also knew you could adapt any lens due to the mirrorless factor. It has been a good choice.
Polaroid is back with OneStep 2 i-Type Camera. The Impossible project got bought back. Considering I just gave away my Original 600, I’m considering replacing it with this new one.
If you won the lottery, why settle for 35mm? Why not go medium format.
or
Because it’s too big. It’s also not a rangefinder. The best for studio work, but also sort of unnecessarily good. Unless I’m shooting for a fancy magazine, which will never happen, 35mm is more than enough. I have one medium format film camera, but I just got that for learning purposes.
If anyone wants to own a piece of GeekNights history, I’m selling my GH4. It has recorded many GeekNights panels, streams, etc. for the past few years. I’m only selling it because the HDMI port broke, which makes it impossible to stream with. The auction ends today. I’m only posting it now, because the final day is the only meaningful day for an eBay auction. eBay was my best option, because I need to maximize the money to alleviate the cost of the GH5. Also I’m not sure how much value to take off the market price due to the broken HDMI port.
Adobe just completely changed everything about Lightroom.
The oldest Lightroom, the one that doesn’t require any Creative Cloud stuff, is going to stop being updated at the end of this year.
The current Lightroom is being renamed to Lightroom Classic CC. It’s still going to be maintained, and new features will continue to be added. Pros who use it now will continue to use it without problems.
There is a new Lightroom just called Lightroom CC. It is 100% cloud based. It syncs with the mobile apps and such. You pick up right where you left off. You can get 1TB of space on Creative Cloud. Damn, that’s a lot of cloud storage. I’ll probably migrate over to this one.