(Nikon and Leica of the enticing retro design to fit with a digitial soul ... er ... and with an important component)
Before answering the question, and further to a previous post here about the retro design for digital cameras, first let's indulge in the past and the future emergence of digial cameras in retro looks. That's a task for you: look for the single universal feature in these vintage cameras.
First up, this is what you can hardly find to buy. The Russian Cnopm.
Then, this is what you probably don't find the money to buy.
A Nikon rangefinder resembling a Contax design. I saw this one in a camera museum.
This is the IIa of Exakta, one of the very first SLR cameras.
A subminiature camera from Tessina of the Switzerland. It featurs a lens of 25mm at f2.8-22. Shutter speeds are between 1/2 and 1/500. It can fit a roll of film! Every winding allows the film to advance for 5 to 8 exposues on each winding.
The Answer
Now, what is the single universal feature? A lens. Of course. Dials. Yes. The winding mechanism. For sure. My model answer is: the viewfinder. The point should not be required making: the viewfinder was indispensable to a camera in the film era. Then, in the digital era, why are the photographers still in protest of the deletion of a viewfinder? The most recent case in point is the missing viewfinder, or to be exact, the integrated optical viewfinder in the E-P1.
Let's not argue for or against an OVF/ EVF. We concentrate on the viewfinder per se. Another point worth making is many respected photographers have their sound arguments against an integrated viewfinder. For the sake of size, for example. The following is not to negate them. There are just two sides on every coin. Why not Optional Add-on?
To me, if there is one thing that makes the G10 have more going for it, it is the integrated viewfinder. For one thing, it will save me the ridicule of the sun for trying to compose through the washed-out LCD display. All right, its miniature OVF sucks. At least, it has something integrated which I can suck.
You may now argue: An optional add-on viewfinder can do the trick without foregoing the size.
My reply is the option sacrifices the handiness when a person like me perfers using a viewfinder more often than not. (And I am reluctant to pay extra for something the G10 has included for free.) If the optional viewfinder is usually attached, the add-on option doesn't solve the size issue either.
Viewfinder Important for Training
Now, this brings us to the proper reason why a viewfinder is preferred. To quote from Edward Weston, "composition is the strongest way of seeing". And to draw on the experience of many of you, seeing is the gist to photographing. Then, composition is arguably the most important element to photographing, and is the trained way of seeing.
So, a photographer needs training to see scenes in a photo format. In whatever format, this "seeing" is different from our normal way of seeing things. The photographic way of seeing is to, among other things, to represent a 3-D or 4-D (3D plus sounds) world and beyond in a 2-D image. Moreover, the final image is like a painting which requires photographic arrangements to make the elements in the image look enticing.
LCD Screen = Bare Eyes
Look at a scene in bare eyes and than through a photoframe. Hopefully, you will see the more limited elements a photoframed image can give in comparison. It is with these limited elements a photographer is given the job to produce a successful image. In fact, in the film era, photography novices were taught to train their eyes by seeing a scene through their finger-frame or even a self-made paper frame. It was only through repeated training that the photographers had an "auto-pilot" eye to compose a scene effectively.
Now, you may say: Nevin, the LCD screen serves exactly that purpose.
My response is: it doesn't really. Wink an eye and put the thumb-and-index-finger square against the other eye. Look through the square at and compose for the interesting scene which you'd take a shot. Do the same direct without the square. Supposedly, you've a better sense of composition through the square which blocks the elements outside of the confined scene.
This is somewhat a tautology to the viewfinder and the LCD screen. The viewfinder will give you a better sense in doing composition. People start photography without the baptism of the film era may not see the difference. But surely you will after using a viewfinder for a month. The difference will be obvious to make you join the photographers in protest of the missing OVF in the E-P1.
E-P1 and Viewfinder
Okay, why OVF? This is because of prejudice. I think the EVF has caught up or will soon with the OVF in all visual aspects.
Then, why E-P1? This is because the camera seems to offer an alternative to the DSLR system. Taken together with the money to be invested in it, such an alternative system is more likely to be used for serious shooting occassions as well in an all-weather way. A viewfinder is needed. And when a viewfinder is usually needed, an optional option helps nothing but the profitability of the camera maker. Of course, as Co-Editor says in the previous posts, the M4/3 system is possible because of the deletion of the pentaprism, which make the DSLR-like OVF not possible.
But how about a rangefinder window plus the add-on option?
(Photos from Xitek forum)
Comments