Should I get a DSLR with a viewfinder?
May 10, 2017 2:30 PM   Subscribe

I am leaning on getting the Canon EOS M10 or its sibling the M3. Both have good reviews. It would be for portrait and built environment photography. But I am wondering if anyone can comment about working with a camera without a viewfinder and if it has affected how they use a camera for framing and planning shots. Would it be better to get a camera with a viewfinder? My budget is up to $700 but I don't want a weighty camera.
posted by parmanparman to Media & Arts (8 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
EOS M is about portability which you pay a hefty premium for. I have an EOS M (first edition) and to be honest I like my Sony RX100 way better for thise situations where I don't want weight.

Personally for this budget I would go for a small crop frame DSLR and some good lenses if you are after picture quality. An entry crop frame DSLR with kit 18-105 is not that heavy and can handle many situations.
posted by wolfr at 3:09 PM on May 10, 2017 [1 favorite]


One thing I like about a real viewfinder is you sneak a peak of the framing without having to even turn the camera on. I feel like DSLR batteries last a lot longer (because of that and not having to power a screen or electronic viewfinder).
posted by starman at 3:38 PM on May 10, 2017


Yes. I have two very similar cameras - a Fuji X-T10 and X-M1. One has a viewfinder (it's electronic) and the other just has a screen. The no-viewfinder camera is smaller and lighter, which is nice and why I have it, but in bright sunlight or for perfect focus, or to see a histogram, or doing low light photography, the viewfinder camera is pretty much necessary. In particular, if you're doing portrait with shallow depth of field and a fast lens, you generally want the eyes in focus. The viewfinder is going to make determining whether focus is correct a real challenge.
posted by cnc at 3:56 PM on May 10, 2017


To me, having a viewfinder is a must for a "main camera" whether that's a DSLR or another format.

There are some advantages to an eye-level viewfinder:

1) You can keep the camera steadier by holding it to your eye than you can holding out in your arms to view a screen. This comes in particularly handy at slower shutter speeds.

2) You can take photos during shows or other dimly lit events without having a bright screen distract and annoy those around you.

3) Shooting with a viewfinder saves battery life, especially if it's an optical finder.

4) With experience, shooting with a viewfinder lets you see more of what's going on around you while shooting. Looking at a screen takes both eyes, but looking through a viewfinder allows you to keep your "non-shooting" eye open to be aware of what's going on outside the frame.

I don't mind having a secondary or pocket camera without a viewfinder, but I like the flexibility of having the choice.
posted by The Deej at 4:58 PM on May 10, 2017 [4 favorites]


Sony A6000 is relatively light and flexible, digital viewfinder & screen, in that general price range.
posted by ovvl at 5:40 PM on May 10, 2017


Viewfinder with an adjustable focus to match your eye. For real images, or images that are important to you, finding the area of focus, and framing, in the outdoors, a viewfinder is really good. I often can only guess what I am taking a picture with outside viewers. I call my DSLR my real camera, I will say, I have to go back with the real camera. But, there is often no going back for images.
posted by Oyéah at 8:02 PM on May 10, 2017 [1 favorite]


I know you're asking about the Canon bodies, but there ARE mirrorless cameras that include an electronic viewfinder, which is a great middle ground here. The one in my (now older and somewhat outdated) Olympus OMD E-M5 is so good I forget it's not optical. I don't know if Canon has one, but it's not unique to Oly by any means.

You DO take a battery hit vs. a DSLR, but two batteries usually last me several shooting events (I have a grip that holds the second battery, but before I got the grip I just carried it in my pocket; they're small). And you can extend the battery life by using the big rear screen only when absolutely necessary (i.e., don't chimp after every shot, etc.).
posted by uberchet at 7:42 AM on May 11, 2017


Worst thing about no viewfinder is poor to no visibility on the LCD in sunlight. Next 2 worst are imprecise control of framing, and using higher ISO instead of a lower shutter speed because you can't brace the camera (and/or hand holding it) against your face.

The EOS Ms are not DSLRs. They're mirrorless. Autofocus on the M1 was awful. Canon had to cut the price in half to get rid of them. The M3 is better but still below average for mirrorless. M10 is a pared down version of the M3. Should have same autofocus ability, but I don't know.

Conventional portrait photography uses a fast (small f-stop number, e.g. 1.8), and a fixed focal length lens between 80 and 105mm (in what's called Full Frame or 35mm equivalent) . No one makes such a lens for the EOS M mount. You'd have to use a moderate speed zoom, which means far less capability of using DOF blur to seperate your subject from the background.
posted by Homer42 at 8:28 AM on May 11, 2017


« Older Downward facing blogs   |   Mystery thing Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.