DSLR without LCD, Who will buy???

DSLR without LCD vs DSLR with LCD


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Halfmoon

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2005
4,590
6
0
Hougang, Singapore.
#1
DSLR all have LCD by default.

SLR never have anything close....

I am wondering, if there is a Purist DSLR... without LCD....

How many of you will you buy???

Let's say cheaper by $200-400.....

Just a curious poll...
 

helmiz

New Member
Mar 30, 2007
358
0
0
Woodlands
#2
The LCD is required to change many settings. Even if there will be one, am sure will be many external butons to configure the camera. Will also lose the in-camera editing in most Dslr
 

Halfmoon

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2005
4,590
6
0
Hougang, Singapore.
#3
The LCD is required to change many settings. Even if there will be one, am sure will be many external butons to configure the camera. Will also lose the in-camera editing in most Dslr
Ok, I meant is the LCD to review the images...

I think in most cam, there will be a small LCD for control panel, like those film cameras...
 

helmiz

New Member
Mar 30, 2007
358
0
0
Woodlands
#4
Yup. thats what I meant also. The big LCD not only review images but configure settings of the camera.
 

#5
I am wondering, if there is a Purist DSLR... without LCD....
That is abit of an oxy-moron don't you think? If you want to really say Purist..you are talking original. The original first version DSLR already comes with a LCD screen. That is a purist version of it.

It's the film base SLR that does not have one and if you want to talk about a 'purist' SLR then it should never have a LCD for you to preview your shot. ALSO...how the hell were you even able to do so way back then since you need to chemincally process the shot in a photo lab and not inside your camera. IT was technologicall not possible. And even then...they were doing something though primative in a way... they would use a POLAROID film back to preview the shot too when it comes to professional shooting session or someone with deep pocket enough to do so.

Finally technology had caught up to economic and minitualization so NOW you have that in a DSLR. So what you asked though intriging ....makes no sense and serve not to reason any advantage or disdavantage to ever choosing a DSLR without a LCD.

Who will buy it without a LCD screen? To save abit of cash? No one in his or her right mind would...and it is not just due to preview feature but alot of other features too like configuring your setting.etc.It is not that expensive to put one in to begin with. I doubt we will save much money just by getting a manufacturer to take out the LCD just to make the DLSR cheaper.

Incidently when I have my setting all sqaure out...I rarely even look at the preview of my shots till I get home. That's me anyway.
 

theveed

New Member
Apr 20, 2007
1,084
0
0
42
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#6
Sammy: Precisely hehe... If the user thinks he's that much of a "purist", who bother going digital??? Will that purist guarantee himself he'll never look at the images digitally and just dump the CF/SD card straight to a printer/photo processor? Hehe...
 

Halfmoon

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2005
4,590
6
0
Hougang, Singapore.
#7
How about just ignore the Purist tag... and get along with the poll...

It is just a fun poll anyway....
 

Halfmoon

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2005
4,590
6
0
Hougang, Singapore.
#8
Also.... I think some photographer will remember that there was the... "how did my picture turn out" when they shot films... and some actually kind of miss those period where you do not know if the shot turn out well, etc...... and have to wait....

Just for fun.... but I think most will go for LCD base on current results....
 

#9
Also.... I think some photographer will remember that there was the... "how did my picture turn out" when they shot films... and some actually kind of miss those period where you do not know if the shot turn out well, etc...... and have to wait....

Just for fun.... but I think most will go for LCD base on current results....
Well as I said...in the old days only the amatuer will shot and wonder how the shot will turn out. The bad things is...if it does not...you feel totally shi**y but if it turns out great when you take the prints from the colour lab you feel like a real pro. That can have a pretty motivating factor.

But for the Pros...they don't take that kind of risk like in a studio shoot. They do alot of testing and use polaroid to check exposure..etc. Only when it is just about right you then go about shooting and EVEN THEN... you fire off hundreds of shots sometime to just select one. This is like "chimming" too hehehe but on a more "old school" and slow way of doing so. Technology just made it more "portable" for you to do so these days.....if you choose to that is. For me...I seldom do that. I try to shoot what I can and then go home and see what I did. I get a bit of a kick out of that at times and it also help builds confident in your ability to read a scene and decide on the right exposure, focal lengtht, speed and composure..etc.
 

chong_lim

New Member
Mar 19, 2005
281
0
0
#10
useless poll. what is the main motive of this poll? wasting the bandwidth for sure
 

Halfmoon

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2005
4,590
6
0
Hougang, Singapore.
#11
For me...I seldom do that. I try to shoot what I can and then go home and see what I did. I get a bit of a kick out of that at times and it also help builds confident in your ability to read a scene and decide on the right exposure, focal lengtht, speed and composure..etc.
I think SLR work well for building confident.... I started with films, and now, going into DSLR... only still learning about the WB, etc... these WB can a bit haywire at times..... Film will not have this issue.

That is the kick and it is still what I enjoy to some extend... and one diff is taking digital, save money on films processing.....

Maybe lesser people will borrow from you since it is harder to use?? lol.... :bsmilie:
 

#12
I think SLR work well for building confident.... I started with films, and now, going into DSLR... only still learning about the WB, etc... these WB can a bit haywire at times..... Film will not have this issue.

That is the kick and it is still what I enjoy to some extend... and one diff is taking digital, save money on films processing.....

Maybe lesser people will borrow from you since it is harder to use?? lol.... :bsmilie:
okay lor...you bring me your DSLR and I will use sandpaper to blur off your LCD heheh...
 

DeSwitch

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2005
3,202
0
0
51
1.45N 103.83E
www.flickr.com
#15
Cost of LCD is so cheap. What make you think the manufacturer will reduce the cost by $200. LCD is one of the component to suck some $$$ from you.
 

Jun 13, 2006
116
0
0
#16
DSLR all have LCD by default.

SLR never have anything close....

I am wondering, if there is a Purist DSLR... without LCD....

How many of you will you buy???

Let's say cheaper by $200-400.....

Just a curious poll...
I tihnk the poll is inaccurate leh.
It won't be cheaper by $400. The LCD alone cost around $300-$400.. plus circuitry, protection, casing, .. it is easily 30%-40% of the camera price.
 

yanyewkay

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2004
3,924
0
0
Cons digger.
#17
LCD is not cheap my friend.. :sweat: it is 1 of the items on the top of the BOM list.
 

#19
If there were no LCD I might as well shoot negative film in the first place. Larger dynamic range (especially B&W film) and obviously, full frame. The LCD does not cost a lot of money anyway so it wouldn't make sense to not include it.

Instant gratification is what draws me to shoot digital almost all the time. I do not like driving many miles in order to develop film, and do the same again to collect it. However I do shoot some film from time to time as a hobby, but I'll never do so for my primary shooting. DSLRs allow me to instantly make decisions on the spot and the LCD is of course the most important part of that process.
 

#20
I tihnk the poll is inaccurate leh.
It won't be cheaper by $400. The LCD alone cost around $300-$400.. plus circuitry, protection, casing, .. it is easily 30%-40% of the camera price.
Not really lah...if that is so ...the iPod would have cost you alot more money to buy.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom