A room with a view?

When we go on holiday, we have to pay extra for a "room with a view" - of the sea, the mountains, whatever. Never mind that sometimes the "view" requires one to stand on tiptoe hanging from the balcony rail whilst our loved one(s) hang on to our belts. Book a cruise on a modern liner and it seems that they manage to distort space itself to ensure that nobody, no matter how close to the bilges their ocean-going broom closet is, is without a sea view.

So - the view is important to us, for so many reasons. Would you be happy if you stayed in a hotel room with no windows, no outside view, save for an LCD tv?

No.

Of course not.

So why do today's camera manufacturers persist in producing even high-end digital compact cameras with no direct vision viewfinder? The technology exists, and has done for many years. The compact albada-type viewfinder has been with us in various forms since being introduced by Zeiss on the Contaflex in 1935. This simple evolution of the original Galilean finder gave us an optically projected image that showed the edges of the viewing field within the viewfinder assembly. Minox introduced parallax compensation way back in 1939 and of course it was Leica that gave the world the first viewfinder that combined parallax compensation, projected framelines and a rangefinder all in one, on the M3.

So the technology is not only proven, it has a fine pedigree - so why do so few of today's cameras have this little window on the world?

Let us examine the debate for and against.

"Too expensive" runs a common argument - it simply costs too much to put in a viewfinder. Funny then that Olympus managed to produce 10 million or so Olympus Trips at a reasonable price for so long.

"People don't want it" - ah. Now there is a splendid piece of circular logic. It's not there, so people don't want it, so it's not there.

"People like LCDs" - So do I, for some uses, like changing a setting. But using one in bright sunlight? Forget it. And use in the dark is not much better. Not only do you ruin your night vision but the ghostly glow in which you are bathed attracts unwelcome attention.

I have two theories as to the real reasons why we find ourselves viewfinderless. Firstly the rise of the mobile telephone with a picture-taking ability. As good as they are becoming, there are three things they have never had, and I suspect never will - a hotshoe, a tripod socket or a viewfinder. Whether we like it or not, cameraphones are now not only a commonplace piece of equipment for most people, they are in many cases the only camera that they own. The compact camera will eventually go the way of the dinosaur unless it learns to evolve and do new tricks - Nikon's recent projector-camera is a good example of this. So people are getting used to not having a viewfinder and see it's absence as a small price to pay for convenience.

Through the round, er, oblong window...

My second theory is a little more controversial. The act of bringing a camera to one's eye clearly indicates that you are about to take a photo. There is no other reason for doing so. This alerts others to the fact that their picture is to be taken. Some strike a pose, others object, some just don't notice, or don't care. With an LCD display in "Goldilocks light" (not too bright, not too dark...) the screen would appear to the uninitiated to give an edge - suddenly you can take a photo without raising the camera to your eye! Suddenly you can capture images discreetly, without running the risk of a confrontation! To many, this would be an advantage, especially in today's paranoid society, where every photographer is regarded as a terrorist or pedophile, guilty until proven innocent.

The reality is of course not so simple. For one thing, discreet photography without the camera at eye-level has been practiced for years. One of my favourite books, now sadly many years out of print, is "Shots From The Hip", by "Johnny Stiletto". Mr. Stiletto - at one time a regular contributor to Amateur Photographer in the days when it had relevance and balls - was known for shooting a roll a day of street subjects. He encouraged "shots from the hip" - breaking free from convention to give more dynamic and engaging results.

Secondly, the digital photographer with his LCD viewing screen is typically far from inconspicuous. The camera is held out at arms' length, like a baby with a particularly snotty nose. This is most noticeable in middle-aged men, whose eyesight has started to deteriorate. All pretence at discretion is lost by this stance, and any advantage goes with it.

A viewfinder does not have to be complex, nor even particularly informative. The add-on viewfinders are for the most part throwbacks to an earlier age - a simple means of framing up the image with no clutter, complication or extraneous information. Those cameras with accessory shoes allow their fitment. I use one myself, on my D-Lux 4. In my case it's a 50 year old SBOOI - a 50mm Leica finder that happens to give the same angle of view as the 60mm setting on the D-Lux. To me, this combination of old and new just underlines the ridiculousness of the situation - come on, chaps - just build the bloody thing in again. You'd be surprised at the number of people who would cheer.

Speaking of cheering, 'tis the season to be jolly and all that, so let me take this opportunity to say something that I have always wanted to say since my days of reading Tiger, Sparky, Eagle, Valiant and the like as a child:

A very Merry Christmas to all my readers!

...and a happy and prosperous New Year to you all.


Bill

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.