Are there any SLR cameras that allow you take take pics thru the LCD besides the Olympus?

Question

I heard that perhaps the Canon now has one. Are there any others?

Answer 1

The Olympus is the only one I know of. And the Olympus has to sacrifice some of the benefits of an SLR camera when it's in that mode.

The reason SLR cameras don't usually have this feature is because they have optical viewfinders and since SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex, everything is viewed through the one lens. There's a mirror that sits in front of the sensor that lest the optical viewfinder work. One of the main features of an SLR camera is that there's very little delay between when the user presses the button and when it takes the picture. This is because there's an actual physical shutter, and the sensor is only briefly exposed.
If the shutter is kept open in order to expose the sensor and show the picture on the LCD, the sensor must first be cleared before it can take a good picture. So there's a longer delay there, and you could miss your shot.

This is also why SLRs generally don't record video also.

If you plan on doing all your photography using the LCD, I'd suggest getting a camera that isn't a true SLR. You'll save a lot of money, and some of the larger-lens cameras rival SLRs in photo quality. However, they usually don't have replaceable lenses.

Answer 2

This feature is called "Live View".

I know that it can be done with the following cameras:

1) the Olympuses
2) the Canon 40D
3) the Canon 1D, mark III
4) the Canon 1Ds, mark III
5) the Nikon D3
6) the Nikon D300

In addition, the Fujifilm S5 Pro has a live-view mode, for composing and focusing, but then you have to drop the mirror and then release the shutter.

Nevertheless, that's at least 7 SLRs with this feature.

Answer 3

Agreed with all--but I would like to add that if you mount a heavy lens (for example, I sometimes use Canon 100-400 mm f 4.5 - 5.6 zoom on my Canon 5D and the whole thing weighs a ton), there is no way a person can hold the camera, and the lens, a few inches away to use the LCD to focus (which is not possible with my camera anyway).

It doesn't seem natural to do that with a SLR camera. A smaller point-and-shoot, yes, but not with a larger one.

Answer 4

I won't bother to list the SLRs with live view, earlier people in this stream have already given you the list. However I would like to add a few comments.

One of the wonderful benefits of an SLR is the viewfinder. Not only do you have an incredible view of what you are about to take a picture of, you also have a wealth of information too that tells you the state of your settings and your camera. And the really nice thing about that is that it doesn't matter whether it's high noon with a bright sun or pitch dark at night. To me certainly, that's a very valuable tool.

While some SLRs now have live view, it doesn't compare to that view finder and it never can regardless of how it gets refined in the future. If I had that feature on my Nikon D200 I'd not use it. There are several issues.

At high noon it's damn near impossible to see what's on the LCD, I know because I also have a P&S camera and tend to have to use the view finder of that camera too to compose when the sun is bright. And because when I try to review my images on my SLR I have to find a shady place before I can really look at them. With my viewfinder I never have a problem, ever.

Additionally, SLRs draw a fair bit of power, so if you want maximum picture taking capacity, you tend to turn off just about anything you don't need. In my case my LCD is always turned off. In those rare moments when I do need to examine a picture I took, a rare occurrance, I'll check it briefly and then leave the LCD off again. If I had live view, that too would be off because I need to conserve power and that's especially critical when it's winter time and the temperatures are really cold since at that time battery efficiency is really low. Think about it, with auto focus you have to power a motor, with an image stabilizer you have to power a motor too. Then you add the exposure meter and once in a while a flash and there's a lot of power being drawn expecially if you've also turned on continuous focus. To add an LCD into that mix you're not going to get a lot of pictures.

Another issue is working in low light and/or with a heavy telephoto. I do both. Part of stabilizing the camera involves pressing it into my face as I brace my body against a tree or telephone pole. That often allows me to capture images that normally demand a tripod, something I don't always happen to have with me. This technique is impossible if you have to hold the camera away from your body to look at the LCD, you end up losing a critical point of stability. So if you insist on using the LCD you'd constantly have to carry a tripod which, for me, is an additional weight I'm not always prepared to endure on a long shoot. So again I'd not use it.

The only real advantage I can see for live view on an SLR is being able to hold the camera over my head or around waist level to take a picture. On rare occasions I have wished that I'd be able to see what I was doing in those moments. However, with digital I can check the shot immediately anyway and if it didn't turn out the way I wanted I can take it again. Besides that, none of the LCDs swivel so you still end up having a problem trying to see what you're pointing at in those positions.

In addition, I have a right angle finder anyway, and that's ideal for when I'm holding the camera very low or high, I usually look through that instead to see my image in the view finder. What's also nice is that the right angle finder has a magnifier in it that I can turn on. That allows me to check my focus or specific details as the moment requires, something else you can't do with an LCD.

So even though this might be an advantage, I'd still not use it since there is a workaround that works well.

Now that's not to say live view is no good or a useless frill. It's only to say that it's not a good idea to use an SLR like you would use a point and shoot camera. SLRs are a totaly different class of camera that are handled very differently too.

That said though, if you want to use it instead of the viewfinder, by all means go for it. You'll pay a premium for that feature but if you feel it's worth it, I'm certainly not going to say you're wasting your money. Instead I'll say you're spending it wisely just as long as you actually do use the feature a lot.

In terms of the cameras that have it, I'd recommend the Nikon D300. The D3 is also an ansewr but that one is hellishly expensive and is only good value if you insist on professional features. The D300 is an excellent compromise between a professional SLR and a consumer version and it comes at a more affordable price.

Why the Nikon as opposed to the Canon? If you insist on using the LCD as your view finder you'll also want to see your image in focus. The Canon solution doesn't auto focus in live view. So that rather defeats the whole purpose of using the LCD to compose. You'd still have to use the view finder anyway in which case save yourself the cost of the feature to begin with.

The other difference is that the Nikons are more effectively built, they offer far more controls on the camera body to keep you out of the menu, and they feel better in the hand for most people. They also tend to be preferred by more professionals than are the Canons.

I hope this answers your question.

Answer 5

Many do, and that's why there are so many out of focus pictures out there. That is not a stable way to hold your camera.

Answer 6

Mercury CyperPix, My wife has one, try it!