Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by drd1135, Aug 24, 2015.
Just curious. If you prefer EVF still vote on your LCD screen preference.
I prefer and shoot with an EVF/OVF at least 95% of the time. The times that I do use the LCD monitor, I prefer a tilt only screen due to my shooting style but it's not a deal breaker as evidenced by me buying the E-M5 Mk.II. Even a non-tilting, non-articulating fixed screen isn't a deal breaker either since I shoot almost always using an EVF/OVF.
Because sometimes I do low level portraits (and other stuff), the difference between having or not having full articulated screen represents having to lay down on the ground or not...
I prefer not having to lay down and keep my shirt clean, so full articulated screen for me
After having owned a 60D and GX7, I strongly prefer the tilt only. Swivel out screen makes for odd ergonomics, a more involved open/close process and doubles the width of the camera in use. Tilt only allows for more friendly waist-level shooting, too.
I imagine a lot of it has to do with what you're used to. I had the Panasonic G1 for 7 or 8 years and it had the fully articulated screen. I'm still adjusting to the tilt screen of the OM10. The articulated screen was great for overhead shots in portrait orientation. Can't do that with a tilt screen.
But the biggest thing I miss about the articulated screen is the ability to just turn the screen towards the body. I don't use the screen that often and I would prefer to have it against the body where it can't get damaged.
Tilt-only is fine for video, but is very limited for stills. For me, it's fully articulated only. I need it for verticals as well has horizontal images.
Having owned both (E5 and EM1), I prefer the articulating screen.
Oddly, I've heard exactly the opposite, i.e., video folks want the fully articulated screen. The internet is an inconstant mistress.
I do mainly landscape and composing verticals when you have your camera very low for perspective can be quite annoying. Have a GX7 though, so no dealbreaker.
I would think the only benefit to video for fully articulated would be if you want to do video selfies. Otherwise, your camera is going to be landscape all the time and tilt seems more convenient. Maybe it is just because the tilt/swivel screens started out as kind of the default camcorder LCD and video peeps are used to that?
Fully articulated, its more flexible and can be turned around when not required. I hate seeing grubby nose marks over my EM10's screen.
Agree. I'm mainly an EVF user and tilt-only is enough for me. I wouldn't want the extra bulk and weight of a fully articulated screen, because the tilt-only suffices for low-angle and high-angle shots.
I wouldn't say there is any difference bulk or weight, just a difference in how they are attached.
I'm sure what you heard isn't exactly the "opposite", but instead a preference for full articulation.
Tilt only is fine for video, but not necessarily the best. A fully articulated screen will not only work for vertical stills, but can place a horizontal display beside the body which can work better for video than one behind the body when the camera is on a shoulder mounted bracket. Also, having the display beside the body is often a more comfortable position when the camera is on a tripod a it allows the operator to stand somewhat beside the tripod rather than straddling a leg.
I really like being able to turn the screen in when not in use and when I put the camera in a bag. It's just part of my routine now to turn the screen back out if I will be using the screen to shoot with, which I do pretty often. I can see the advantages of a tilt screen at times, but to me the advantages of the articulated screen are greater.
The tilt screen deploys faster. I use it for shooting over people, fences or other obstructions. Tilt, raise the camera over my head and shoot what I see on the LCD. Then it's back down and push the screen flat so I can move or continue to take photos through the EVF. The same kind of speed and convenience for shooting low - push/pull the LCD to act like an old TLR and save my knees a bit.
I understand why some users like the fully articulated screen, and more power to them. I find it too fraught with opportunities for damage in rushed circumstances and too slow to deploy and store.
Olympus should make it an option on the E-M1 Mk.II. Order with one or the other specifically and pay a couple hundred $$ to change it to the other if your needs change. Maybe make it a user bolt-in module, sort of like the different pentaprisms, screens et al on the old professional film SLRs.
I had a couple of point and shoots 9-10 years ago with articulated screens and I loved them. I was mystified when I upgraded to a DSLR and found that I could not get that same screen and that the majority of folks (on POTN at least) were very much anti-flip screen. I was further mystified by my first tilt screen (a Sony superzoom iirc), but I quickly grew to prefer it to articulated. That preference has held up over the years, but I am still happy to shoot with an articulated screen, especially for video.
The real question is "How many folks want articulated or 180 flip screen for selfies?".
I just realized I might be willing to drop weathersealing from my camera but not flip screen. I'm 100% sure I won't buy E-M5II because of the articulating screen but I'm only 90% sure I won't buy E-M10II - and the only thing(s) keeping me from buying it is the missing weathersealing and HiRes (really wanted to use it for macros). Then again, I'm not convinced I'd get any improvement in my IQ by "upgrading" to E-M10II so why am I even considering buying it? I dunno... GAS?
The EVF makes the screen unnecessary for most of my shots so I can probably live with either; however, I have found the tilt-only of my E-M5 so limited compared to the fully articulated screens of my 4/3 cameras that it's become something of an annoyance. You can just do so much more with the articulated screen. And being able to flip it around when not in use gives me a sense of happy protectiveness.
Separate names with a comma.