[Closed] DSLR camera's

EVF's are always inferior to optical ones even if the newest Sony ones have some compensations, but holding up your camera like you're holding up a baby with a stinky nappy to stare at the rear screen is really unsatisfactory, especially in any kind of sunlight. The Sony RX100 has a cool focus peaking display, but on the small rear screen it's pretty useless, IME. It's also harder to hold the camera steady.

The main benefit of an optical viewfinder for me is that if you're taking a photo of someone and after you press the shutter their expression changes, even a fraction, then you take another one. The same goes for capturing a moving object or even re-framing a shot. You can easily take multiple shots without looking away..
I'll admit I've never used a CSC but with every compact I've used, even if you turn off the preview, there's some sort of lag before you can take another shot...
The one thing I really miss from an EVF is a virtual horizon. My D90 is too old to have that feature.. 🙁

EVF's are always inferior to optical ones even if the newest Sony ones have some compensations,

There's pluses and minuses to both. Neither is inferior or superior. I swap back and forth between the a900 which has the best OVF ever featured on a dslr and a nex7 which has one of the best EVFs. I always miss the features of the other...

Molgrips may have a point with aps-c dslrs. Their viewfinders are tiny dim tunnels.

but holding up your camera like you're holding up a baby with a stinky nappy to stare at the rear screen is really unsatisfactory, especially in any kind of sunlight. The Sony RX100 has a cool focus peaking display, but on the small rear screen it's pretty useless, IME. It's also harder to hold the camera steady.

You're holding it wrong. Flip the screen out, brace it against your body and use it like a TLR. It gives the added advantage than nobody thinks you're taking photos.

The main benefit of an optical viewfinder for me is that if you're taking a photo of someone and after you press the shutter their expression changes, even a fraction, then you take another one. The same goes for capturing a moving object or even re-framing a shot. You can easily take multiple shots without looking away..

You haven't used a modern EVF (an EVF isn't a rear LCD, just in case you're including those). I can tell. 🙂

You're holding it wrong.

Thanks, but there is no "flipping" to do on the RX100.

Thanks, but there is no "flipping" to do on the RX100.

Fair enough 😉

I did wonder after I typed it...

I would have bought an rx1 if it had a flip-out screen (or built in evf). The lack of tilting does make life difficult.

EVF's are always inferior to optical ones even if the newest Sony ones have some compensations

Depends what you mean by inferior. On EVFs you can do stuff like zoom in to aid manual focus, have focus peaking, increase the brightness etc.

I'll admit I've never used a CSC but with every compact I've used, even if you turn off the preview, there's some sort of lag before you can take another shot.

That's one reason why CSCs are better than compacts.

Also - does the lack of a mirror allow faster continuous shooting? It seems to, generally, but I've not really looked into it.

Also - does the lack of a mirror allow faster continuous shooting? It seems to, generally, but I've not really looked into it.

yep if you look at specs usually the mirror less cameras offer more fps than the DSLR with the similar engine.