Viewfinder Location, Which is best ?
Built in to the camera ? If so
Where ? Top Left or in a Hump ?
Author Andrew S May 2013
![]() |
| Lumix GH3. Hump top with 2 Set and See dials, buttons, levers. |
Introduction Olympus recently announced their latest
Micro Four Thirds camera, the EP5. This is Olympus' 11th M43 camera, only one
of which, the EM5, has a built in viewfinder. In promotional product photos, the EP5 is often
shown with the accessory VF4 electronic viewfinder attached. Given the success of the EM5, I wondered what
kind of thinking process led the Olympus product development people to produce
yet another camera without a built in viewfinder.
Brief historical
review Once upon a time, way back in the good [?] old
days of film, designers had limited
choice. There being no live view monitor, all cameras required a viewfinder of
some description. Viewfinder position was mostly determined by the inherent
mechanical properties of the camera type. So an SLR viewfinder was located
behind the pentaprism which sat above the focussing screen and mirror box. The
mirror box had to be approximately in the midle of the body to allow for the
film cassette on one side and take up spool on the opposite side. Rangefinder cameras like the Leica M series
put the viewfinder in the top left corner to allow for the messsucher optics
across the top of the camera.
The Digital
Revolution brought live view on a Monitor screen which at first appeared to
eliminate the need for an eye level viewfinder.
But many photographers came to realise that an eye level viewfinder is
very useful in four situations:
1. In sunny/bright light, when even the best monitors are
difficult to see properly.
2. When a long lens is mounted the camera must be held
steady to prevent camera shake. This is best achieved by pressing the camera
against one's head, using the eye level view.
3. In low light levels with slow shutter speeds, the camera
must be held steady.
4. When one wants to block out nearby distractions and
concentrate completely on the subject and the process of making the photograph.
![]() |
| Lumic GH2. Smaller camera. Hump top with 2 Set and See dials, 3 levers, fewer buttons. |
Smart Phones/Gadgets
vs Cameras These days there is a multitude of electronic
gadgets which can take still photos or video of anything which is in front of,
or in many cases, behind the device. If the camera as a distinct genus of device
is to survive at all then the camera
needs to bring things to the image capture experience which smart gadgets do
not. One of those things is an eye level
viewfinder. So my first proposition is
that:
Every camera needs an
eye level viewfinder I have argued
in another post on this blog that the best type of viewfinder is Electronic.
The next question is:
Should the VF be
built in or an attachable accessory ?
Arguments for the detachable VF might include:
1. Making the VF
separate gives the user a choice, to use it or not.
2. Leaving it off the main body of the camera allows a more
compact size to be achieved.
Arguments for the built in VF include:
1. The cost of any particular model EVF (or OVF) is much lower if it
is built in than supplied separately.
The extra cost of a separate EVF is a disincentive so many owners do not
buy it. So for these users, there is no choice at the point of image capture.
2. A separate EVF is a Nuisance. It is never on the camera when you want it.
Conversely it will be attached when you don't want it to be, such as when you
want to put the camera back in it's bag.
It has to be carried separately. To attach it to the camera it has to be
located in the bottom of the camera bag somewhere and removed from a protective pouch. Cover plates have to be removed from the EVF
and/or camera connector ports and eventually, the EVF pushed into place.
3. If the EVF is kept attached all the time it is subject to
damage when being pushed in and out of a camera bag. Then there is the obvious point that if it
always attached it would have been better built in.
4. A well located built in EVF does not add much to the overall size
of a camera body. Check out Sony's NEX 6 and 7 models for proof of this.
All this leads to my second proposition which is:
Every Camera needs a built in EVF
Every Camera needs a built in EVF
Which leads to the next question.
What is the best
location for the EVF ?
Until recently I believed the best place for any camera was
top left, rangefinder style. However my ongoing work with camera mockups has
led me to a somewhat more complex view. This is based on the proposition that
there are two main types of camera user, Snapshooters
and Controllers (a.k.a. expert/experienced users). I think
that a camera designed mainly for snapshooters will work best with the EVF top
left. [Rangefinder look alike style] A
camera intended for use by controllers will make better use of the EVF in a
hump [SLR look alike style]. Here follows my reasoning:
Before we go further I want to mention touch screen
controls. I have argued the case
elsewhere on this blog that touch screen controls so beloved by manufacturers
and reviewers are actually useless on a camera being used for hand held still
photos.
![]() |
| This schematic illustrates why more user interface modules can fit on the top of a hump top camera than a flat top design. |
Selection of the best EVF position involves consideration of
User Interface Modules (UIM) and camera
real estate. The designer can fit more UIM's on the top of a "Hump"
camera than a flat top camera. The
diagram above shows why this is so. In the case of a flat top design all the UIM's have to line
up in a row. With the hump top, the EVF, Hot Shoe and Built in Flash are
arranged front to back. In consequence, hump top designs can, if desired, fit
three Set and See Dials on
top, while the flat top design has space for only one. Some cameras such as the
Fuji X-Pro1/E1 have tried to fit a second Set and See Dial [Exposure
Compensation] at the far right rear corner of the top plate. I have read many
reports of this dial being accidentally bumped indicating it is in the wrong place for a UIM controlling a critical
exposure parameter.
The flat top style camera has less UIM's, is smaller and
looks less intimidating than the hump top style. It is more suitable for the
snapshooter. The hump top style can have more UIM's making it more suitable for the
expert/controller photographer.
Left Eye-vs-Right Eye viewers 90% of people are right handed. Most of these are probably right eye viewers although I have not seen actual figures confirming this. This leaves a substantial minority of people, perhaps 10% or so, who use the left eye for viewing. My own situation is that I am a natural left eye viewer although I have trained myself to use the right eye with a camera. Left hand/eye photographers often complain on user forums that they are not catered for by camera designers. True. Nobody makes a left handed camera. My own experience with left eye viewing is that most cameras are reasonably satisfactory except those which are very small, in which case the user's nose ends up pressing on the monitor or some of the control modules on the right side of the camera. Generous rearward projection of the eyepiece optical module (as seen in the photos of the GH3, GH2 and GH4 mockup above) reduces but may not eliminate this problem.
What's Available ?
What's Available ?
DSLR's have an optical viewfinder, except for the
Sony SLT types which use an EVF. But they all put the viewfinder in a hump.
Unfortunately DSLR's are unable to reap the full benefits of hump top design.
In the case of entry level models the hump is large in relation to the rest of
the camera so there is only enough space for one Set and See Dial, placed
to the right of the hump. With the mid to high level models there is an LCD
panel [required because electronic view is absent from the optical VF] top
right on the body, preventing placement of anything else there.
Mirrorless ILC's have their own design issues. A particular
problem for MILC development has been uncertainty about the target buyer. This
has led to some half baked designs which appeared to have been trying to appeal
to both user groups but ended up satisfying neither. One manufacturer, Panasonic appears to be
moving in (what I consider to be) the right direction with it's latest and
rumored new models. At the expert/controller end we have the Lumix GH3 which is
a very good, if not quite perfect,
implementation of the hump top MILC.
At the other end is the recently announced Lumix LF1 compact camera with
flat top and built in EVF top left. Inbetween
comes the yet unannounced GX2 (a M43
camera) which is rumored to have the
flat top, EVF top left layout.
Conclusion I take
the view that camera makers need to reconnect with the concept of a camera and
make products which are distinctly different from photo capable gadgets. They
need to deliver cameras which are clearly aimed at either snapshooters or
experts, not some nebulous and possibly non existent group inbetween. Most of
all they need to make cameras which are enjoyable to use.






I think you are missing two potential advantages of an add-on viewfinder compared to a built-in viewfinder:
ReplyDelete1: Tilt.
Built in viewfinders cannot be tilted. Add on ones can. This is helpful for some uses of the camera.
2: Upgradeability
If a well considered accessory port is used (such as the olympus AP2) then the viewfinder can be upgraded to a superior model when one becomes available. The new VF-4 can be used on older Pen models and still deliver the improved size and resolution over the earlier VF-2 and VF-3. A less well thought out accessory port, such as the one on the original Lumix GF1, cannot handle future higher resolution finders.
M43 Rumors is running a rumor that the Lumix GX1 replacement, presumably to be called GX2, will have a built in tilt up EVF. We shall see.
ReplyDeleteWhy built in viewfinder couldn't be tiltable? Easy to do, it is only a design decision. Perfect implementation could be a slide in EVF unit: flash with the body for normal use, tiltable, removable and replaceable with a dummy plastic box is not needed.
ReplyDeleteNo reason why in a new design a series of different units couldn't be created with the same physical connection, thus allowing use different modules: EVF, OVF, flash connector, GPS, WiFi, remote shutter release, etc. If cleverly implemented it could provide two slots: left and right side of the body, allow mixing and matching different modules in different slots. This could also solve one more issue not mentioned here: a VF for left eye users.
Vladislav, Thanks for reminding me about left eye viewers. I have updated the text. I should have remembered this as I am a natural left eye viewer myself.
ReplyDelete