Why do companies ship cameras with the viewfinder missing? What causes this behaviour? Why do people buy them? What is the use case? I can't think of any reason to intentionally design or buy a camera without one. It's not like the viewfinder somehow makes the camera worse, or makes it appreciably heavier/bulkier, or appreciably more expensive. It's just useful with no downsides.
What company even is this one some temu crap? Idk what you expect
>>4526458That one's a Kodak. But literally every brand is shipping cameras sans viewfinder. It's about one-third to one-half of the global catalogue. And they're in every price point, from cheap point and shoot digishits to mid-range bridge cameras to several-thousand-dollar MILCs (picrel, Nikon ZR). So unfortunately no, this phenomenon isn't limited to Temu crap.
>>4526425Cost and lack of competition. We live in a "line must go up economy" but lately everything is stagnant. So either you get less for the same price or pay with a leg and arm to get features that were standard previously.Picrel, it is the grandfather of the camera you posted. The DX6490 was designed by Chinon in Japan. Your AZ528 is designed by Asia Optical in Taiwan.
>>4526425Same reason EVFs are a thing, you can sell the lemmings on autopilot the instruction (idea would be too charitable) that OVFs are a bad thing and they will buy it wholesale, so it's easy to give them something that doesn't let you look through the lens and call it "advanced technology" that's not for "arthritic boomers" and they'll eat it up.
>>4526425because actual chads who learned on medium format, use the fold out monitor like a WLVF. You wouldn't understand as a squinty eye'd EVFlet.
>>4526462>lack of competition.I hope one of those random Chinese lens companies gets their act together and undercuts the manual compact market. People want a modern version of the old Powershot G models, but the market currently consists of $3,000 meme devices.
>>4526473You are a parody of yourself
>>4526473My cheapest e-waste digishitter is the only evf camera I own.
>>4526425Why are uncs so obsessed with tiny viewfinders?
>>4526518>bruh it’s too bright i can barely see the screen>viewfinder? bruh unc the ad has a guy with a camera without a viewfinder no cap touch grass fr >bruh watch dis influencer>he call dat shit pocketable>need a reccy for streetmaxxing bruh unc
>>4526497People say they want this, but in reality they are not willing to buy anything with a small sensor. There is not much wrong with used cameras that match the criteria, if they were really after that, but the average person is also not willing to buy anything that isn't "new thing".So, here we are.Buy a used G10 and be happy.
>>4526518They are old and mad.
>>4526485>>4526507>>4526518>>4526669What is the use case for specifically NOT having a viewfinder? What is the excuse for a camera not having one? In what way would a camera actually be worse for having a viewfinder of some kind? Why do you not want better cameras?
>>4526684Muh smartphone screenshot desu
>>4526684If you're making a camera for blind people it would just add unnecessary cost, weight, and a shorter battery lifespan to the camera.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but maybe the Ricoh GR line makes the case for dropping the viewfinder? I mean they are really packing a high end camera into the smallest body imaginable. That thing is pushing smartphone level of pocketable - does anything even compare at that size?
>>4526691I know this is a shitpost but>Add unnecessary cost, weight, and a shorter battery lifespanAll negligible, compared to having a viewfinder, which makes it more usable for your non-blind friends/family (who will probably be using the camera more than you), and will help you move the camera faster and for a better price if you decide to sell it later on, with a larger selection of potential buyers since it doesn't just appeal to blind people.>>4526692Would a viewfinder have made it that much bigger? Enough to undermine the effort spent on making it small? I don't think it would have, personally.
>>4526697The camera uses an earfinder. You press a button and it tells you what you're pointing the camera at. It would be quite redundant to have a viewfinder.
>>4526684>>4526425A viewfinder requires either a mirror system (too bulky) or EVF (too expensive). They could slap a rangefinder on it, but that would just confuse people.And of course most people today are used to shooting with phones, so looking at a monitor seems natural to them.
>>4526425young people don't use trad viewfinders that much
>>4526707EVF can and usually are cheap garbage. My worst performing digishit has one.
>>4526805Are you hearing yourself, you fucking retard?
>>4526810Oh noooo! This terrible camera has an EVF! No need to get so upset about it, buddy.
>>4526805You know what's even cheaper than a cheap EVF? No EVF
>>4526825Framing Images with a screen sucks
>>4526825A cheapo evf would be cheaper than a screen, no? My point was that there are mostly cheap ass shit ass evfs
>>4526697Realistically I don't see where the EVF would fit on this. Maybe if the display was smaller? But normies like the big display.
>>4526838Just make it a little taller. Or put a viewfinder hump. Could make some room by trimming down those LCD bezels as well, hell that'd probably be enough on its own if you could make it bezel-less.
>>4526842Dude it's already a $1300 camera and you want to make it bezel-less?
>>4526855Basically every phone screen and PC monitor is bezel-less, it's the standard now, get with the times old man
>>4526862The camera industry is decades behind. Look at the old low res LCD panels Sony cameras are still using today.
>>4526828It's better than a shit EVF or a non-TTL optical finder>>4526835No, LCDs in the 2-3 inch range are incredibly cheap and don't require any optics. An EVF is also additional parts because you can't sell a camera with no rear display to normies.
>>4526869What extra piece? A plastic magnifier for in front of it? Yeah. Cheapo evf is less than a larger lcd. Good to know thanks
>>4526872You've got the display, optics, the extra plastic to house it and the larger mould to accommodate it, and some extra circuitry to drive it. In some cases you'd also have sensors for automatic switching but you could go without that. Sure, it may only be something like ten bucks to add a shitty EVF but that's money for a feature that normies don't care about or use, ten bucks less profit on a camera they would have still bought if it didn't have that feature. For those people that do want it they still make cameras with it, it's not like they're being phased out or that cameras without finders are anything new.
>>4526898Just put it where the lcd screen would have been, dog. You gotta think outside the box a lil.
>>4526425artistically it makes sense, I think, because no one else will look at your photos that closely, so why would you shoot that closely?you could argue it matters for big prints or crops but then you wouldnt buy it in the first place
>>4526898>it may only be something like ten bucks to add a shitty EVFAre you insane?An EVF is extremely expensive to add.
>>4527420I said a shitty EVF, a crappy low res LCD and plastic optics. Obviously a 5.6m dot OLED with glass optics is much more expensive than that but that's not what was being discussed.
>>4527441No EVF is goingvto cost 10 dollars to add, no matter how shitty you think it is.
>>4527420Yeah it was extremely expensive to add an evf to this >>4526814 camera. 11 dollars is extremely expensive to somechuddy out there.
>>4527521Regardless, my point wasn't that they were super cheap.
>>4526425My Sony RX100VII doesn't have this problem.
