1

I've been testing out digital minimalism and part of me started to think about having a camera without constantly looking at the display. I have known about a bunch of the Leica digital cameras without LCD/Display but unfortunately those cost a fortune. Instant camera are also the next best things but each of those film are really costly.

6
  • The Fujifilm X-Pro3 was designed with a decision to deprioritise the rear screen. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about? Fujifilm says, "The hidden LCD encourages a more traditional shooting style, asking photographers to concentrate on composing using the viewfinder. Of course, you can flip open the screen to check your images between shooting sessions, but in essence, the X-Pro3 wants you to trust your instincts as a photographer and shoot without the distraction of checking every image."
    – osullic
    Nov 20 '21 at 13:08
  • @osullic - Nikons [idk precisely which models] have a screen that rotates on 2 axes, so you can flip it inside & close the door, then you just have a blank panel.
    – Tetsujin
    Nov 20 '21 at 15:55
  • 1
    @Tetsujin Also true of most Canon camera these days.
    – xenoid
    Nov 21 '21 at 9:50
  • @xenoid - Thank you. I'm not really aware of the capabilities of other makes.
    – Tetsujin
    Nov 21 '21 at 10:11
  • @osullic yeah thats exactly one of them that is more reachable in my pocket but still overkill just for the sake of avoiding a display
    – nestalgia
    Nov 21 '21 at 10:11
4

You mean for a viewfinder, or as a data display? Most regular DSLRs have a display that's switchable between each display type, or you can just turn it around so it faces into the body & close it.

enter image description here

You would still have the basics of your exposure triangle & focus confirmation in the viewfinder itself.

6
  • Yeah I guess I could just do that just like what I'm currently doing with my old iphone by covering the display and only showing the shutter button screen part. This might come off rude but I just would prefer that it doesn't have a display so that I not would be constantly sneakpeaking my last picture taken.
    – nestalgia
    Nov 20 '21 at 9:59
  • Then buy a film camera - no chance to cheat with that ;)
    – Tetsujin
    Nov 20 '21 at 10:03
  • 1
    You can always glue shut the display cover...
    – xenoid
    Nov 20 '21 at 10:55
  • … or wrap it in tape. Or just use good old-fashioned willpower.
    – Tetsujin
    Nov 20 '21 at 10:56
  • 1
    I don't understand the downvote here. Answers the OP's question. OP themself already said in comments above it's the best idea so far...
    – Tetsujin
    Nov 22 '21 at 12:33
2

I think you (and others thinking about something like this) should not prematurely dismiss film. I have a Rolleiflex TLR which I love using. People shoot different quantities of images, but to give an idea, since I got it in April 2017, I've shot 33 12-exposure rolls of film. My last 5-pack of Kodak Portra cost £57, and my (good) lab charges £10 for developing and scanning. So my per-exposure cost (after having bought the camera of course) is about £1.80 per exposure. This might sound amazingly expensive, but that also works out at ~£700 for 4.5 years' worth of photography, whereas many digital cameras will cost 2 or 3 times as much. 35mm film would be cheaper I guess, and if you do development/scanning yourself, that could potentially reduce costs too.

Now, of course, people are so used to the "unlimited" photography that digital allows, they might balk at the idea of shooting only 400 exposures over 4.5 years. But for some people, this can be an option to consider. I love the results I get, and I rarely do any post-processing beyond a little basic rotation and cropping.

(Caveat... I don't only use the Rolleiflex, so I'm shooting more than 100 exposures per year in reality. But I just wanted to present this option as something that could suit some people.)

2
  • Even more digitally minimalist is a Чайка half frame. 72 shots on a 36 exposure roll of 135 and zone focus. Nov 20 '21 at 17:20
  • Yeah I definitely really should at least try film first. Most of it just ideas in my head. Plus going to the store for developing is just more chance to less be on the screens
    – nestalgia
    Nov 21 '21 at 10:16
2

You could put a gaffer-tape over the screen and turn off the image playback. Neither of them is destructive / expensive :)

1

Sony DSC-R1 may be worth a thought. Its 2" LCD folded on top of the camera is nice for framing, but kind of useless for "sneak-peaking" since the optics and resolution of the camera are so much better than what the LCD can show that you don't get to recognize more than complete failures in advance.

Disadvantage, of course, is the bulk of the camera and a light sensitivity to be expected from a CMOS sensor 2005 A.D., even if almost APS-size, accompanied by autofocus (and general camera) speed and precision and media access times also in the contemporary ballpark. Not an action camera, and for indoors there is not a lot of leeway around using flash.

Whether it is enough to help against your chimping addiction is an open question, of course, but it does encourage a "shoot now, view later" mindset at least more than modern cameras would.

1
  • woah I actually I want this one now, it looks unique. Sad thing is this camera probably doesn't even exist anymore in my country's craigslist or probably was never sold. I've checked explorecams sample photo, it looks great. This is probably a collector thing though. okay scratch I saw one sold 2 years ago for 300 MYR
    – nestalgia
    Nov 24 '21 at 2:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.