Why Canon S95 digital camera is not having viewfinder

[Cococo]

I have Canon S95 digital camera and the excellent experience of using a camera and these cameras should be regarded as the best camera presented on the market, but just previous few days I wonder why this camera has no viewfinder. I realize the series G has a (which is great), but not why the S series? It's funny because when I went to a digital SLR a few years ago, I had to get used to a viewer. Now I cannot seem to live without it. Express your views in writing and also will it be available in expected release.

[Erie]

I suspect, since all manufacturers have or almost have been "trained" for the average entry-level buyers in P & S EVF-less devices. Try discovering a P & S with an electronic viewfinder. They are like the fangs of Chooks (hens'-teeth) - and the range used in particular to take 2 x AA or higher, 4 x AA. Along with the quality of JPEG and RAW or not, superfine CHDK that most casual users and the family can use - possibly be a basis to be less admired than SX10/20.

[Antonio1]

Moreover, the cameras without viewfinders must save manufacturers a lot of money - once you convince consumer that it is "fashionable." You cannot alter lenses Micro Four Thirds cameras without viewfinders (some are very expensive "accessory" add-on) - appear to be scattering. I have a Fuji HS10 - also 30x zoom - which is rather fussy about movement and focusing past half-zoom - holding an SP-800 at arm's span out in front and attempting to maintain 700mm+ steady on a breezy day - I'd think would be "challenging".

[Fox28]

I think it's all a matter of size. Using the S90/95 and G12 as examples - many with 3.8 x zoom and the other with a 5x zoom. At these levels, a viewer may not be crucial - apart sunny days, or shots of the night with the lights dazzling off the LCD screen, etc. The G12 is a false screen compared to others I've used - S3 IS for goods and services. I deliberate (hoped) the G12 to work equivalent as S3, but is a very unusual and quite useless in many (most) of the time.

[Huron]

We are familiar with that Canon has the technology as it uses for its use in all SD series cameras. I had SD1100 about couple of years before. There was a 35-115mm zoom, alike to the S95 range and had a small optical viewfinder, but very functional. There was even a slight light by the viewfinder to bear out focus lock. It zoomed in and out with the aim of preserving the design, too. I do not think there's room for a good viewfinder, but I'd forfeit a petite further for something like the SD1100 I had. It was like the sun shining on the LCD screen becomes a mirror.

[Odalis]

A few years ago I had a pocket camera with a viewfinder. It was very difficult to locate and then got a Canon Digital IXUS 970, and therefore hate my S95 for that basis. Of course it's broken and not close the gap. One or two cameras are manufactured with a viewer add-on that slides inside the shoe. I assume there is one for the Lumix LX5. It is my estimation that is unlikely to be more pocket cameras with a built-in viewer out. The market has "accepted" without a viewfinder.

[Farrah]

I consider that's the biggest reason. The cameras are so undersized that the viewer has to be. As such, users do not use it, on average, so the viewer is inevitable for cost drop, but probably minimal. I would like a successor to the S95, so I was not sure why not added. With that said, yet, do not miss it as much as I thought it would, is only thwarting when I put the camera to my face in public and then comprehend that do not has one. The huge DOF in the P & S is very helpful; no doubt cannot focus accurately without the visor.