Does LCD Size Matter To You?

Okay, I am talking strictly about DSLR's here. IMO the larger size LCD is nice but I don't really care. I currently have the 20D and it's 1.8" LCD is perfectly fine. Then came the 30D with it's 2.5" LCD and now the 40D with it's 3.0" LCD. To my way of thinking this represents overkill.

I am looking forward to getting the 40D very soon and it has a lot of nice features that my 20D does not, e.g. spot metering

So, in the grand scheme of things the trend toward larger and larger LCD's seem to me to be unnecessary. What do you think?

I like the 2.5. Zoom in all the way, and then two steps back, and it's very nice. On the 40D, I just couldn't judge focus in the least. I couldn't tell if a shot was sharp or s***. It was quite annoying. You just can't have that few pixels on such a large surface for such a critical situation. Noink got that down. They've got something like 4x the pixels in the same size space.

It does within reason, I don't care if it is above 2.5" or not but below that can be a bit small for my tastes.

nah, I stepped down from a 2.5er to a 2 inch LCD. For OOF pics I usually know I missed the shot right after I clicked the shutter.

In the case of the 40D, the larger display is very useful when it comes to Liveview focusing.

It does, only if the cached image is also more detailed and that there are more pixels on the screen. I like where Noink is heading.
For the 40D though, I'll say yes.. not because of the two factors listed above, but rather it's usefulness for Live View.
My friend kept raking on about his awesome SD630 over the 600 (3" over 2.5").. but the resolution was still the same! Screw that!

Shooting with a 10D for the last 4+ years I didn't think it mattered and that screen was fine.
Now I have a 5D and I think it's one of the greatest changes between the two cameras. Very hard shooting with the 5D and then picking up the 10D and the first thing I notice is the LCD size ... I won't even mention the LCD on my Elan 7NE ... That really sucks!

YES! ... size does matter!

I've been spoiled with the 3" LCD on my Sony... so between the XT and the XTi the choice was clear. It wasn't even so much the size, but the resolution is crap on the XT, it looks like my old S200! If I want to GUESS how it looks I can shoot with my old film SLR. lol

I like the 2.5" - much nicer than on the 20D - but the 40D's 3" is overkill.

Mark

Giving the choice between two screen on the exact same camera I would deff. choose the larger screen. Who wouldn't.

simwells wrote in post #4265791
It does within reason, I don't care if it is above 2.5" or not but below that can be a bit small for my tastes.

I agree with this....the 1.8" screen on my 300D was a bit small for my tastes, but the 2.5" is perfectly fine for me and I do not need anything bigger.

Not to mention the 40D is just bigger and the same resolution...so the IQ will go down as the pixels are being stretched more. But then again larger it is easier to see, so I could see some would like it.

It matters in that I like the 2.5" LCD.

Not really, no. I don't really use the back LCD on my 20D.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #4265768
Noink got that down. They've got something like 4x the pixels in the same size space.

was this ever decided? Noink's website keeps referring to 900k DOTS where Canon refers to 230k PIXELS. That's still a higher resolution (approx 70k pixels), but not 3-4x as many...

How many dots in a pixel?

It says VGA, so that's 640x480, and that's 307k pixels. Still more than Canon's 230,000