Had been doing some reading lately and was noticing the Canon vs. Mac debate taking and interesting turn. It seems the Nikon bodies have always sported a higher LCD resolution on their bodies, which allows for sharper picture previews than their Canon counterparts, on similar screen sizes. I’ve not really looked at the numbers side by side, but this raises an interesting question.
On the one hand, any increase in resolution that helps you with review, possibly to even re-shoot without having to go back out and re-creating the scene later would seem like a good thing.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a long standing tradition regarding using LCD’s to review or “chimp”. I’ve heard some people say that the LCD screen is really intended for menu selections and settings, and quick checks for nothing more detailed than basic composition, white balance, and histogram checks.
I can see the merits of each argument, and am grappling with the subject myself…so, I’ll pose the question here: Is screen resolution important to you? It’s pretty obvious that screen SIZE can make a difference, but if resolution is important too, then that kind of begs the question of what purpose the LCD screen serves in your processing.? Would you consider it just another tool in the arsenal for photographers, or would you frown on people that zoom in on the LCD screen to see how sharp things are? I can see how it could be an effective tool, but at the same time, how great would any decision be that is based off what you see on a 3″ screen versus a 19″ or better monitor?
What are others thoughts here?