Point-and-Shoot vs. SLR

[saurabh.d21]

As an amateur I came to know lately that in Point-and-shoot cameras the image seen in viewfinder & image recorded on film sensor are different compared to SLR where due to single lens, a mirror diverts the image from the lens into the viewfinder; that mirror then retracts when the picture is taken so that the image can be recorded on the film or sensor. It is because of this method of diverting the image into the viewfinder that pictures cannot be previewed on the LCD screens of most digital SLRs.

Now I have always overlooked this fact & believed otherwise or perhaps my amateur eyes could not find the difference. In my Point-and-shoot camera I look into the viewfinder & take pictures hoping to capture the same image & I doubt if this "different image" theory is 100% right.
Is this theory always correct? Please give your comments on this.

[OsmosisStudios]

If youre using the viewfinder of a P&S camera, you're NOT seeing what the lens is seeing: the viewfinder on those cameras is essentially just a window cut into the body, not a true viewfinder. When you compose when using the screen on the back, though, you DO see what the lens is seeing: its essentially a video feed from the sensor.

P&S cameras simply dont have the room for a mirror box. Theyre more like the old-style rangefinders,

[wulf]

The effect is more marked the closer the camera is to the subject. If you are taking shots of something or someone 20' away this parallax effect is minimal but if you are working at macro ranges, it becomes very significant.

However, you can avoid the problem by using the LCD screen to get the live view of the scene - this is the image seen by the sensor and not what your eye picks up through a slightly displaced hole in the camera.

Wulf