At 2:28 PM -0700 2004.09.30, Siddiq wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 06:54:54 +0930, Andrew L Wendelborn
><andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ...
>> In this case, no -- the RF view is smaller.
>
>Ahh, so when is the RF at advantage if the image in the RF is smaller and
>an OM1n w/ 1-13 is easier to focus? (also i guess it would matter how fast
>a lens is mounted on the 1n; the fastest I've got is 1.4)
>
The usual advantages I guess -- smaller, lighter, quieter, more discreet,
viewfinder doesn't go dark, no mirror flopping around etc etc.
But not all RFs are created equal. There are wide variations in brightness,
magnification factor, clarity of the focussing area and so on.
For your low light situation, the focussing area is critical. You need to
align images in a small part of the total viewing area, so it must be clear and
well defined. Some RFs are excellent in that respect (L*ica M3 for example).
Others are lousy (eg F*ji 645). IMHO the SPn, while not at M3 standard, is
pretty good.
I found the SP easy to use at your stated low light condition of ISO 400 - f4 -
1/15s. At 2s it was still usable, but the 1n / 1-13 / 50f1.8 combination
somewhat easier. But that's rather dim light!
There's also a wide range of personal preferences. Some people dislike
microprism, others dislike the "image alignment" technique of RF.
Personally, I think low light focussing is just plain difficult. I use the
55/1.2 if possible. Or some tricks, like focussing on something bright at
what I judge to be the same distance. Or use a varimagni. Or hyperfocal
focussing.
But if you are hoping that the RD you mentioned might make things easier all
round for low light work cf the 1n / 1-13, I don't think so. But if the RD is
preferable for other reasons, most likely still usable in low light.
regards
Andrew
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|