> and I've always been appalled at the tiny, tiny viewfinder...
> Some hours later it struck me that I hadn't noticed anything
> lacking in the viewfinder.
It depends on what I'm photographing. I've gotten rather used
to the smallish viewfinder of the E-1 for portraiture and other
applications where the photograph is used in like-size results.
For example, most portraits are either used for wallets, 4x5s,
5x7s or wall hung 8x10s. The typical viewing distance/print size
corresponds rather nicely to the smaller viewfinder image in the
camera.
However, when shooting "artistic" pictures or landscapes where
the intended result is a large print, I find the viewfinder to
be disturbingly small. When viewing the scene through an OM
viewfinder you get engulfed in the picture. You see the nuances
and get more emotionally involved in the picture taking process.
With the E-1 viewfinder, I feel like I'm an observer of the
picture taking process. Instead of being able to visualize the
picture as a large print, I start to see the scene as though it
will be printed on postcards and offered for sale next to the
soda fountain in a gas station.
Another factor in these viewfinder designs isn't just apparant
image size, but viewfinder contrast. One thing I really do like
about the E-1's viewfinder is the "snappy" image. The Nikon
also has a very contrasty, snappy image. Of course,
historically, Nikon's viewfinders have been high contrast and
possess a "snap" that the OM viewfinders didn't.
> And is it right to be asking these kind of questions at 3am?
My bed partner would say no.
AG
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|