I have no idea what you're talking about when you consider that I don't
like my 5D viewfinder. I like it just fine and it is part of the reason
I bought a 5D rather than some of those "tunnel view" smaller sensor
cameras. You're right, the viewfinder isn't 100%. But it's 96% vs the
OM-1's 97%. That equates to about 0.6mm around the periphery of the
frame that I don't see. Close enough for me.
My biggest ergonomic complaint about Canyon digitals is that the effect
of the two main control dials changes meaning with shooting mode. When
using my Mynolta A1, for example, I have the camera custom set such that
the front dial is always shutter speed and the rear dial is always
aperture. Exposure compensation is a separate control. The Canyon's
controls are familiar when it's in manual mode but when switching to
auto modes the front dial becomes either shutter speed or aperture
depending on the mode and the rear dial becomes exposure compensation.
Since I shoot mostly in manual, when I switch to aperture priority
suddenly the aperture control moves to the front dial and when I turn
the rear dial to change the aperture I'm actually changing the shutter
speed because that's the exposure compensation. I can see the effect in
the viewfinder which allows me to correct my error quickly but I almost
invariably turn the wrong control the first time. But I rarely shoot in
any auto mode so it doesn't cause much trouble.
My other Canyon ergonomic complaint's are that mirror lockup has to be
done through the menus screens and that the top LCD panel to the right
of the pentaprism contains a lot of useful info that cannot be seen
elsewhere. When the camera is at eye level on a tripod that panel can't
be read. The camera has an "info" button that displays important
shooting data on the main LCD on the back but not what's on that top
panel. A firmware fix could easily display that extra data on the back
with a second press of the info button.
But these are the kinds of things you only discover through usage. The
A1 has some problems too now that I don't use it so much. I sometimes
can't remember how to do some things. I normally prefer a gridded
finder display and sometimes accidentally turn it off. Getting it back
on again is not intuitive and I usually have to refer to the manual.
Once I read it I slap my head and say, that's simple, why couldn't I
remember that. Age I guess.
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Dr Flash wrote:
>> I guess I have abandoned Oly but I prefer to think of it as having
>> abandoned 4/3.
>
> I almost joined you.
>
>> Itwill forever be behind the 8 ball compared to a full frame sensor
>> with 4 times the area.
>
> I don't dispute the mathematical calculation of 4x the area. But I do
> dispute the advantage of it. We both shoot weddings. The bulk of your
> 2x3 format images are trimmed for actual enlargement/printing. So, at
> best, your talking 3x surface area. Then consider the wasted pixels
> due to the fact your viewfinder isn't 100%. That means that your
> images will experience more cropping on average than with a camera
> with a proper viewfinder. When comparing short-side
> usable/predictable dimension, the 4/3 isn't so far off the mark. The
> reality is, we're comparing the difference in image quality between a
> 645 and a 6x7. There does come a point of dimishing returns. When is
> good, good enough?
>
>> I bought the Canyon 5D specifically to get a Canyon
>> full frame sensor. Ergonomically, I don't like the camera very
>> much but that's minor compared to the image quality it can produce.
>
> I disagree that it is minor. It is very major! These ergonomic
> issues (viewfinder quality, for example), are what make you high-risk
> to purchase the 5D-replacement. If it was just about the
> image-quality, there would be no reason for the incredible interest
> in the replacement. I sense upgrade-fever coming on and an aspirin
> won't help.
>
>> The 4/3 sensor will forever be the comparative weak point.
>
> It will be forever brought up as a weak point by those who choose to
> believe it. I'll give you a case in point. Last night I was
> photographing a wedding reception where the dance was in a very
> darkened room and I chose to not use any flash. With the 14-54, I put
> it at 14mm, shot at F2.8 and just zone-focused. With 4/3, I have
> enough DoF to work with. I got shots that wouldn't have been possible
> with a narrower DoF. Don't saythat you have an ISO advantage, because
> I was already shooting ISO 3200. I'm looking forward to picking up a
> 11-22 at some point which will give me even more capability.
>
>> But it could be forgiven if there were size and weight saving
>> advantages as everyone expected. But it hasn't materialized.
>
> I believe the 400/410 proves it has. The E-1/E-3 isn't where
> ultra-light belongs.
>
> Oh, and any arguments about "Ultra-wides" is bogus. Not only does
> Olympus have three wides (7-14, 8mm, 11-22), but the 7-14 is of
> legendary status. Oh, and most people who grouse about the lack of
> ultra-wides have never owned one before. Ultra-wide is the new
> Ultra-telephoto. A few years ago the discussions were all about who
> had the longer/bigger/better telephotos.
>
> AG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|