Thanks, Joel. You gave me the answers that I was seeking.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Wilcox" <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Question for E-1 Users
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Joel,
>>
>> Thanks very much for your insight. I normally focus MF lenses wide open,
>> then stop down without taking the camera away from my eye. I understand
>> that the E-1 finder is larger and brighter than the 510, but was curious
>> about the transparency of the screen. The 510 finder is virtually
>> transparent, so there is little similarity to the screens that I used
>> with
>> Exacta and other SLR cameras. This makes it difficult to get an exact
>> focus, and does nothing to provide a hint of the DOF available in the
>> final
>> image. Does the E-1 finder provide any improvement in this area?
>
> No discernible difference IMO. The screen appears to be a very fine
> matte, which looks very transparent. Because the camera are made for
> AF, the image shows just a bit of further clarity as AF makes the
> point of focus sharper, but it doesn't provide the big swing between
> OOF and Focus that an OM matte screen would give. The E-1 seems to be
> a little better for manual focusing because of size or the spread of
> the VF rather than any qualitative difference in the screens. Also it
> is much easier to focus Tele lenses than WA -- which is also true of
> OM cameras and screens. Matte screens are terrible for focusing WA
> lenses IMO.
>>
>> In your reply, as well as in a post from Ken, both of you make reference
>> to
>> the lower pixel count of the E-1 and its impact on the images. Most of my
>> images go to the web or to family members, and large prints don't enter
>> my
>> consideration. I suspect that 5MP would suffice for any work that I would
>> attempt.
>>
>> Again, I guess my basic question is this: Is size the main advantage of
>> the
>> E-1 finder over the E-510, or are there other quality differences?
>
> Yes, I think size is exactly the main advantage. I think you are
> right about the file size working well for you. Moreover, I have
> printed E-1 images as large as 11 x 14 with no special handling and
> larger with a bit of interpolation. Ironically, file size seems more
> important for web images, assuming someone wants to take the time to
> pixel-peep at your images and see how they look at 200%. File sizes
> of most current cameras are serious overkill for the printers we tend
> to use unless you want the peace of mind in knowing that you can print
> really large without interpolation. Larger file sizes in camera also
> allow more headroom for cropping images if you don't compose perfectly
> in-camera or do a lot of paparazzi-style shooting.
>
> Good luck with your decision. The E-1 is still pretty unique, though
> it is improved upon in most ways by the E-3. I think the thing that
> is apt to be the biggest disappointment would be the physical size of
> the LCD and the limitation on magnification during playback. If you
> don't depend too much on the LCD it probably won't bother you. I
> think you would appreciate an advantage when looking through the
> viewfinder. For sports photography, I could get shots with the E-1
> and longer OM lenses that I couldn't get as easily with the E-330, but
> I don't know if this translates into success for exactly what you have
> in mind.
>
> Joel W.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|