>
> I have been looking to E-PL1 focusing speed compared to E-P2 and the
> difference is minimal. It seems the camera still hunts and I wonder where is
> the limit of this technology. Do you think would it be possible to get E-3
> speed with this tech? I don´t think so.
>
Only a matter of time. DC focusing is as fast as phase focusing was a
half-dozen years ago. The problem that DC focusing has is the inability to
know which way to go for correcting the focus. With phase focusing, the
system usually knows to go closer or farther and doesn't need to guess and
be wrong half the time.
> Would it be possible to use an EVF with Eye-controlled focusing for
> narrowing the field where the camera should focus? Why Canon gave up this
> tech?
My theory is that Canon discovered that they can sell gobs (millions) of
cameras without certain features. People will buy the stuff no matter what.
Eye-controlled focusing was cat's meow and I really really liked it whenever
I could get it dialed in. Another advance was the pellicle mirror. Or what
about DEP mode? Even mirror lock-up! All features and enhancements removed
from the digital era because it won't add a single sale and only takes away
from the bottom line. When you are already selling 100% of your
manufacturing ability of cameras it makes no sense to add features that cost
money to put in. Shoot, back in the '70s Canon discovered that it could
stay with the worst-possible metering system (sensors in the prism housing
directly above the eyepiece) and just add exposure modes--oh and stick it
all in a chrome-plated plastic body. Today, with digital, they slap a new
sensor in the same body (at no additional manufacturing cost as chipsets are
fixed price no matter the number of pixels stuffed on it--you pay for
surface area), move a couple of buttons around, change the shape a little,
improve the software a tiny bit (or just change text colors) and call it a
new model and people will immediately eBay their old one and buy the new
one.
But the fault does not sit with Canon. The fault sits with the
consumer--those of us that bought the cameras for the wiz-bang feature sets.
Software is inexpensive to manufacture, superior engineering isn't. All it
took was for the inclusion of some multi-function buttons, dials and LCD
displays and it became a simple matter of sticking fancy new electronic
doodads on the same old tired mechanical system with obsolete metering
cells.
Back in the heyday of SLRs ('80s), can you imagine ANY manufacturer trying
to pass off the crud that we have today? The tiny viewfinders, the horrible
grips, the clacky shutters, plastic bodies, and the incompatibility of
accessories from one model to the next. (Yes, there are some real
advancements, but in the 25 years since the glory days fo the SLR we surely
haven't moved very far). And, unfortunately, I say that Olympus is the worst
of the offenders in that regard. Canon is Canon and always has been Canon
and always will be Canon. Nikon goes through phases, but generally tends to
respect the photographer. Olympus is just all over the boards with no clear
direction for what it wants to introduce from one model to the next. With
almost any manufacturer you can pretty well guess what the next model will
look like, but with Olympus it's anybody's guess--but one thing for sure--it
won't be anything earth-shattering.
So, my point is, that it isn't just Canon that no longer provides things it
did in the past, but Olympus too. OTF-TTL rocked and it was just a matter
of time before it was built-upon with improvements suitable for digital.
Mirror-chamber metering solved numerous eyepiece exposure issues. Gone.
Olympus had the biggest, most glorious IMAX style viewfinder ever! Not
anymore. The excuse of "it's comparible to the competition in equivalent
price brackets" is a load of fertilizer.
Call me a retrogrouch (or worse) because I'm doing the "good old days"
routine on you, but for crying out loud, today's digital cameras are ONLY
advancements in the imaging systems, but the cameras themselves are rarely
improvements on what we had years ago. In most cases, the cameras themselves
have gone far backwards and it's exactly because WE the consumer will buy
whatever they produce and quality engineering no longer is a consideration.
The Digital Pen is an advancement? Just tell me exactly how this is an
advancement? All they did was take existing technology from the DSLR world
and matched it up with a few things from the P&S world. Nothing new, just
repackaging. And Olympus couldn't even be bothered to figure out how to
stick an external connection for flash sync on the thing if you have the
viewfinder attached!!!! A PC-sync would have added $0.50 to the cost of
manufacturing, but they thought that it wouldn't have added any sales so why
bother including it.
I don't mean for this to come across as zenophobic or anything like that,
but this is the typical Japanese thinking that kept EVERY VCR ever made in
perpetual "Blinking 12:00" mode because they didn't stick a battery in them
to hold the clock and all the programming when the unit is unplugged or the
power fails. It didn't matter--we idiot customers kept buying VCRs no matter
what. We just had to learn to live with the "12:00" and no way to reliably
record programs.
AG (pithy mood) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|