On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> emoted:
> Each of us have our own tolerances of acceptability. Which drives one person
> bonkers is a non-issue to someone else. For me, viewfinder quality is HUGE
> and a make/break.
To me it's a matter of love the one you're with. E-3 viewfinder is
vastly superior to the E-410's, yet the latter's never bothers me when
I am using it. Maybe because the total package is so light and small,
or I am just a dullard.
> So, I'm not TOTALLY out to lunch because I still prefer using my E-1?
Hmmm, I doubt that you really need this sort of validation. ;^)
Seriously, I don't think so, though I have my own point of view about
it. See below ...
> I'm finding it fascinating that in 2010 we have to build up custom one-off
> solutions to get a decent focus screen, but then you lose accurate exposure
> metering. THIS 2010, NOT 1965!
>
> As much as I want/need to get a new digital camera, it is so disappointing
> to find that not a single one (other than the M9) offers the basic quality
> and utility of the cameras from the '80s and '90s.
To me it's a bit like typewriters. I had a wonderful Adler typewriter
that I bought in graduate school. German handiwork was a delight and
had really nice touch. There is no computer keyboard that rivals the
feel of that typewriter. Certainly none that has given me the same
pride of ownership and delight in a thing well-made. The closest
thing was an IBM clicky keyboard from the AT days, but the comparison
is simply absurd, laughable.
Surely, you see where I'm going with this. A keyboard was almost the
essence of typing at one point, now it is not. A good viewfinder is
something of the essence of manual focus photography. It is not the
same in digital photography. I don't know if I like it this way, but
I accept that it is this way. People sometimes miss the clutch pedal
when they get their first automatic transmission car, but that doesn't
really make the clutch pedal a necessity for them when it comes to
driving that particular car.
> It's a form/function thing. The viewfinders have gotten horrid because you
> don't need to manually focus because of auto-focus. But you need auto-focus
> because the viewfinders are so horrid that you can't manually focus.
I think of them as being sufficient for auto-focusing rather than
horrid for manual focusing, but I don't use them for manual focusing
much because the AF works well and when I want to focus manually, I
don't use a viewfinder much at all because I use Live View.
Some of my biggest frustrations with my manual focus film cameras
would have been solved had I had Live View on them. My preference for
a split prism focusing aid is evidence that even as great an asset as
an OM viewfinder is, it is not enough to make me feel confident that I
can nail focus on a matte screen. Compare one form of focusing aid to
another and you are really comparing two different ways of using the
viewfinder -- the screen 4 way and the screen 13 way. A screen 13 guy
like myself has already given up on much of what the screen 4 guys
thinks is So Great About the OM Viewfinder.
I really appreciate what the E-system gives me, whether it's an E-1,
E-3, or E-410 because I get consistently better results. Compare a
matte screen in an OM to the matte screen of any E-system camera for
manual focusing, and the OM wins. But I don't really care when I
wouldn't use the OM that way because I don't have confidence in the
result. A 1-13 screen is better for me than a 2-4, despite the fact
that the 2-4 produces a more esthetically pleasing viewfinder
experience. Shall it be argued that the 2-4 is the better screen
because it makes the viewfinder brighter and more pleasant to use?
How do the actual results of shooting the camera figure into the
equation?
> Less you think I'm picking on Canon, trust me, I'm not. Olympus has, other
> than the E-3, made simply the worst viewfinders in the digital age.
> Appalling viewfinders. Shameful. I may never buy another Olympus again
> torrid. The E-3 is the best of the FourThirds cameras, but that's not saying
> much. You still can't manually focus any lens with any sense of speed. And
> given Olympus track-record of preserving good things, they'll probably trash
> the viewfinder in the E-3 replacement. I'm hoping that I'm wrong and
> they'll pleasantly surprise me, but I'm not expecting much from them.
The next viewfinder I care about I hope will be an EVF built into the
E-PL3 (or its Panny counterpart).
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/
|