Moose,
You obviously have better eyes and glasses than I.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 4:16 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Nikon 1 V1, was: Two-wheeling "kit"
On 6/2/2012 1:01 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> Oh yeah, just the way to get less camera shake. Hold the camera at arm's
> length so as to view the Chimp Screen.
Bill, there is speculation, there is theory, then there is practice.
In my practice, camera shake is not a problem compared to holding a DSLR at
my eye. This may not be true for you or
others. I do not hold the camera at arm's length, but at about 8-10", with
elbow(s) close to my body. This is especially
so when I am concerned with camera shake. At 68, my hands are very steady,
as they always have been.
In practice, I've taken shots with compact camera LCDs, between steady
hand(s) and IS, at shutter speeds that amaze me,
far longer than I could get away with with my OMs. I haven't kept track, but
I know I've made 1/8 sec. shots at moderate
effective FLs that show no motion blur, and I think some at 1/4 sec. Even
below that, some only show blur at 100%.
A lot depends too on the quality of the IS. It is my impression from reading
reviews that in lens IS is generally more
effective than in-body, which could make a difference at the margins. And
some makes and models of camera have more
effective IS than others. That is very clear in some of the multi-camera
comparisons dpreview has made of compact
cameras of various sorts. Mine have been of the better IS variety.
Another thing about LCDs, especially articulated ones, is that one may hold
them against something solid and still see
to frame where it wouldn't be practical with a viewfinder.
I don't understand the arm's length thing. That makes the LCD image very
small. I have progressive lenses, and can focus
on the screen easily close in. I suppose those who need glasses to read
should wear them to shoot, too.
As it happens, my 20/10 eye focuses without glasses at about 9" (used to be
6-7", but it's getting 'better') That means
I can slide my glasses up or down and easily see to focus manually. Higher
LCD rez actually makes a big difference for me.
Low Vibration Moose
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Ah yes, a matter of taste. Unless the LCD is poorly implemented, I
> wouldn't
> want the EVF. Another fiddly bit to mess
> with and make the camera larger an a more awkward shape. I would avoid a
> compact camera that required an add-on like
> that to be useful.
>
> Oly claims HyperCrystal LCD with Anti-Reflective coating, so one would
> hope
> it would be visible in almost any light. As
> usual, they are behind the competition on LCD pixel count.
>
> I am more than content with LCD alone, if it is well done. I would be
> happier with the Canon G11 without the extra size,
> weight and cost of the optical viewfinder. I'd guess I've looked through
> it
> maybe 3 or 4 times in over three years of
> regular use, just for curiosity. I don't recall using it to take a shot.
> Mostly, I simply forget it is there.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|