On 8/5/2012 3:25 AM, Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
> Hi Jim and all,
>
> While I'm writing a quick OM-D E-M5 review, giving thanks to you all for
> the warm welcome (again), please let me "overtake" Moose about this
> question :-) :-) :-)
>
> To put things in perspective: I wear glasses (nearsightedness) and have a
> rather long nose, both making me *very* critical about camera viewfinders...
I wear progressive lenses that become darker when exposed to UV., I suppose my
nose is of average length. (although I am
very curious by nature) ;-) I wear my glasses when looking through
viewfinders.*
> <clip "X100 EVF sux">
>
> ...but the OM-D EVF is *much* better! Even with sunglasses on, I find it
> surprisingly useable, even on standard settings -- there are options for
> increasing EVF brightness that _seem_ to work well, because they do
> increase actual finder brightness, instead of just clipping the highlights
> like other screens.
I haven't tried this. I find the brightness just fine on default setting.
> IMHO, the electronic viewfinder is one of the strongest points of the OM-D:
> sharp, bright, detailed, wide gamut and fast refresh rate. It shows an
> accurate preview of exposure settings, with an option to mark clipped
> (highlight/shadow) zones during Live View, BEFORE taking the exposure.
I agree. I see there is a faster refresh rate option, at a cost in battery
drain. I have not encountered and 'tearing'
or other artifacts from refresh rate, but imagine folks shooting fast moving
things might benefit.
> The built-in diopter adjustment has an ample range, and the eye-relief is
> adequate for me.
I haven't really tested the diopter range, but find eye relief fine with
glasses on.
> The only flaws a can see on it are related to the eyepiece optics:
> definitely _not_ up to 'Pro' quality, it has some CA when looking to the
> corners, and its plane of focus is somewhat tilted --
> I have seen some flare on it, most likely caused on the eyepice cover glass
> from the projected EVF images. Not really serious, but worth noting anyway.
Here, I am of little help for those who are fussy about SLR style viewfinders.
I roundly dislike rangefinder
viewfinders, have done so for about 50 years, so am unlikely to change. I hate
the silly little tunnel viewfinders on
compact cameras even more. I've had them on film cameras and on four digital
compacts. Fortunately, on the digicams, I
have been able to completely ignore them after an initial look to see if it is
as awful as the last one.
Then, in a turnabout, I appear to be indifferent to differences in SLR style
viewfinders that bother others. I went from
OM finders, with huge, clear views, to a 300D with mirrors in a plastic mount
instead of a real pentaprism, described by
many as a tiny, dim tunnel. And you know, if I compare the two, I can see what
they are talking about. But when I used
the 300D, I just didn't notice, I "see through" to the subject.
CA? A little flare? I just don't notice. Someone commented that the EVF was
unusable because the colors aren't true.
Well, to me, yes, the colors aren't quite true, especially bright
yellow/orange/red in direct sun, although they are
generally pretty good. But I've never seen a viewfinder as an accurate
representation of what I'll see later on film or
screen. That isn't important to me, and wasn't true with OM and film, although
in different ways. Every film gave at
least slightly different color results than I'd seen, highlights and/or shadow
detail I'd seen through the viewfinder
would disappear on slides, and framing was never quite accurate.
I only need to see a reasonably accurate representation that's sharp and clear
enough for MF and accurately frames the
subject. The OM-D does all that very well for me. No, it doesn't have as
accurate colors, nor the DR, of an optical, SLR
viewfinder, but I saw those before I put the camera to my eye.
I appreciate the wealth of additional information that I may see in it, if I
wish to do so. Certainly the live histogram
and/or clipped highlight/shadow indicators provide a more accurate measure of
DR limitations than my eye through an
optical viewfinder. BTW, the clipping points are adjustable.
I also have found the automatic switch from back, OLED screen to EVF to work
very well. BTW, the OLED screen is
beautiful, and usable, if not perfect, even in direct sun, when reaching for an
angle where I can't use the viewfinder..
> you can't get in
> exact focus both the top and the bottom of the screen. If I were younger, I
> wouldn't have noticed because my eyes would accomodate within that small
> difference... but my recent presbyopia makes this an issue for me :-( Now
> I've settled with a diopter setting that allows me to see clearly (most of)
> the image area while the indications at the bottom are slightly blurred
> (but still readable)
This is not true of my combination of camera, glasses and eye. With the proper
diopter setting, everything is in focus,
top to bottom. And my eyes are much older than yours, so there is essentially
no focus adaptability. Whether this is due
to camera or human sample variability, I don't know. :-)
E.V. F. Moose
* I just recently got a pair of newer binoculars with eye cups that rotate
down, instead of awkward, fold down rubber. A
big step forward for me with glasses. I don't have to wear a 'string' on my
glasses or put them in a pocket to share
binocs with a partner.
--
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/
|