Thanks for the feedback and different viewpoint.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/5/2012 4:15 PM, Moose wrote:
>
> 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.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|