I handled the X-E1 (.. ;-) only a short time, as I reminded myself that I
just bought a new camera and should not be tempted... In short:
Nice camera, not to heavy, convenient controls (al I need is an aperture
dial and a exposure compensation dial), nice viewfinder (but it didn't
stand out in my memory as the A99's). The AF speed was OK too, but I could
live with the e-p1/2 as well so I might not be qualified to judge AF
usability in more demanding situations.
I can see why the x system appeals to traditionalists (I might be one
myself in certain ways ;-). Maybe I can buy the full-frame version one day,
I'd prefer it to a DSLR.
Best, Frank.
2012/10/1 Chris Barker
> Did you, Frank?
>
> And what did you think of the E-X1?
>
> Chris
> On 1 Oct 2012, at 07:01, Frank Wijsmuller <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > It is interesting to note that the resolution is 4:3, not 2:3. The real
> > resolution gain from the E-M5's 800x600 is therefore less then you might
> > think. But of course, it is also about the optics before the 'screen',
> and
> > processing power behind it. On both accounts, I think these newer
> displays
> > make big steps. The A99 more then the E-X1, was my impression (I handled
> > both, but not side to side).
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
|