> The Sony's EVF is 1024x768 vs. the E-M5's 800x600. But the increased
> resolution is illusory since 1024x768 is 4:3 format and not 3:2 to fit
> the full frame aspect ratio. What that means is that when a 3:2 image
> is displayed 1024 wide it will only be 683 pixels high leaving 85 pixels
> of the vertical dimension unused. Perhaps they'll use that area for
> shooting info and leave the image unobstructed.
You are correct. Sony uses the extra area for placing the technical
info outside of the image area. From an eyeball perspective, it looks
a lot like a standard DSLR with the backlit info display below the
focusing screen. However, when you zoom in or do other things, such as
shoot video with different ratios, the pixel real-estate is important.
I'm sold on the latest screens that Sony uses. To my eye, they are a
step up from the E-M5 my no small margin. The E-M5 had a smoother
refresh, but the Sony's pixel resolution was a noted advantage.
It's time to retire the A1.
> ps: It seems lenses are extraordinarily expensive. I think it was the
> DPReview article that comments that the Sony 55/1.8 costs about twice as
> much as a Nikon 50/1.4. Ouch!
A thirty year newer design, by chance?
Regardless, it matters not to me. I want something to throw Zuikos on.
That 35-80/2.8 needs a full-frame digital home.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|