On 8/10/2015 8:43 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
I agree, except the reviews I've seen suggest the EVF is much higher
resolution on the IV.
Suggest? 1,440,000 vs. 2,359,296. But yes, this is a fairly small actual increase in resolution, as area is squared,
while resolution is linear. Whether any particular person will notice a difference is individual, depending, I suppose
on both visual acuity and how their brain works. ;-)
I'm notoriously VF agnostic, at least for SLR optical and EVFs. I went around happily shooting with 2,764,800 GX7 and
1,440,000 E-M5 around my neck, freely switching between them, and never noticed any difference. I was surprised one day
when I saw the specs.
Then (with Mike as my witness) I was doing the same thing with E-M5 and 2,360,000 pixel Mark II. Never noticed a thing
but the subjects. I can tell that the tiny EVF on the Panny ZS40 is really coarse, 200,000 pixel, but it doesn't get in
my way. Hey, none of its competition, including the otherwise Oly eq., has any VF at all.
In fact, if I were looking for a motorcycle jacket pocket camera, that's what I'd use. The tiny sensor and slow lens
fall apart in low light, but man it's versatile outdoors. The first two rows but the last image here are all taken with
it, most cropped, some considerably.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/Mexico/Cabo_2015> JPEGs are a little rough, but the
Raw files are surprisingly good and malleable.
I'd just have another camera in a saddlebag to take indoors. For me, it would be a µ4/3, as they are small, light,
versatile - and I have scads of them - but AG's Rx10 might do the trick you want.
YMMV :-)
Through a Glass I See Moose
--
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/
|