I'm still catching up on my backlog (so I apologise if this issue has
been finished for 2 weeks :-) ).
Winsor says he doesn't notice any but subtle differences between the
1-13 and the 2-13. My experience is different : I've always used a 2-13
(first in my OM-1, 7 years ago). When I plugged in the 2-13 and looked
through the viewfinder, the difference was obvious at once. I didn't
have to compare !
The viewfinder is indeed a lot brighter. I'm quite bad at estimating,
but let's say 1 or 2 stops. Another very nice thing is that the
microprism and the split screen aren't as noticable anymore. The edges
can only be seen when the display is *really* out of focus, while with
the 1-13's I've been using, you always saw them (even when the whole
view was exactly in focus).
It's true that the matte 'snaps' into focus more than the 1-13 screen
matte did, but I'm still glad I didn't buy a 2-4. I like the fact that
I have the microprism and the split just in case the focus is really
important.
I have to agree with people who claim that a 2-x screen is maybe the
most important upgrade you can get for an OM-body. I didn't really use
it a lot yet, but every time I hold my OM-3 to my face, it feels like a
more professional camera. It's the almost the same kick I got as the
one I got when I moved from my OM-1 to my OM-3.
--
Peter Leyssens
Eonic Systems
Personal e-mail : Peter.Leyssens@xxxxxxxxx
Support mail : support@xxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|