you are right! The 2-13 screen is significantly brighter! Paul.
Peter Leyssens wrote:
> 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 >
< 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 >
|