Yo,
on Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:04:26 -0700, Mike wrote:
>A matter of opinion perhaps. I just recently got a 2-4 screen (thank you
>
>The finder brightness, ease of focus, and especially the way cars would
>snap into focus as thay came into view allowing more accurate timing of
>my shutter release point than ever before made me a believer in a
>heartbeat. I'll never go back and need _at least_ one more of these
>babys.
On a side note: Whenever I use my Dad's Canon T-70 (not too often) it
strikes me just how much easier it is to focus than any of my OMs. The
viewfinder looks very clear and the image snaps into focus unlike with any
of the OM-screens I have tried so far (1-4, 1-5, 1-13, and the Beattie with
the diagonal split screen as well as the one that looks like the 1-4), which
also all seem much grainier. Just to clarify how big the difference is: on a
scale from 0 to 100 for ease of focusing, with 0 being impossible to focus,
and 100 being like the T-70, I'd give the OM-screens around 30-35 points.
So the only serious gripe I have with the OM-system is that I find it way
harder to focus than the T-70 (as well as the T-50 my sister used to have,
and probably a few other Canons).
The question is: Why? What is different about the Canon-screens? Has Olympus
perhaps sacrificed most of the possible ease of regular focusing for better
depth preview (don't know about depth preview on the Canons)? And is there a
screen among the OM-screens that I didn't have a chance to try so far that
will give me the same effect? Or is something wrong with my eyes?
Any ideas anybody?
MtFbwy,
Volkhart
--
Volkhart Baumgaertner email: kyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MausNet: @MGN
< 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 >
|