For me it was for a long time a matter of having a super compact
with-me-all-the-time ["viewfinder"] camera (that great little german thing
with the 40mm/f3.5 Zeiss Tessar lens) as opposed to a larger "kit" I may or
may not have put up with very often. And it served me very well within it's
limitations for many many years.
While I really got started in photography with SLRs and RFs more or less at
the same time, and I like many aspects of SLR cameras - a good RF is no real
handicap for general, travel and leisure photography IMO.
Cheers
Lee
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Dave Dougherty" <davdou@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] SLR viewing versus RF viewing
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:25:25 -0700
>because they _didn't_ like the "flat" image of an SLR finder.<
I have the luxury ( or affliction) of being able to shoot both RF and SLR
with Kodak Retinas, an Olympus 35SP; OM-1 & 2 and E-20N.
I never thought about the difference in the appearance of the image in the
two types of viewfinder. I guess my brain just "sees" the image making it
three dimensional in both cases.
I know I "see" three dimensional because I am cognizant of depth of field in
the SLR.
Finally, I use the two systems for very different types of photography. The
SLRs are used either for shooting the grand children or macro, while the RFs
are used more for street photography. Different applications drive the
choice, not the viewfinder image.
Dave Dougherty
< 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 >
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
< 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 >
|