Moose,
I don't know. When what you see is a (relatively) tiny image, especially
surrounded by lots of "empty" space (which was exactly my perception of the E-1
finder), I find it difficult to imagine myself composing creatively. There is
something about a viewfinder that "fills the eyespace". It communicates
spatial relationships properly, connecting the scene with the eye/brain. Maybe
I just need to get out and try it, maybe I'd be surprised. But esp. after
using OMs for so long, and 120 and 4x5, it's going to be a tough sell.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/5/2003 at 7:32 PM Moose wrote:
>W Shumaker wrote:
>
>>I really wish I could believe Olympus made a great camera with the E-1.
>>With an OM-4t viewfinder, I can really preview what I will get before I
>press
>>the button, and I think makes a difference in my photography. I'm
>disappointed
>>by the reports I have read on the reduced viewfinder.
>>
>To be clear, the E-1 viewfinder is as good or better than the 4T in
>showing all that will be in the image. However, that view is visually
>smaller in the E-1. This is analogous to (although greater than) the
>drop in viewfinder image magnification from the 0.92x of the OM-1/2 to
>the 0.84x of the OM-3/4. The percentage of the image that ends up on the
>film shown in the viewfinder remained the same through all these camera
>bodies at 97%
>
>In the long run, I believe the optical viewfinder will go the way of the
>dodo. Optical SLR viewfinders are limited by the grain of the screen and
>the abilities of the human eye. Sure they are crummy today, but the
>technology continues to march on. Once reasonably priced small displays
>reach the resolution of view screens, they actually become preferable
>for a several reasons. They eliminate a lot of bulk, weight and
>mechanics in the camera. They show the image as it will be captured,
>from the imaging sensor, brightness and visual size become easier to
>engineer and the image can be magnified for more precise focus. Instead
>of carrying around something awkard like the Varimagni, how about just
>pressing a button once for 3x and twice for 10x magnification for fine
>focusing. Any hits from older folks with eyesight not what it was?
>
>> The core technology, the CCD, can be purchased by any camera company to
>make a camera. All
>>Olympus can really do is package the ergonomics in a better way than
>>another, but the basic guts will not be far from the competition.
>>
>Electronics in the form of hardware and firmware clearly makes quite a
>big difference. Sensors, hardware processors and firmware are largely
>developed by camera manufacturers, although some source pieces to each
>other.
>
>> I guess you can same the same about film cameras...
>>
>Yup, even more so, since all the image capture and processing technology
>is out of the camera manufacturers' hands.
>
>Moose
>
>
>
>< 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 >
|