Assuming that you could get an LCD or similar imaging system that
accurately represented the information recorded by the sensor it would
be ideal. That is the image you are going to get, not something that
looks like what you see. The problems with LCDs type EVFs is that they
are not very high quality yet. In the future though I would imagine
that most pros will prefer an EVF because they do not want to be misled
by an optical image. Until then they will probably just put up with an
optical viewfinder because it does not interfere with the retina's
dynamic range.
As for current EVFs the traditional word viewfinder about describes it
just as it did the old wire frames you looked through to know where
your camera was pointed.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Simon Worby wrote:
>
> I'm afraid I think that editor is talking absolute and utter
> codswallop.
> Anything that gets between the eye and the subject is going to cause a
> deterioration in the image. Mirrors, lenses, and prisms don't, at
> least,
> alter the basic properties of the light; but digitalising it first and
> then looking at a image at massively reduced quality is (to me) just
> plain barmy.
>
> Since when have our eyes ever seen things as 3,000 x 2,000 square
> pixels? Or even 12,000 x 9,000 pixels? Never. Nor will they ever.
>
> An LCD may be fine for picture framing, but that's as far is it goes
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|