John Hudson wrote:
> The precision focusing I experienced with my OM4T and M cameras has not been
> carried forward to either of my E500 and E510 cameras.
>
In addition to Chuck's excellent suggestions, I have some observations
and ideas that may or may not either help or throw light on the source
of the problems and answers to your larger questoins.
First, it seems fair to point out that the Leica M cameras are premium
priced masterpieces of camera making.* They also used a completely
different form of focusing than (D)SLRs. The OM-4T was right up there
among the very best MF 35mm film cameras ever made in the area of
viewfinder and focusing. Both represent the best their makers were
capable of for their flagship cameras within existing technology.
The E-500-510-520 are quite different products. Rather than top of the
line, they are very competitively priced consumer models. That means
they incorporate many compromises not because of technological
constraints, but because of cost constraints. The camera to compare to
those icons from the past in the Oly line is the E-3. Yes, I know it's
big, heavy and expensive. But the state of the art of technology at the
moment is that getting all the performance still requires big and heavy.
That will change at least somewhat. As to cost, I'm too lazy at the
moment to do the calculations, but I'll bet the E-3 is no more
expensive, adjusted for inflation, the the original OM-4T(i).
The E-400 & 500 series are inexpensive cameras. A good part of the
reason they have been so successful is the nice balance/compromise of
cost, size, weight and performance. But they are not cameras with state
of the art 4/3 performance and IQ.
> The auto focus and manual focusing mechanisms just do not seem to measure up
> when using the film cameras as a base against which to measure the results.
>
Here, although I don't have those cameras, I would suggest that it is
partly 'different'. I have quite a few shots with digital that are a
great deal better than they would have been with MF film. That's for the
simple reason that I wouldn't have gotten the shot at all, as I could
not have focused and shot before the moment passed. Based on reviews,
the E-500 series are competitive with other DSLRs in this regard.
> When these digital cameras have been used to photograph stationary objects,
> landscapes and people who remain stationary during the photo taking stage the
> results have generally been excellent.
>
> What is really missed is the split image accuracy of both film cameras
> together with the immediacy of the exposure having depressed the shutter
> release button.
>
I think Chuck's suggestion of focus lock is a good one. It should speed
shutter release in many cases.
There are a couple of possible causes for delay beyond inherent camera
speed. One is the AF system. One thing to try is setting the camera to
use only the single, central AF point. Then it doesn't have to spend any
time deciding which point to use. That's how I have mine set all the
time. Whether it will make a difference on your cameras, I have no idea,
but it's easy to try. I do it to be sure where the camera is going to focus.
The second is to know that AF speed is a function of both camera body
and lens. When I tried the E-1, part of the reason I ended up with
another brand is that focus with the original 50-200 on the E-1 was slow
and unreliable in anything but ideal conditions of light and with a
contrasty subject. The one I tried would literally hunt for focus at the
long end for several seconds or simply give up with the same subject and
lighting where a Canon focused quickly and accurately.
I'm not suggesting that the E-500-10 are that slow, but that lens can
make a difference. Oly didn't replace the 50-200 with a new model just
as a marketing move. I know that focusing design in the lens can make a
big difference. I have mostly Tamron AF lenses for my Canons, and their
focus speed is quite adequate for my kind of photography, but the USM
focus models of Canon's own lenses are noticeably faster (and quieter).
> Is there any reasonable expectation that the manual split image focusing
> experience of the OM4T and the Ms will emerge in subsequent releases of the
> Olympus E series camera?
>
I don't understand the continued reference to rangefinders here. The
E-series are SLRs, and an inherently different experience than an SLR.
Perhaps Oly or Panny will come up with a rangefinder Micro 4/3 camera
one day.
As to the experience of SLR viewfinder manual focusing, 4/3 and APS
sensor sized cameras have a problem of optical physics to deal with.
With a smaller viewfinder screen and a lens of the same speed, enlarging
the apparent image seen by the eye to the same size as a 4T ( let alone
the larger OM-1 & 2 finder images) requires more magnification than on
the FF camera, and thus is inherently darker.
Then there is the lens speed issue. I don't recall which DZ lenses you
have, but the kit lenses aren't as fast as the lenses we were ( and some
still are) often using with our OMs. Slower maximum aperture equals
dimmer finder image and harder manual focusing.
If you really want to know the answer, try out an E-3 with a fast lens.
The cross section of the E-3 shows a huge pentaprism relative to
viewscreen size and a large, complex viewfinder optical system. Just
look at the viewfinder bulge on top of an E-3 vs an E-5xx The massive
viewfinder system, specs and reviewer/user comments suggest that this is
way better than any previous E-thingie and probably the best that may be
achieved with 4/3.
One of the problems with MF on DSLRs, at least small sensor ones, is
that the finder screens are optimized for brightness over the ability to
show focus accurately. Oly does offer an alternate screen for the E-3,
but it is supposedly not user changeable and has no split image focusing
aid. I suppose after market folks will expand on that.
> Also, when will the E cameras come out with a version that does away with the
> part second delay between pressing the exposure button and "exposing the
> film"? I've had a lot of disappointments caused by this delay.
>
In a way, this is unfair - to compare shutter release delay after you
have manually focused to delay that includes AF. But Chuck has showed
how to correct that with focus lock. On the other hand, the best current
camera lens combos focus incredibly quickly in anything but quite dim
light.
Again, try one of the newer, SWD motor DZ lenses on the E-510 and/or an
E-3. I think you may find shutter lag due to AF considerably reduced.
> All of which makes me reluctant to even think about giving up my film cameras.
>
I'm not doing that anyway! :-)
And just a blasphemous note relative to your last line: Oly is not the
only one making digital cameras. There are others that outperform them
in various ways, including the areas of concern you raise here.
Moose
* Although I don't like rangefinder cameras, for various reasons, I
recognize the great quality of the design and manufacture of Leicas and
their lenses. As long as I don't have to use them. :-D
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|