To some extent - I've owned both the Epson RD-1s and M8 and had
trouble focussing well, especially with the M8 (holding it for left
eyed use, I tended to occlude the RF patch window dammit). The Epson
was easier to use. But, I've also owned a Contax G1 and loved it -
never got to the G2 which had a better AF system.
The advantage with a 4/3rd rangefinder would be live view for wide
and tele, obviating the need for auxilliary finders. It should work
really well as a Leica/Contax style AF RF. That's what I'd queue up
for, oh yes.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 14/09/2008, at 2:18 PM, Moose wrote:
> This is something I've heard a lot. I'm not sure I understand. Do you
> mean, in effect, a mechanical rangefinder camera with digital
> sensor in
> place of the film? Or something that emulates the small size and form
> factor of classic rangefinders, and uses an optical viewfinder (fixed
> magnification?), with or without LCD, but with AF?
>
> It's my impression that AF is more accurate than a mechanical
> rangefinder, but I've never used any of the premium rangefinders. I
> use
> only the central AF spot on my digital cameras and they seem to be
> very
> accurate.
>
> Its also my understanding that WA coverage with a rangefinder
> depends on
> the overall FOV of the optical finder or requires an auxiliary finder;
> and that tele framing is simply a small frame in the center of the
> fixed
> magnification viewfinder.
>
> None of that seems very appealing to me. One of the reasons I've never
> been attracted to rangefinders compared to SLRs.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|