On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> But on the flip side, of the
> normal run-of-the-mill landscapy type of fodder, I'm convinced that
> digital has been a curse to me. I don't pre-think the shots to the
> same degree I do with film. As such, I overlook a lot of finer points
> in the photograph and end up not seeing the stray branch lurking in
> the corner or empty beer can on the ground.
Heard that. I always try to pre-think the shot before I start firing
away, but once I begin pulling the trigger, I might go on until both
card slots are full--and that's a lot of .NEF files. <g>
> Another aspect, which I've discussed ad-nausum is "eye-flow". When
> composing 4x5, I'm very cognizant of eye-flow throughout the picture.
> With the OM cameras I'm OK with it, but in digital, I'm a lost cause.
> It is really hard for me to do this because the viewfinder's contrast
> is off and the live-view screens are difficult to use outdoors.
>
> This is something the Nikons are good at, though. The viewfinder
> contrast is snappy and a bit more "in your face" which helps give a
> clarity that encourages further image analysis.
No complaints about the viewfinder. I think it's everything the OM-2
and OM-4Ti were, and maybe more, now that I'm getting used to looking
at clear glass. Except with the 300s, which has a grid or sorts. The
most difficult thing for me to do is realize I might want to leave
myself some wiggle room. I tend to compose to the walls of the
viewfinder, and realize only later that I should have left some room
to make adjustments.
--Bob Whitmire
www.bobwhitmire.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|