First the disclaimer:
I honestly dont see any rational reason why the viewfinder should exist. I
came to this conclusion during film days after acquiring Yashika D TLR which
had a ground glass that you can stare at with both eyes from whatever distance
you like.
Back on topic. The rest of the family forced me to go to the mall and we
stopped at Best Buy where I made initial evaluation of several cameras.
There were 8 cameras on display:3 Canons, 4 Nikons and 1 Sony. I couldnt turn
one of the Nikons on. First thing I did was to put them all in manual.
Second, was to evaluate how easy the controls were placed and how the cameras
feel in my hands. Third was to see which one has the feature I value most in a
camera-seeing how the exposure affects the picture in real time.
In all accounts, the Sony A33 won hands down. What a little jewel. The way it
handles, it looks and feels is a light years ahead. I also found that the
Nikons are better in ergonomics looks and feels than the Canons. The 60D is ok
I guess, but the Rebels feel like disposables. The low end Nikons, such as,
the 3000 feel kinda like the Canon 60D, but the more expensive models feel
well...more expensive...:)
When it comes to what you call "Live View", I have no idea why it is
implemented into the Nikons...and in the Canons it is kinda like an
afterthought. No wander why some even in the pro circles are still talking
about "chimping", they havent caught up with the technology yet.
If you rely on the viewfinder, the A33's viewfinder wont convince you to
switch, as you see that it is an electronic viewfinder. Barely, but you see
it. I could draw an analogy with when you watch something on a really good
quality HD TV. You know that it is not like being at the scene, but see
amazing detail. If it were me, I would eliminate it. You should see that
fantastic articulating LCD.
Wifey asked me why I put the camera in M. So I showed her what the most
important feature is to me: I pointed the camera towards a darkish desk and
let it fill the lower third of the frame. Above it were bright showcases and
at the top one could see the bright walls of the store. I adjusted the camera
exposure to expose correctly the walls and showcases, which caused the lower
third of the screen showing the desk to become black. Then I started adjusting
the speed and showed her how the exposure changes in real time. I stopped
right before the lights in the showcases were blown out and that gave me enough
detail in the lower third, as I was able to see the desk features. I also
explained to her that in some pictures you want to use the low and high key
techniques in order to achieve the desired effect and this gives you a chance
to see the amount of over/underexposure you apply in real time as if you were
looking at the final print.
I was able to "chimp" after taking the picture with the most expensive of the
Nikons. I liked what I saw, but the LCD isnt up to par with the one found in
the Sony. The LCDs that the Canons use are just plain horrid. They are three
times the size of the one on my A200, but you can really see the level of
detail, thats how horrible they are.
It appears that their engineers got the hint and attempted to implement the
kinda of live view as found in the Sony, but one can adjust it to +/- 2fstops
only. It is really slow as it takes about a second to refresh the screen. If
you overexpose, the screen looses contrast to the point that you barely
recognise the outlines of the subjects. In the opposite direction, they become
muddy and fuzzy. I dont think anyone in the Canon camp is using it or has no
idea that it even exist. The playback images were bad too, they look like very
noisy images.
Turning any of the dials on the Nikons resulted in no changes on the LCD, with
the exception of an indicator how much the image has been under/over exposed,
but you dont have an idea what the final image looks like until after you take
the picture and "chimp".
So this is it, this is the test. Everything else could be determined from the
reviews online. It also showed me, that my initial gut feeling was right, the
A33/55 are prolly the best for me. Last step, before I make the final decision
would be to do the same to the GH2.
You know what I am looking for and if you have any suggestions about other
cameras, let me know. I would like to make a purchase within couple of months.
HTH
Boris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|