Indeed. In my own case I use two pairs of glasses. My "computer
glasses" are optimized for a 19" reading distance and my "reading
glasses" for about 12". My computer glasses are also my general purpose
glasses and the ones I have with me at all times. The reason is that in
bright light my pupils are closed down and the additional depth of field
makes for a much greater range of distance coverage. My reading glasses
allow me to read tiny text or read in very low light. They would
probably allow for the closer viewing distance that Moose's hand holding
method requires but I don't normally carry them with me. There's a pair
within reach in the house and a pair normally kept in the car just in
case I have to read some tiny text. But I'll keep Moose's method in
mind and give it a try.
But for me it is much easier to use a camera with pentaprism or EVF and
built-in dioptric correction. My Minolta A1 is perfect in that respect
since it not only has a tilting LCD screen but the eyepiece for the EVF
also tilts up to 90 degrees. Unfortunately, the EVF design is about 7
or 8 years old (technologically ancient) and only displays a 320x240
image and is pretty much useless for other than accurate image framing.
How I wish I had a technologically updated Minolta A1.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/2/2012 9:33 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> Moose,
>
> You obviously have better eyes and glasses than I.
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moose
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 4:16 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Nikon 1 V1, was: Two-wheeling "kit"
>
> On 6/2/2012 1:01 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
>> Oh yeah, just the way to get less camera shake. Hold the camera at arm's
>> length so as to view the Chimp Screen.
>
> Bill, there is speculation, there is theory, then there is practice.
>
> In my practice, camera shake is not a problem compared to holding a DSLR at
> my eye. This may not be true for you or
> others. I do not hold the camera at arm's length, but at about 8-10", with
> elbow(s) close to my body. This is especially
> so when I am concerned with camera shake. At 68, my hands are very steady,
> as they always have been.
>
> In practice, I've taken shots with compact camera LCDs, between steady
> hand(s) and IS, at shutter speeds that amaze me,
> far longer than I could get away with with my OMs. I haven't kept track, but
> I know I've made 1/8 sec. shots at moderate
> effective FLs that show no motion blur, and I think some at 1/4 sec. Even
> below that, some only show blur at 100%.
>
> A lot depends too on the quality of the IS. It is my impression from reading
> reviews that in lens IS is generally more
> effective than in-body, which could make a difference at the margins. And
> some makes and models of camera have more
> effective IS than others. That is very clear in some of the multi-camera
> comparisons dpreview has made of compact
> cameras of various sorts. Mine have been of the better IS variety.
>
> Another thing about LCDs, especially articulated ones, is that one may hold
> them against something solid and still see
> to frame where it wouldn't be practical with a viewfinder.
>
> I don't understand the arm's length thing. That makes the LCD image very
> small. I have progressive lenses, and can focus
> on the screen easily close in. I suppose those who need glasses to read
> should wear them to shoot, too.
>
> As it happens, my 20/10 eye focuses without glasses at about 9" (used to be
> 6-7", but it's getting 'better') That means
> I can slide my glasses up or down and easily see to focus manually. Higher
> LCD rez actually makes a big difference for me.
>
> Low Vibration Moose
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Ah yes, a matter of taste. Unless the LCD is poorly implemented, I
>> wouldn't
>> want the EVF. Another fiddly bit to mess
>> with and make the camera larger an a more awkward shape. I would avoid a
>> compact camera that required an add-on like
>> that to be useful.
>>
>> Oly claims HyperCrystal LCD with Anti-Reflective coating, so one would
>> hope
>> it would be visible in almost any light. As
>> usual, they are behind the competition on LCD pixel count.
>>
>> I am more than content with LCD alone, if it is well done. I would be
>> happier with the Canon G11 without the extra size,
>> weight and cost of the optical viewfinder. I'd guess I've looked through
>> it
>> maybe 3 or 4 times in over three years of
>> regular use, just for curiosity. I don't recall using it to take a shot.
>> Mostly, I simply forget it is there.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|