Sure (as I said, for people or scenic photography, it might do the
trick), but when you are shooting that 35mm f/1.4 wide open and up
close, how do you know whether it's focusing on, for example, the
subject's nose or eyes? Eyelids or pupils? And that is for a "common"
subject pattern like a face, which they can make the camera detect. But
imagine a more abstract subject - surely you'd not blindly trust the
camera to focus precisely according to your intent?
Well, I couldn't trust it in this way. I'd use the electronic finder all
the time, rendering the optical finder rather useless. And frankly (and
I say this after spending some quality time with an OM-D this weekend)
electronic finders still suck bigtime compared to an OM or Nikon F
finder, not to mention a Mamiya RB67's.
I am not a grumpy old man, I am a young-ish systems architect who is
currently on the bleeding in the real of software architecture, being at
the concluding end of an 8-month+ research project to build a
revolutionary new architecture and computing "language". The only way I
could be more into modern technology would be to start with cybernetic
implants. Within this context, I still have to say: When I look through
a camera viewfinder, I don't want to fly a video game, I want to compose
a picture in the context of reality. I want to move my frame around in
the beautiful, organic, analogue realm of the photons that are reflected
off my subject. I want my eyes to experience the same, actual
wavelengths of light. Therein lies the emotional connection with the
image about to be made. I don't want those photons captured, quantized,
processed, amplified, and re-imagined as a crude grid of luminous pixels
at a woefully inadequate framerate.
Electronic viewfinders are a low-resolution affront to my photographic
senses, and if I were forced to use them I would rather not photograph
at all. They are like a pair of fidelity-reducing goggles applied to my
vision, and I well and truly hate the experience of using them.
So ironic that the modern EVF cameras, whose output challenges
medium-format film in many instances, offer such a reduced sensory
experience when using them. I suspect that therein lies the value of the
optical mode of the Fuji viewfinder - at least there is a real,
high-fidelity connection between photographer and subject.
Dawid
On Sat, 2012-08-25 at 21:38 +0200, SwissPace wrote:
> maybe I am missing something but I have mine set to a central focus
> point, so I put the subject in the centre of the frame half press
> shutter button wait for focus point rectangle to confirm its focussed by
> turning green then recompose and click, I know exactly where its
> focussed even with the OVF. I will say though that the OVF suits wide
> lenses better but as I am mostly using the 18mm it works for me.
>
>
> On 8/25/12 1:22 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> >
> > I could never be content with a camera that focuses on something for me,
> > without giving me any indicating as to where that actually us. I can see
> > how that could be great for certain type of photography - usually
> > involving people, or scenics - but not for mine.
> >
> >
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|