On Aug 25, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Dawid Loubser <dawid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I agree, sounds wonderful, let's see your pictures...
url?
Steve
>
> 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/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|