On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 22:14 -0700, Willie Wonka wrote:
> I purposely abstained from commenting on this rant, but think that Bob's
> message below is a fantastic summary of what I think the purpose of the
> viewfinder should be.
>
> BTW, it is prolly pointless to point out the benefits of a large display that
> you can stare at with two eyes instead peeping through a hole and most
> importantly that if you look through an optical viewfinder, you don't have an
> idea what the exposure is, except that the camera tells you that it is going
> to take a picture using certain speed and aperture, thus severely limiting
> your creativity.
It is probably also pointless to point out the disadvantage of using a
camera in a "held-in-front-of-my-face" posture, which is extremely
unstable and not usable for heavy cameras or lenses, not to mention
looking like a tourist dork whenever you photograph anything? :-)
I also have to object to you second assumption. I know *exactly* which
shutter speed / aperture I am using, because I had manually set them on
my camera - usually by feel - before lifting the camera to my eye
(properly-designed mechanical cameras are designed to be operated by
feel, sadly lost in most modern cameras.
I know you have a lot of experience in the old days with mechanical
cameras, but just remember that this thread is not at all trying to say
that electronics or auto-exposure is bad. It's not. My E-5 can figure
out a "correct" (for it's pathetic dynamic range) exposure much quicker
than me, I won't even try to compete.
What we are discussing, is how crude, low-fidelity and disconnected an
electronic pixellated display is compared to seeing the real (analogue /
photons) image as projected by the lens.
I stand fully by my original statements, that an electronic finder
imparts a dramatically different experience which is *greatly* divorced
from the reality of what you are trying to photograph. This means, of
course, that an optical finder is greatly divorced from the "look" and
exposure of the final image captured on film (or digitally, if you
must), so - whatever works for you.
I just have a very strong bias to feeling connected with my subject - by
at least *really* looking at it - and am happy to trust my judgement and
experience in terms of the captured latent image, which I have to make
"come alive" in the darkroom first in anyway - a wholly different space
where I am then "one" with the image, and only the image - no more
reality, no more camera.
Two pure experiences, which are confuddled into one low-res video game
experience with any EVF camera.
> Seriously, I find my small articulating LCD on my A200 much more useful than
> the viewfinder of my OM1 as I can see in real time how each individual object
> in my picture is exposed or over/under exposed and by how much, what my
> composition is just the way someone else would see it once it is printed:
> Most likely from a distance first and then a little bit closer, using both
> eyes of course....:)
If you think a years-old LCD is good, look at a proper large optical
viewfinder - e.g. Mamiya RB67, or a 4x5 camera with a Maxwell focusing
screen installed (most Yashica TLRs I've seen have terrible, dim
focusing screens).
To my tastes, nothing electronic can currently come close to replicating
the compositional experience.
regards,
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|