I dunno Dawid,
I understand completely what you are saying, but am failing to understand how
one can connect with the subject through the viewfinder. Viewfinders make me
feel like a pervert spying through the keyhole...:)
My confusion comes mostly from the fact that the viewfinder does not give me as
much info as the large articulating display in terms of how to emphasize
certain features through exposure and composition. Maybe now is the time to
admit for n-th time that I am stupid: Even to this day I am having real
trouble accomplishing with the help of the viewfinder even simple tasks such
as, keeping the horizon straight when necessary, no I am not kidding. I think
I have elaborated in detail about the exposure subtleties that you can see if
you have a large display..its kinda like going to the movies:
There is a popular movie theater here in Newport, RI where everyone goes for
the novelty. It has not been updated since probably the sixties, Rhode Island
is like that, most of things stay the same for decades others-dont change at
all and thats why it is such a charming place.
Back on topic: The screen is small and the seats too, the sounds system does
not even play in stereo. There is a cinema a mile further which has a large
screen and surround sound system that lets you "immerse" in the middle of the
scene, well you cant really do that coz the murkins cant stop eating, and they
really do like to bring food in oversized plastic bags to the theaters...:)
One thing I do understand tho:
Optical viewfinder works for you and from what I have seen you are able to
produce some fantastic images, which was in essence the point of my pointless
remarks in my original post...:)
Best
Boris
Subject: Re: [OM] EVF Rant (Was: For Ken: finally an E1 upgrade)
From: Dawid Loubser <dawid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:34:55 +0200
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/
|