Thanks for the reply, Boris. I think we're all on the same page here.
I have a very intimite relationship with my viewfinders. Especially with
my Mamiya RB67, I truly do spend a lot of time composing with the
finder. With my 35mm cameras, I large pre-visualise, but with that
camera - immersing myself in the viewfinder opens up my compositional
world. It's like a pair of goggles through which the world looks
different.
I've had many people looking through that viewfinder, and ask "wow, is
this a 3D camera?" It's clearly a 2D image they are looking at (making
the question rather silly) but the image projected is so vivid, large,
and "real", I guess that's the first thing that comes to mind.
4x5, and the inverted image, is another similar (and much larger) finder
experience, but I guess the difficulties of composing (camera operation)
hasn't made it as seamless and direct as the RB67 experience for me.
Everybody needs to find a tool they are intimately familiar with, and
which inspires their creativity. Good (large) optical finders have been
mind, and no EVF yet seen by me has come close.
have a great day,
Dawid
On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 17:21 -0700, Willie Wonka wrote:
> 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/
|