Australian

Re: Optical vs electronic viewfinders


"David Morrison" wrote in message
news:davidmor-B68492.11455027112004@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> In article <41a7897a@news.comindico.com.au>,
> "Justin Thyme" wrote:
>> Electronic Viewfinder - mostly as for rear panel lcd's, except they are a
>> bit lighter on power, you don't have the problem of sunlight hitting the
>> screen, and you hold the camera better, but their lower resolution makes
>> them harder for manual focus
>
> They may not always be lower resolution. The Canon Powershot S1 IS
> claims to have the same number of pixels in the viewfinder as the LCD
> panel. But you are right, being smaller would make it harder to focus.
The S1IS is one that gives an enlarged view when focussing, but it is still
a pain
>
> I guess I am trying to decide whether the disadvantages of the
> electronic viewfinder (power consumption, low light issues, limited
> resolution) are enough to make an optical viewfinder preferable with its
> disadvantages (framing issues, no filters, no manual focus).
>
> Most of my photos are outdoors, so a polarising filter is pretty
> important.
People can and do use polarisers with rangefinder film cameras, so digital
would be the same. Look through the filter until you see the best image,
take note of the orientation of the filter (there will be a little index
mark on it), and make sure that is in the same position when you put it on
the camera.
>
> Manual focussing is what I do now (very old SLRs), but I am unsure
> whether the autofocus systems are good enough that I would not need to
> use manual focus.
AF systems are very accurate. Certainly on consumer digitals it is generally
more accurate than you would be with MF. However on anything less than a
prosumer or dslr, the AF systems are SLOOOOW, and MF is even slower.
>
> Some of my photos are in low light. What level of light becomes a
> problem? In the depths of a forest? Late in the afternoon? Moonlight?
forests are not normally a problem, afternoon not a problem at all. well lit
indoors room no problem. Moonlight - hopeless. I like optical viewfinders
where if i can see it with my eye, i can frame it with my camera.
>
> I have been using SLRs for 20 years and would certainly prefer a through
> the lens viewfinder. However, for the moment I have no experience with
> digital cameras and would like to try a middle-range one to work out
> what is important to me. (Could not stand a low-end camera's
> limitations!)
I was in a similar boat. I considered upgrading, and was lucky enough to get
some extended play-time with some very nice cameras. Really though, the
only cameras that I didn't find a step backwards from an SLR (and I've been
using MF SLR's with match-the-needle type metering for years), were the
DSLR's. I probably could have lived with a canon Pro 1 or olympus 8080, but
still felt they were lacking. As a pentax user, at the time I was looking
Pentax's only DSLR offering was out of my budget (but the istD is a
beautiful camera, and the istDS looks very promising), so changing into a
Nikon or Canon offering would have required a re-investment in lenses etc.
In the end, I decided that to get a digital I'd be happy with was out of my
budget, but a digital within my budget would disappoint. So I put in a
small investment, bought a budget kodak p&s offering for those times when a
p&s is handy, and spent a small amount on another couple of 2nd hand SLR
bodies, a couple of 2nd hand lenses, and a bit of 2nd hand processing gear
so I can do my own B&W and slide processing. All up I spent under $500. It
will take about 200 rolls of film before I catch up price wise with what I
would have spent on a DSLR, and I'm taking pictures that are of a quality on
par with a $3k DSLR.
I will agree that the 2MP, 3xOptical zoom kodak is a damned site more
convenient, and takes much nicer pictures than the APS P&S my wife had
previously.
 

Article References :

Re: Optical vs electronic viewfinders
Optical vs electronic viewfinders
Re: Optical vs electronic viewfinders
 

See Also : Re: Canon 350D - Dust on the sensor?


"Douglas..." wrote in message
news:434700ba$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Justin Thyme wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Doug, thought we'd covered it in the other thread. Specifically
>> noise issues at high ISO, diffraction limiting due to small sensor, lack
>> of lens range, poor low-light AF performance, difficult to assess manual
>> focus, poor low-light metering performance, and that painful system of
>> having to hold down the AE-Lock button. The lack of an option to share
>> kit with 35mm could also be an issue with some too.
>> BTW, did you get that image I emailed you?
>>
>>
> It seems to me you are doing a bit of "Brand Bashing" here.
Not at all. I love oly cameras (had an OM1 that was great), their current
range of compacts are great for compacts. I just think that they have taken
the wrong road with the 4/3 system and their current SLR's. When I borrowed
the E300 back in April I had very high hopes for the camera - was
considering purchasing one myself as my transition from film to digital. In
the 1-1/2 days I had it, it completely changed my mind. To be fair, it took
even less time for me to be turned off the 300D - I didn't even get so far
as taking a photo with it, when the new one in the shop pinched my hand at
the plastic join on the handgrip it got put right back on the shelf. I have
never seen something so poorly built. I have had a fairly good play (about a
day) with an Oly E1 and was very impressed with it. despite the lower MP
count it creates gorgeous photos and doesn't suffer from most of the E300's
problems. I really think the E300 would have been a far better camera if
they kept it at 5 or 6MP. The 8 just seems to be too much for the sensor
size. Even with the limited lens range, I would buy an E300 today if it had
the E1 sensor, and had slightly better low light performance. They handle
beautifully. I have also used the 20D a little, and although wasn't
impressed with the kit lens, the camera was nice to use and a world above
the 300D (it'd want to be for the price). So far the only DSLR I have found
really comfortable to use is the istDS and it's big brother the istD. These
were the right size and weight, and their low-light performance appears very
acceptible. The lack of ISO100 would probably annoy me though - I'd have to
add some ND's to my kit. Perhaps my allegiance toward them stems from the
fact I have a collection of Pentax and Pentax-Compatible bodies - from old
solid fully manual ones through to my plastic but still solid feeling MZ60.
>
>
> The low light metering and lack of correct colour temperature choice plus
> the focus issue you speak of is fixed with a 5 minute firmware update, as
> is any issues with the lenses... They too can be firmware upgraded on the
> camera, off the Internet. Try that with a Canon lens!
That's good to hear. I'll see if I can get hold of one again and give it
another burl. It may just tip me back to being interested.
>
> Manual focusing can be a problem with the included focusing screen...
a problem? try bloody impossible!!
> Better to buy the optional MF screen designed for just that purpose.
I don't know why modern cameras don't come with split-prism screens anymore.
Do they genuinely believe their AF systems are so good you'll never use MF?
This is one big annoyance with my Pentax MZ60 too.
> While you're at it, its a good idea to get the OM lens adapter and get to
> use some of the world's finest optics in manual focus mode. Where else
> could you get a Zuiko F2.8, 600 mm lens which equals a 1200mm on this
> camera for a few hundred bucks? Geez. Talk about bang for bucks. Canon's
> 1200 mm lens is more than a new car!
I heard along the grape vine that there was an OM lens adapter, and asked an
Olympus rep about it. He had never heard of such a beast, and his next
response was "Why would you want to cripple an all-digital system with film
lenses?" He wasn't impressed when I told him I why. He couldn't understand
why I would want to use a 50/1.4 - I think it would be awesome on an E300 or
E1. Low-light performance would be back, with a 100/1.4 equivalent lens. How
good would that be at night?
>
> If you buy your camera from a reputable dealer, they'll do the firmware
> upgrade in the store for you and show you how to do it yourself next
> time... If there is a need again. Of course you can't get this sort of
> service from a cut price Internet store.
>
> Lack of lens range you say?. Take out some highly specialized lenses not
> even Canon themselves stock in Australia and it looking pretty good for
> Olympus. They have some of the widest lenses yet made for digital cameras.
> Try getting a (35mm equivalent) 14mm - 28mm lens with constant aperture
> for your Canon and see how you go at the Bank. Closest you'll get is a
> floating aperture 12mm.
I know they do have a few very nice lenses. That 7-14 looks awesome. The
300/2.8 is also a great piece of work (I used one for a couple of hours, it
was absolutely gorgeous). But where are the fast standard lenses? where are
the standard primes? where are the fast mild tele's? I also agree that their
lenses blow the pants off anything that Canon make for similar money. But
the other thing the 4/3 system is missing is 3rd party lens manufacturers.
For any other system, you can also get Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc lenses of
varying quality and price. Most of these brands are as good or better than
non-L Canon glass for a fraction of the price. Sigma have indicated an
intention to make lenses for 4/3 - I haven't seen any available through
their Australian distributor yet, their US website only lists 3 lenses for
4/3.
>
> What lenses do you own? I bought a 40-150 (80-300 equal) for the camera
> for $365 and a 50mm 'ED" macro for $750. All brand new. All equal or
> exceeding the quality of a canon offering.
In addition to the usual 28-80/3.5-5.6 (I have 2 of these) and
100-300/4.5-6.7, I currently have a 50/1.4 for the Pentax, and while I don't
own it, can borrow an 85/1.4 almost any time I wish. I also have an
80-200/3.5-4.5 and a 35-70/2. While not a big list, the range I have allows
me to use multiple bodies without requiring to change lenses frequently.
Particularly when bushwalking I can travel quite light with a 28-80 on one
camera and the 80-200 on the other and leave the bulk of my kit at home. If
I'll be going into rainforest where it is a bit darker, I'll also pack the
50/1.4. At other times I'll take the full kit, where the 35-70/2 will get a
workout or the 100-300 will get it's long end used a bit. I hope to soon add
a superwide, although I don't have a lot of use for one with the type of
photography I do. Now, other than the F1.4 and F2 lenses, the olympus range
would cover what I use currently, but I doubt I would use digital
exclusively, so I'd have to double up with film and digital lenses. This
would be an issue for me. Personally a Pentax DSLR makes the most sense for
me, as I wouldn't have to pack 2 sets of lenses.
>
> The lens range has just increased considerable and Sigma are now offering
> 4/3 lenses as well. I'm about to buy the 300mm f2.8 which actually
> provides the 35mm equivalent reach of a 600mm lens. This lens is
> expensive, true but it is every bit the equal of a Canon 300 mm "L"
> series.
Presumably you mean the Zuiko 300/2.8. It is a truly beautiful lens. I had
the pleasure of using one for about an hour. I agree that it is every bit
the equal of Canon L glass, and being 600/2.8 equivalent is just amazing.
Being able to hand-hold shots at dusk with a 600mm lens was a new experience
for me. Got a great shot of some bloke picking his nose in one of the
windows of the Commonwealth Bank building in Brissie!!
>
> The ED lenses are probably better quality than Canon's "L" series lenses.
> For sure the cheaper non-ED lenses are miles ahead of Canon's pathetic
> offering. I have never experienced any defraction problems. Can you be
> specific about the ones you found?
At F22 it is clearly visible - the images are very noticeably soft compared
to shots at larger aperture. I have some samples I can send also.
>
> Someone sent me a jpg image with a virus embedded in the header. The
> source IP traced back to a sendmail server in Miami, FL with relaying
> enabled.
Nope, not mine.
>
> I believe the originating source IP of that message was spoofed. Someone
> else sent me a damaged jpeg file from a yahoo.com address which couldn't
> be opened.
Also not me.
>These occurred at about the time you said you were experiencing difficulty
>sending me an image. Oddly, 16 other images I enlarged and subsequently
>printed arrived during that same time.
>
> If you intend to continue baiting me to justify what I have experienced
> (and can provide images of proof for) about a product you claim the
> opposite experience from... Identify yourself or I'll consider you just
> another troll.
Not trolling, just severely disappointed in a product I had high hopes for.
I have seen your samples and they are vastly different from what I got from
the camera. So either A) I can't use a camera, B) there is a wide
manufacturing quality tolerance or C) the firmware fixes all. I am keen to
find out which. I will send you the photo I sent the other day. Just to
clarify, the part after the @ of the sending address will be myall.net, the
part before is my initials.
>
> My server will only accept messages with attachments from verifiable IP
> addresses. If you tried to send me a message with an image attached or
> embedded in it, whilst trying to conceal your address and identity - the
> way you are on this group, it simply won't happen.
nope, it is being sent from a real email address.
>
> To decide to try and conceal your identity, is your choice. I have a right
> to consider anyone who does is either a troll, a rival business baiting me
> or is trying to hide more than just their name. Which is it with you?
I conceal my surname, I don't conceal my first name. My real surname starts
with the same letter as my joke surname in here. I am certainly not a rival
business. There are legitimate reasons though why people would want to post
with a degree of anonymity (sp). I'll give you a hint - getting phone calls
at 3am isn't one of my favorite ways to spend a night.
>
> --
> Douglas...