The A2 viewfinder is quite good for an EVF and today's technology. 922,000 pixels and 60hz refresh ... it has its share of artifacting and oddities, but it works pretty darn nicely in decent light.
"Luxurious useless cameras" seems overstated. Both it and the Sony R1 are quite useful and produce photographs of excellent quality. Sony R1: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/R1-walk/image/walk-0087-800.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/godders/R1-walk/full/walk-0087-full.jpg (hi rez) Konica Minolta A2: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/42O2.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/42O2-half.jpg (hi rez) Both these prints in 13x19 inch rendering I'd put next to anything produced by an SLR and have no fear that they would be called lacking in technical quality. With both of them, the flexibility of the viewfinder system is their hallmark advantage. The downside of the viewfinder system s relatively slow responsiveness and limited resolution. Overall, they're both more limited and more flexible than SLR cameras in various ways. But to call them 'useless' is off the mark and indicates unwarranted prejudice. Godfrey On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Thibouille wrote: > IMO Electronic Viewfinder is of no use. Simply crap. > Had the opportunity to check e.g. KM A2. It seemed a cool camera. But > what a crappy viewfinder, really. These are like high end Optios or > whetever... luxurious useless cameras. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
