And I agree with that first part. If the photo is some very close
portrait, the movement from placing the focus aid (or the AF target)
from the eye to elsewhere (assuming the eye as point of focus) when I
re-compose the shot may get me either focus trouble or a waste of time
and a perfect smile lost.
But some focus aid is useful enough, and with bright lenses it's
darkening and presence in the middle of the frame is often a non-issue
for me.
Assuming a very, very very good focus detection in MF mode, I'd accept
gladly a good matte screen. Other than that, a diagonal split to the rescue.
I think the difference is not just the screen. Our oldies had full
mirrors, and while the Lx uses a partial (less than full reflection)
mirror, the amount of light that gets other destinations than the
viewfinder in those new cameras seems too high.
LF
Bruce Dayton escreveu:
My big issue is that I don't want to have to focus first and then
compose. Having the focus aid stuck in the middle of the screen
requires me to have to point it at the subject (almost never dead
center), focus, now shift and compose. With a nice matte, all I have
to do is compose and focus at the same time without having to fiddle
around with focus aids. Even worse when doing macro on a tripod.
A good matte is my favorite by far - I almost always focus manually
and have done just fine with the *istD, K10D and K20D screens. Of
course, my previous 67II viewfinder was worlds better..but that is a
different story.
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
