From: Graydon <[email protected]>
I think the driving factor behind moving to an EVF (apart from cost)
is the requirement for HD video - that's going to be a must-have
item.
Personally I don't care, but I know that I'm not the target customer.
I'm not sure this is the case.
For me it's certainly not the case.
A high quality EVF is simply a better viewfinder for manual focusing
than any optical reflex viewfinder found on the market today.
If that means venturing into the strengths of Panasonic, so be it;
the
alternative is to be left on the sidelines. And, in any case,
there's
still a lot of space in front of the sensor for an optics company to
showcase their capabilities.
Not really; once you've got the massive data loss involved in the EVF
sitting there, there's a bunch of stuff you just can't do, starting
with
seeing what you're looking at through the lens or seeing it at the
actual level of brightness.
Silly.
An EVF can allow explicit control of brightness adaptation, gaining up
when appropriate or reflecting scene exposure when appropriate. It can
be used to show light outside the range of human vision ... the best
IR camera of all is a Sony F828 fitted with an IR-pass filter and
modified to allow full exposure control.
The one thing that an optical reflex finder does which an EVF is not
the best at is sequence capture. If that's what you do, than an SLR or
optical tunnel viewfinder is better. An RF finder allows you to see
more than what the lens sees too, some find that useful. But overall,
I'd say it's time for the optical viewfinder to find its way to the
sidelines.
I much prefer using my nice old Pentax manual prime lenses on the G1,
where I can focus them extremely accurately, quickly and easily see
the choices in DoF.
Godfrey
--
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.
