On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Dario Bonazza <[email protected]> wrote: > ... As I understand it, the problem is not just the approximation, but the > combination between approximation and parallax error, so that you cannot > really know what will show up in your picture. I understand my friend's > disappointment on this, as I recall the same bad feeling when using the M9 > with 21mm lens without a proper viewfinder. And you don't have the option to > use the LCD for framing. > > Ok, we are not discussing a high-end camera here, but... 75% coverage! And > someone (not me) calls a drawback 95% coverage in some DLSR's. BTW, I find > 95% to be ideal and even better than 100%, because it gives you that little > extra for recovering a tilted horizon or the like. But 75% is a completely > different matter. ...
These are not SLRs. With experience using a tunnel optical viewfinder like this, you get to know where the focus point is without thinking about it. You learn to shoot a little tighter and "know" what the lens is seeing. It was always like this with RF cameras: you look at the viewfinder as a framing aid, but it's only approximate at best. You see through the camera and engage your subject, you don't look into the camera and see an image. An EVF gives 100% coverage and precise framing, allows heads-up histogram and exposure information, permits extensive focusing aids, etc etc ... so there are definitely benefits for some kinds of work. I use them both, exploiting their best advantages as appropriate to my subject matter. >> I like the option of using either OVF or EVF that the GXR affords. > > Good for you. For some reason, I'm not a big fan of the GXR concept. > However, not having tried it, I keep my opinion on hold until I'll have a > chance. I don't care so much about the GXR "concept" ... I like the GXR camera. Or cameras, if you understand how I see it: with the GXR I have three cameras—a fixed lens wide camera with 28mm EFL, a fixed lens normal 50mm EFL camera with 1:2 macro capabilities, and an APS-C camera which uses any SLR or M-Bayonet mount lens I want. All either TTL or with optical viewfinder, depending on the needs of the subject, and with the same excellent control ergonomics. If I wanted, I could add a point and shoot, image stabilized, zoom camera to the mix with either an ultra-zoom or mid-zoom camera unit. All compact, all very high quality. It's a very different camera from anything else on the market. But I'm completely aware that it's not for everyone. >> ... it is easier to do the same with the Leica M using the RF and an >> optical accessory finder because your head stays in about the same >> position where with an LCD I have to back my head off by about six >> inches to focus accurately. > > I've used a M9 for a couple weeks last year, and I've had enough of it. Just > different priorities and tastes, and that's not a bad thing. For sure. I love pulling out the M4-2 and shooting with it. I just don't have time to do it as much as I'd like because of how much time it takes to deal with film processing and scanning. I just love the way it works, and want a digital M for when the M is my favorite choice. An M9 body is my next stop on this train. :-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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.
