On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Joel,
>
> Thanks very much for your insight. I normally focus MF lenses wide open,
> then stop down without taking the camera away from my eye. I understand
> that the E-1 finder is larger and brighter than the 510, but was curious
> about the transparency of the screen. The 510 finder is virtually
> transparent, so there is little similarity to the screens that I used with
> Exacta and other SLR cameras. This makes it difficult to get an exact
> focus, and does nothing to provide a hint of the DOF available in the final
> image. Does the E-1 finder provide any improvement in this area?
No discernible difference IMO. The screen appears to be a very fine
matte, which looks very transparent. Because the camera are made for
AF, the image shows just a bit of further clarity as AF makes the
point of focus sharper, but it doesn't provide the big swing between
OOF and Focus that an OM matte screen would give. The E-1 seems to be
a little better for manual focusing because of size or the spread of
the VF rather than any qualitative difference in the screens. Also it
is much easier to focus Tele lenses than WA -- which is also true of
OM cameras and screens. Matte screens are terrible for focusing WA
lenses IMO.
>
> In your reply, as well as in a post from Ken, both of you make reference to
> the lower pixel count of the E-1 and its impact on the images. Most of my
> images go to the web or to family members, and large prints don't enter my
> consideration. I suspect that 5MP would suffice for any work that I would
> attempt.
>
> Again, I guess my basic question is this: Is size the main advantage of the
> E-1 finder over the E-510, or are there other quality differences?
Yes, I think size is exactly the main advantage. I think you are
right about the file size working well for you. Moreover, I have
printed E-1 images as large as 11 x 14 with no special handling and
larger with a bit of interpolation. Ironically, file size seems more
important for web images, assuming someone wants to take the time to
pixel-peep at your images and see how they look at 200%. File sizes
of most current cameras are serious overkill for the printers we tend
to use unless you want the peace of mind in knowing that you can print
really large without interpolation. Larger file sizes in camera also
allow more headroom for cropping images if you don't compose perfectly
in-camera or do a lot of paparazzi-style shooting.
Good luck with your decision. The E-1 is still pretty unique, though
it is improved upon in most ways by the E-3. I think the thing that
is apt to be the biggest disappointment would be the physical size of
the LCD and the limitation on magnification during playback. If you
don't depend too much on the LCD it probably won't bother you. I
think you would appreciate an advantage when looking through the
viewfinder. For sports photography, I could get shots with the E-1
and longer OM lenses that I couldn't get as easily with the E-330, but
I don't know if this translates into success for exactly what you have
in mind.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|