Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM-D Viewfinder questions for Moose.

Subject: Re: [OM] OM-D Viewfinder questions for Moose.
From: "Carlos J. Santisteban" <zuiko21@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:00:21 +0200
Hi Chuck, Moose, Jim and all,


From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>I don't know why your presbyopia should cause the lack of good focus on

>the bottom of the screen.  It would be interesting to know whether this

>is a sample defect.  We'll have to see what the eagle-eyed Moose has to
say.


Because the "projected" image is not on a flat, vertical plane at equal
(long distance), but its tilted -- the upper side seems quite "closer". But
it's a subtle defect, mostly noticed by my "obsession" from my recent,
sudden loss of eye accommodation :-(


The GF1's poor external EVF bears a similar defect, although is more like
field curvature.


From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>

>I wear progressive lenses that become darker when exposed to UV.,


Never used progressive lenses, neither intend to. "Fortunately" my bare
eyesight is focused at (and now *only* at) a reasonable reading distance
(30-40 cm) so my reading glasses are… NO glasses. I just have to remove the
usual glasses (or look below them) for reading.


>I wear my glasses when looking through viewfinders.*


I also do. With some rangefinders (with poor eye-relief) I have to remove
my glasses and use diopter lenses, thus the other eye isn't too useful :-(


>I agree. I see there is a faster refresh rate option, at a cost in battery
drain.


There's another drawback of this option: metering range (which isn't
wonderful anyway) becomes two stops _poorer_ and exposure simulation
becomes ineffective at low light levels. It does improve AF speed on
difficult subjects _sometimes_, though.


>Then, in a turnabout, I appear to be indifferent to differences in

>SLR style viewfinders that bother others.

<snip>

>I only need to see a reasonably accurate representation that's sharp and
clear

>enough for MF and accurately frames the subject.


Certainly, as long as the viewfinder allows for accurate focusing, it won't
affect the shot's quality… I had problems with MF on some viewfinders (the
300D and the poor external EVF for the GF1, of just 202kp) but the OM-D, as
you say, is excellent in this regard. Really no _serious_ complaints about
it ;-)


I'm just too picky about some things… and anyway enjoy a great classic
viewfinder -- the Contax RTS-II being my reference.


>This is not true of my combination of camera, glasses and eye.

>With the proper diopter setting, everything is in focus, top to bottom.


It's anyway a very *subtle* issue, driven by my obsession about it -- read:
getting older :-(


>And my eyes are much older than yours, so there is essentially no focus
adaptability.


Your progressive lenses could be a factor -- or not.


Really not a serious issue. I'm very happy with this EVF anyway.


From: Jim Couch <zuikoholic@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>Anyone using on OM-D shoot left eyed, or tried it left eyed?


I use it left eyed (and (D)SLRs too) with no problems. My (long) nose fits
between the screen and the MENU button, without issues so far. However,
with the X100 and rangefinders I become right eyed ;)


Cheers,
-- 
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz