Dr. P. Shaw Moose wrote:
> I can see why you and others would feel that way. In practice, I don't care
> about EVF differences and the G9 is a lot
> bigger and heavier. I also object in principle to the top panel LCD. All it
> does is add size, weight and cramp the
> functional things on the top plate. Everything I need to know is in the VF
> and on the back screen. I would never, ever
> use it.
I love the top LCD. The only camera that I have in my harem that
doesn't "need" it is the DMC-L1 as most everything that's on the
information display is shown in real dials and levers. Honestly, it
doesn't have to be very large, and it doesn't need to show 50 thousand
fields of information. I really don't care about the static
information--the stuff that never really changes, but I want my
Aperture, Shutter, ISO, Exposure Comp, Battery and shots remaining to
ALWAYS be available. I think the lowly E-1 struck one of the best
balances, and the Minolta A1's LCD was easily the best design for a
compact size display. The E-3 has a screen the size of a football
field. Olympus definitely jumped the shark. Canon's are pretty good,
but strangely not very readable for my eyes.
The top LCD is visible in any light, can be read at a downward glance
without clueing others in that you are looking at the camera and
making adjustments (tell-tales that make people nervous). But I do
like to know at a glance my basic settings that I can change and
manipulate with the controls at a look down glance instead of having
to turn the camera away from me and adjust things on the top and back.
To do the same thing with any other digital camera means that you are
rotating the camera, pressing buttons, pulling up your sunglasses,
> When one carries two cameras around the neck, size and weight matter.
Yes, definitely. I am trying to minimize that as much as possible.
When doing the <500 Yards thing, I have multiple camera systems with
me, but otherwise try to keep things down to two. When hiking, just
one. When shooting weddings and events, it's two. But with two, I'm
DEEP into Ibuprofen-land by hour four. By hour seven, I'm taking
pictures with my cellphone like everyone else.
> OH, Pshaw! The GX9s are perfectly well made. Like the other digicams I've
> had, they will be obsoleted before failing.
> I'm not a war zone PJ.
I didn't give the GX9 a chance as that wasn't the form-factor I was
looking for, but the G9 is a brilliant piece of kit. As to war zone,
well, that's a subject unto itself. But what I found with the G9 is a
camera that encourages "risky behavior". The controls fall to hand
very well. The ergonomics are such that the controls you NEED to use
are all very tactile and fall directly to hand. The secondary controls
and buttons that aren't directly related to taking the picture are not
in the way. For the most part, that is. No camera is perfect, but the
G9 is certainly one of the best around.
> Yeah, Wayne mentioned that the E-M1 III isn't much smaller/lighter than an
> A7. That's my experience, too. It's the
> lenses that make the difference.
Absolutely. That's one reason why I so like the GX85 and E-400 kits.
Two lenses, one body, easy to carry anywhere and be perfectly equipped
for the 90% rule. But when it comes to the remaining 10%, give me
bigger sensors, bigger lenses or bigger bodies with more/better
> I've been doing lots of conversion and editing of 1" (Panny & Sony), 4/3" (16
> MP Oly and 20 MP Panny) and FF Sony image
> files lately. There just isn't a difference between 4/3 and FF in quality.
> And the higher end, lenses for µ4/3 are every
> bit serious.
I'm NOT in agreement with you there. While the lens quality is such
that there is essentially no reason to select one format over another,
the sensor DR and general tonal response profile does make a
difference. We may not see the difference when shooting in optimal
lighting conditions or with standardized "normal" processing. But for
those of us who dial every amplifier up to "11", we can run smack into
the wall of what the camera is capable of.
> Defined as taking serious quality photos, I'm carrying serious cameras and
> lenses, and they are µ4/3. It's not as though
> I'm in a corner, holding my hands over my ears, yelling "nyah, nyah, nyah",
> so I can't hear about FF. I have, and have
> been using, an A7 II.
The A7 II is a lovely picture-taking camera, but sheeze is that buffer small!
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/