I read a particularly luddite article by a photographic commentator in a UK magazine a couple of weeks ago, saying how unspeakable EVF's (Electronic View Finders) were. The author was someone who thinks any camera made after 1950 is the work of the devil and digital is a passing fad, but this was a particularly crass example of the "Everything was better in my day" philosophy.
I find EVF's VERY useful.
In the link I posted yesterday Michael Reichmann talks about the EVF on the Panasonic GH2.He says:-
"Potentially the most controversial aspect of the GH2 is its electronic viewfinder. The way that MFT cameras with viewfinders achieve their small size is by substituting the usual mirror box and prism assembly for an electronic viewfinder – essentially a small video screen similar to what one finds on a video camera.
Digicam EVFs tend not to be of very high resolution or brightness, but the one on the GH2 (and the GH1 originally) is very good indeed. In fact, I would say that it is an many instances preferable to the dismal (meant literally) and small optical viewfinders found on the smaller and usually inexpensive DSLRs.
The EVF on the Sony A55 is also very good (though I haven't had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison), and similarly I would prefer these any day to a small and dim optical reflex system, especially those on cheaper systems that use pentamirrors instead of true prisms.
No – these EVFs are not as bright and clear as a good bright reflex system, especially one on a full-frame body. But, the trade-off in size and weight is considerable. Also, the ability to have display overlays, such as a live histogram, goes a long way to making this new alternative viewing system attractive.
Frankly, the writing is on the wall. It won't be more than a few years until the vast majority of new camera model with viewfinders dispense with prisms and mirrors and replace them with EVFs.
Get used to it. It's not that we as photographers are necessarily asking for this (though EVF display technology is getting better all the time). It's just the pressure of industry economics. Price competition is fierce. Moving mirror assemblies and glass prisms are expensive to manufacture and assemble. High quality EVFs are not exactly inexpensive at the moment, but as with all high volume silicon based products, prices will inevitably fall. When that happens mirrors and prisms will be relegated to only the high end, where users are willing to pay for special capabilities.
About 90% of the time I am not displeased using the GH2's EVF. It's even possible to forget that there's anything different going on. But in low light things get a bit weird. With a fast lens (like the remarkable Nokton f/0.95) the view actually becomes brighter than reality and the final result not what one expects."
While some EVF's are far from perfect, and anyone who has tried to focus a manual lens using the Panasonic one for the GF1 and GF2 will know this well, they do have many advantages over the murky tunnel vision of many APS-C DSLR's.
When done well, such as in the Panasonic G series cameras they are a great help. They are still far from perfect, and while I appreciate their brightness in low light, the cranking up of the video gain often makes the image somewhat difficult to decipher. They don't like fast movement much either. However the alternatives create their own problems.
If you've ever used a bolt-on viewfinder like those on rangefinder cameras and cameras like the X1, you'll know some of the problems. These are supposed to help with the framing. However because lenses change their field of view when you focus them, they are only accurate at one setting. Leica viewfinders, and indeed the frame lines in their cameras are apparently set for a distance of either 2 or 3 feet. What this means in reality is if you are taking a picture when you are focusing further than this, you will get more in the picture than the viewfinder indicates. I've learned to adjust for this, but mark this down as yet another little "difficulty" Leica users have to put up with.
The Voigtlander 15-35mm Zoom finder is a bit more helpful, as I can adjust it to compensate for the framing discrepancy. If I use a 20mm lens for example then I set the finder at 18mm and that gives me a much more accurate idea of how the picture is going to turn out.
I mentioned earlier about some of the problems of APS-C viewfinders. My Panasonic L10 is particularly bad. When raised to the eye the viewfinder image is both very distant and dark. In low light its virtually useless.
Newer cameras like my Pentax K-5 are better but still not perfect.
EVF's will undoubtedly improve and indeed we see them getting better all the time. Even with their current limitations, I still prefer them over optical viewfinders. I'm also finding that I'm getting quite frustrated that my DSLR's don't have continuous live view. I've got so used to using cameras like the GH1 and GH2 where the live view runs all the time and when I raise my eye to the viewfinder it switches the image to that. Its a great system and why every camera doesn't do it, seems crazy to me.
It's going to be interesting to see how the hybrid viewfinder on the Fuji X100 works. By offering both electronic and optical options it should in theory be very versatile. Fuji certainly seem to have shown other manufacturers that its possible to get a decent viewfinder integrated into a small body. Whether it does the job well, I'll report back on when I get my hands on one.
PANASONIC L10
Since I bought this camera I think I've only taken it out three times. After yesterday that is going to change.
I've been wondering what to do with it almost since I bought it. I originally bought it in a second hand kit with the 14-50mm f3.8-5.6 Vario-Elmar Lens. My plan was to keep the lens and sell the camera on. However last week I sold the lens as a kit with my somewhat battered GH1. I've had this camera on and off ebay for as long as I've had it. I keep changing my mind about it constantly. The rare times I've used it I've been very impressed.
It has very poor dynamic range, poor high ISO performance, the viewfinder is like looking down a long tunnel and its not terribly fast to use. It is after all a 2007 camera. However at 100 ISO, with careful exposure and shooting with the Leica D 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens it produces stunning results. Really stunning results.
The 10MP files it produces are so good that they are easily capable of interpolation up to twice their size. Sharp and with great colour. The 14-150mm lens was designed for this camera and it shows. Its a lens I love and have written about constantly and with this camera it really excels. There's no chance of Panasonic (or anyone else it seems) ever making another 4/3 camera, so its really the only opportunity to use this lens on a body where it doesn't struggle with AF.
I've finally made up my mind concerning this and its going to be staying. Its very light for a DSLR and it cost me very little. I'm never going to use it in anything other than good light at 100 ISO but it does that so well, its crazy for me to sell it.
THOM HOGAN ON OLYMPUS
This has caused a bit of a stir. Written after Olympus posted financial results which shows the Imaging (Camera) division is loosing money.
http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-will-become-less-japanese-bad-financial-results/
http://www.43rumors.com/thom-hogan-what-is-the-future-for-olympus/
See threads at:- http://www.mu-43.com/f35/thom-hogan-future-olympus-9441/http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37730892
Some of the points made:-
- The imaging division is continually loosing money while the whole company is doing good (see medical division). Thom: “The problem in imaging is progressive: they’ve lost more money in each successive quarter during the past year. This, too, is not a good sign without anything in sight that would reverse that trend. Neither the E-PL2 nor XZ-1 are going to change that overall trend. I’ll get to the problem in a moment.”
After putting a lot of energy into developing some great 4/3 lenses we now have only one 4/3 body being sold that uses them, and we’ve been told that might be the last 4/3 body. Great, so what did that do to 4/3 lens sales? Zonk. Meanwhile, it’s unclear where Olympus is going with m4/3. So far we seem to be back-pedaling to catering to the lowest end (E-P2 -> E-PL1 -> E-PL2, plus the lenses are catering more mass market, too).
But I’m going to be much more critical here: in the now 20 months we’ve had m4/3 bodies from Olympus, we’ve gotten four iterations of the same thing. This does not look like progress on a clear direction. It looks like “trying to figure out how to make it more cheaply.” That Panasonic is now doing the same thing is not a hugely reassuring thought. What we haven’t seen yet is PARALLEL development pushing m4/3 forward. Okay, I’ll stand slightly corrected, the GH2 does push forward from the GH1 in a number of clear ways. But Olympus isn’t there yet. The longer the time between the four look-alikes and something significantly new, the bigger the problem for Olympus.
Oh, one more thing. Olympus seems to think (along with Panny) that one of their key customers is the so-called Camera Girl (young Japanese woman). If so, they’ve failed to deliver (so far) the one thing that customer would want, which is no-brainer workflow to social sharing of images. The bluetooth module may be targeted at that, but it’s not here yet and I’m not convinced that they got the “no-brainer” part right, either.
THOM HOGANS website is at:- http://www.bythom.com/
Those who read here regularly will know my regular pieces despairing at what Olympus do, or rather don't do. I've always been a bit of an Olympus fanboy. Anyone who make a camera as pretty as the E-P2 must have something going for them.
However their recent history of releases is very frustrating for myself, as a consumer who is interested in buying their products.
When will Olympus, and Panasonic to a certain extent, realise what people want from m4/3. Does this positioning of it somewhere between a compact camera and a DSLR really work?Shouldn't they be looking at two different lines? One being a compact camera upgrade, along the lines of a simplified and cheaper GF2 and the other a full-on alternative to a DSLR including "professional" grade construction, features, accessories and lenses. Like a "souped-up" GH2. Those of us who are enthusiastic for m4/3 and there are more and more of us all the time, see it very much as an alternative to the heavy, bulky DSLR. But we want it to do what a DSLR can do. We want well-made, fast lenses, we want fast operation, we want weather-sealing, "we want the world and we want it now!!"
Instead Olympus gives us the E-PL2 In White and a "mock-up"!!
One of Thom Hogans possible scenarios is that Panasonic buy the Olympus imaging division, and that makes good sense. Olympus design plus Panasonic engineering, sounds perfect to me.
My theory is that a product that has nothing to do with either company will determine the future direction for m4/3. That is the success or failure (or something in-between) of the Fuji X100.
Fuji's marketing for this camera is entirely different to both Olympus and Panasonic.
Just look at how they market it.
Professional, Craftsmanship, Sexy, Retro, Technology, Style, Up-Market, Exclusive etc. etc.I'm drooling already!!
Since nobody's used one, we have no idea of how good it is, and it could be a huge anticlimax, but the publicity is amazing. High-grade "Camera Porn" maybe, but it gets the attention of serious photographers.
If this camera is a roaring success both in terms of performance and sales expect a shift in where m4/3 goes and some of the things that I and others are clamouring for may appear. If it is a failure or achieves just reasonable results then expect an E-PL3, in Pink.
Voigtlander apparently sold out the first production run of their expensive and specialist 25mm f/0.95 Nokton in weeks. What does this tell us? It tells me that people are serious about a DSLR alternative and they want serious products.
Thom Hogan talks about Japanese "Camera Girl" and I really have no idea what he's talking about but if he's referring to people who take pictures primarily to document their lives and post to sites like facebook, then don't they use mobile phones? Is this market really going to buy expensive m4/3 cameras to do this when an iPhone does it quicker? Who exactly thinks its a good idea to make cameras that connect with phones, so that you can then upload the picture you took on the camera to Twitter using your phone? Why not just take the picture on your phone in the first place? Next time you see someone photographing a group of friends out on the town saying "Oh hang on a moment, I need to get my camera out and use aperture priority, because I'm looking to get a nice bokeh effect for the buildings behind you" let me know!!
I know nothing about running a camera company, but I do know that I'm currently not interested in what Olympus have to offer. I did have a couple of their cameras and lenses, but after using them for a while, I decided I liked working with, and the results from my Panasonic cameras and lenses more. I'm just one consumer admittedly, but so far in all the forums debates I've seen on this so far, I've yet to see someone leap to the defence of Olympus and say yes they are definitely on the right track. It would be sad if they follow Konica Minolta into anonymity and assimilation, but if they don't come up with something soon then I fear thats where they are headed.
Words - DavidImages - David and Ann
