Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J Taylor on 25 May 2010 13:05 "John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:n3tnv596p4heg130j8o7o1jckhvcodu871(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:25:55 +0100, "David J Taylor" [] >>.. and if your new camera only has in-body IS you /still/ won't get the >>advantage of a stable image in the optical finder. > > What real advantage is that? When IS is turned on for viewing, not only > do you get less feedback on how still you are holding the camera, but > also the IS is less effective when the image is captured. It's why > better cameras give you the option to turn off IS for viewing, which is > what I do. With an image moving significantly and unpredictably in the viewfinder, accurate framing is rather more difficult than with a stable image. I find in-lens IS a major advantage on a DSLR for that reason alone (talking focal lengths in the 400mm+ region, hand-held, from an unstable platform or in windy conditions). For the best results you should continue to follow normal holding practices. David
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 13:05 On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:00:49 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in <250520101000496918%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>: >[SNIP] Back into the kill filter you go. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 13:12 On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:05:15 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in <hth00d$hck$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:n3tnv596p4heg130j8o7o1jckhvcodu871(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:25:55 +0100, "David J Taylor" >[] >>>.. and if your new camera only has in-body IS you /still/ won't get the >>>advantage of a stable image in the optical finder. >> >> What real advantage is that? When IS is turned on for viewing, not only >> do you get less feedback on how still you are holding the camera, but >> also the IS is less effective when the image is captured. It's why >> better cameras give you the option to turn off IS for viewing, which is >> what I do. > >With an image moving significantly and unpredictably in the viewfinder, >accurate framing is rather more difficult than with a stable image. I >find in-lens IS a major advantage on a DSLR for that reason alone (talking >focal lengths in the 400mm+ region, hand-held, from an unstable platform >or in windy conditions). ... I have an easier time framing properly and get much better results with IS turned off for viewing on my compact digital super-zoom in the 400mm+ region, hand-held, from an unstable platform, in windy conditions, my normal working environment. "Different strokes for different folks." -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 13:17 In article <pp0ov5p790mu6nak00q5l0dj4c5mo4deb7(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:00:49 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote > in <250520101000496918%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>: > >[SNIP] > > Back into the kill filter you go. in other words, you can't (or won't) refute what i've said. you're a coward.
From: Gill Collins on 25 May 2010 13:21
On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:03:16 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <MPG.266600fba991c19598c30e(a)news.supernews.com>, Alfred >Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > .. and the disadvantages are that the image in the viewfinder, and on the >> > exposure and focus sensors aren't stabilised. >> >> At least the exposure sensor does not need stabilised images. > >sure it does, but it's not as critical as autofocus sensors. for >instance, if you're trying to keep something bright at the periphery >out of the picture and it keeps moving in and out, the exposure is >going to fluctuate. that's not good. > >> I would also guess that also the focus sensor does not, otherwise the AF >> would fail when the subject is moving, and cameras seem to be able to >> focus on moving subjects. > >once it has a lock maybe. if the focus sensor can't stay on target it >won't get a lock, or worse, it will lock on something you don't want, >like the trees behind the subject, not the subject itself. Optical IS also has the nasty habit of not framing the image exactly how you thought you were framing it at the time. Since I grew up on film, where every shot matters, I still do my composition in-camera as much as possible. Each shot still matters to me. I'm no longer surprised when my optical IS system has now cropped-out that bit of color or dark edge that I was using to create a pleasing composition while adding in something that I was trying to avoid at the other edge of the frame. It can be most annoying at times. Often resulting in taking many shots so that at least one of them will have the borders that I wanted. I've not used in-camera image stabilization but I surmise it wouldn't suffer from this other annoying problem (the first being random asymmetric CA), just due to how it works. Optical IS can greatly benefit the photographer when used properly, but even then it comes with its own set of grave problems and drawbacks. Much to the dismay of all of SMS's imaginary "X-Spurts" that he imagines to agree with his blatant ignorance. |