noimmunity
scratch my niche
Your comment shows bias towards *some* kind of expectation towards your X-Pro1 too, doesn't it?
So does mine and others'.
We all do have our biases and expectations.
And at the end of the day, who cares.
Now let us get down to the bottom of the matter, you *mean* to say that your Fuji is more awesome than the OM-D, yes?
A similar example of bias would be for me to say that the OM-D tries to act like a DSLR or a film OM series camera, but really isn't (and give a litany of reasons why).
I have, however, like zero interest in making such comments.
Actually, I tried the OM-D, was impressed by it in the way that every gadget impresses me, but knew immediately that it wasn't an image-making experience for me.
An interesting debate to my mind would be about which camera is really more innovative? I think the X-Pro1 wins, hands-down.
I suspect the reason I enjoy my X-Pro1 is because I do not and never have expected it to perform the role of a rangefinder camera. (That's why I still have an M8 and film RFs). Yet it gives me the VIEW that is really so important to the way I see, compose and make images, with the unprecedented innovation of being able to switch at will to a TTL EVF view. WOW!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
There still is. Almost everyone I know who bought one loves it. I bought an X-pro and it's terrific. I'm sure if I bought an OM-D I'd be happy with that, too. These are all phenomenal cameras that offer great image quality, with low light capability that just a couple of years ago would have required a huge FF DSLR, with excellent handling. These cameras are not all the same, but they are all excellent. We are lucky to have access to these cameras.
Like all cameras (very much including all generations of the Leica M) they have quirks but none which are debilitating in capable hands.
I love the ability to switch between OVF and a TTL finder. For black and white it's fantastic to have the option to see how the sensor sees tonal relationships, and for close-up or more meditative work it's wonderful to have DoF preview and parallax-free 100% framing.
The lesson that I've learned from the X-Pro is that I prefer a TTL EVF to an SLR, I prefer it to the GF-1 without an EVF, and in many — but not all —situations I prefer it to a window viewfinder. I love my M6 but it does tend to reinforce a certain type of hidebound conservatism.
Kirk Tuck had an important and thoughtful essay on this topic.
OVF:
_DSF0144 by Semilog, on Flickr
EVF:
_DSF0746 by Semilog, on Flickr
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I've been shooting my Lumix G1 u4/3 camera since December of 2008, and I can't go back to optical viewfinders, period.
Doesn't matter if it's a rangefinder (I have several to choose from) or an SLR, or a P&S with optical VF, they all are inferior to the EVF's ability to give you 100% of the FOV, with DOF and shutter speed effects, prior to snapping the shutter. That kind of image control makes up for otherwise what the u4/3 format lacks, since with this degree of control there's very little cropping necessary in post.
OTOH, I have photog friends who use APS-C DSLRs and are cropping all the time. They just can't previsualize the finished image adequately in their optical VFs, with the result that they lose whatever size advantage APS-C has over u4/3.
EVF is a game-changer, certainly for me.
~Joe
Doesn't matter if it's a rangefinder (I have several to choose from) or an SLR, or a P&S with optical VF, they all are inferior to the EVF's ability to give you 100% of the FOV, with DOF and shutter speed effects, prior to snapping the shutter. That kind of image control makes up for otherwise what the u4/3 format lacks, since with this degree of control there's very little cropping necessary in post.
OTOH, I have photog friends who use APS-C DSLRs and are cropping all the time. They just can't previsualize the finished image adequately in their optical VFs, with the result that they lose whatever size advantage APS-C has over u4/3.
EVF is a game-changer, certainly for me.
~Joe
gdi
Veteran
As an owner of neither the OM-D or Fuji X Series, I have objectively observed that the Fuji fans seem much more defensive of their cameras. Maybe this is a result of the much higher price compared to the Oly?
From samples I have seen, image quality is pretty much a wash; both have great color but still seriously lagging behind B&W film DR. I have thought of getting one or the other; right now I would probably choose the OM-D, due to lens choices and lower cost.
gavinlg
Veteran
The Fujis have some quirks about them that don't work in their favor - for instance to use the AF with any accuracy at all you MUST enable the 'AF corrected frame option in the menu but many people do not bother doing some quick manual research before they use them. Any time you see someone complain that their fuji focuses on the background when they are trying to focus on someone close by, you know they haven't turned the a correction frame on. There are a lot of little things like this, and instead of figuring them out themselves people go on forums and make a song and dance about how rubbish the camera is. After a while it's a little bit exasperating.
The omd can be complex or you can pick it straight up and use it like a point and shoot, the fuji needs a little time from its user to 'get it'
tbhv55
Well-known
Agreed... and when you do "get it", it's wonderful. The image quality is great, but it's much more than that. For me, it's mainly about the experience of using the camera. I own/have owned many cameras (too many, of course!) but none of them offers that peculiar delight that I get from using the x100. I can't explain it, but it just is.
It's funny how some of us sing the priases of the EVF for all of the things SLRs have given people for years...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've never seen an SLR finder that can actually brighten a dark scene to make focusing more practical and I don't recall one that could magnify the viewed image by 50% at the press of a button to make critical focusing more accurate.
I must have missed these ones! :angel:
True Keith... I guess I meant depth of field, 100% coverage, and focus.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Maybe in the 2080's I'll come to know about OMD's, but for now
I'm still trying to figure out which pre-war folder had the best viewfinder.
I'm still trying to figure out which pre-war folder had the best viewfinder.
boomguy57
Well-known
I haven't used te OM-D, but the general consensus of this thread seems to be: "to each his/her own" and "horses for courses".
If the OM-D works fo you, great. If it doesn't, move on to something that does.
Same with the X100, same with the XP1, same with the M6, M3, Bessa, etc etc.
If the OM-D works fo you, great. If it doesn't, move on to something that does.
Same with the X100, same with the XP1, same with the M6, M3, Bessa, etc etc.
froyd
Veteran
Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading the story!
JoeV said:
It's too bad this thread degenerated in an OM-D vs Fuji, vs whatever. Thanks for helping to bring it back on topic. Your comment hits at the heart of my surprise to "the EVF love".
Several years ago, as I started looking into rangefinders with some trepidation, I joined RFF and wrote a message asking advice from people who had made the switch from SLRs to RFs late in their photographic life. In my case, I was used to the viewfinder in my F4: large, bright, 100%, depth-of-field preview at the press of a button. Growing up with it, I became addicted to tight, precise framing and absolutely no cropping in prints. Therefore, I was apprehensive at the thought of frame lines that would just approximate the capture area, issues with parallax, inability to preview DOF, and even the idea of composing with max DOF, as opposed to the minimum DOF of SLRs. The response from the forum members was unanimous: one of the pleasure of RFs is that they teach you to relax more, to be less concerned with 100% view, to preview images in your head before clicking the shutter or even raising the camera to the eye, to engage more directly with the subject. Some of it was "RF fairy dust", but most of it I eventually found to be true once I picked up my first RF from the bartender. Obviously, this is a large forum with many different views, but I am surprised that so many people who are comfortable with the RF approach to photography are equally comfortable with something that's philosophically so different from it: EVFs with preview-everything, composition aids overlays, amplified luminosity, etc.
I guess the only lesson I learning from this is that most of you are more open minded than I am!
Paul T.
Veteran
That's a good point, froyd.
I believe people here are more open-minded about what kind of camera works because we've been forced to be. There are so few RF-style digital cameras, that something that even gives us half of what we want is greeted with open arms. The OM-D is compact, good image quality, traditional control layout... so it's more like an RF than many other contenders (but still too bloody expensive for me).
I believe people here are more open-minded about what kind of camera works because we've been forced to be. There are so few RF-style digital cameras, that something that even gives us half of what we want is greeted with open arms. The OM-D is compact, good image quality, traditional control layout... so it's more like an RF than many other contenders (but still too bloody expensive for me).
dmc
Bessa Driver
Lss
Well-known
There is certainly overlap in the way I use my cameras, but there are many differences as well. Different uses certainly benefit from different approaches. For majority of what I do, I find the RF the best and preferred tool. The OM-D and its EVF cover a slightly different use case (in terms of gear, this is especially longer focal lengths). It is actually very close to how I use a DSLR camera, and I believe the OM-D has a good chance of replacing DSLRs for much of what I do.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The EVF offers a number of things that no SLR can. Real-time B&W and WB preview, DoF preview that's accurate* and does not darken the field as you stop down, off-the-plane focus that has no alignment error, focus magnification, no mirror movement, etc...
Again, see Kirk Tuck's writeup.
I'll probably never buy another SLR.
*Most DSLR focus screens cannot show any difference in DoF from f/1.2 to f/2.8.
heed
Member
Soooo, your point is to dis the "camcorder eyepiece" of a camera you've never used or even seen in person? Or was there a question somewhere in there?
Ah, there's the question. Answer: yes, there are. I am. There are others.
I know the OP is experienced enough to know that the viewfinder isn't the picture that is taken. That's done by the film or sensor. I sometimes need to remind myself of that.
Each person, after a while, gets to know his or her camera in such a way that they (hopefully) can anticipate the difference in the viewfinder from the image they know the film/sensor will produce. This can work for a DSLR, a Leica rangefinder, or a Holga.
Okay, maybe a TLR is a little different but you get the point.I, for one, think that the EVF in the OMD is far better than any RF I've used (though I haven't used a M2, M3, or M4). In addition to the points others have made, I can review the picture and zoom in to fine focus while using almost any lens of my choosing, regardless of mount. I can take my glasses off and see the image clearly, without messing with diopters (I'm nearsighted and can't do this with any OVF). And it's image stabilized, which you would miss if you were trying to focus a 90 Elmar on a M.
If the viewfinder is most important factor to someone, maybe he or she should get some special goggles made where you can mount two M4s, each with a Summilux, and never take a picture! All Leica viewfinder 7/24, yo!
Edit: Here's a quick snap from this past weekend (my 6 yr old son looks so cool in a tux!): link
froyd
Veteran
Soooo, your point is to dis the "camcorder eyepiece" of a camera you've never used or even seen in person? Or was there a question somewhere in there?
Glad to see you posting, but please play nice. English is not everybody's first language here.
You have mistaken my point. Let me try to rephrase it so it's clearer.
I don't quibble about the fact EFVs offer many features OVFs do not. But I also don't think more features equates with better. Plenty of cheap digicam have screens that offer more information, features, and accurate framing than a Leica, Bessa, or ZI do. Yet they bring me little pleasure in use.
After reading untold numbers of threads about SLR viewfinders vs RF, or M6 and their LEDs vs more spartan M2s, I remarked with surprise so many members really enjoyed their EVFs.
The variety of answers in this thread is a reflection of the ever widening variety of photographers who visit here:
- For some the result is all that matters and what gives them pleasure. Don't care if there's film or a sensor in their box, and what they have to peep through to capture the image.
- For some, the journey is large part of the pleasure. For some of these folks, all the advancements available via EVF technology are a sounce of enjoyment when they are out photographing. For others, the bright and uncluttered view of the best RF cameras is what adds enjoyment to their photography.
As always, to each is own.
spiderfrank
just a dreamer
Just my "2 cents": i like a good, bright, uncluttered optical viewfinder such as the one of my OM-1n, or the beautiful "screen" of a medium format, but I must say the viewfinder of the OM-D is a really good device, and i like very much to see the image through it: it's clear, smooth, full of info (I set it to have them on the bottom of the image), and a pleasure to use. i really don't have any problem with different kinds of viewfinders: all I ask is that it works and it's not a pain for the eyes, and so - I think - a lot of people, here. It was not so a few years ago, but now the evf technology is at a good level
robert blu
quiet photographer
Today I had for the first time the opportunity to have for a couple of minutes this camera in my hands and I have been impressed by the EVF of the OM-D. I think it is a small, light, flexible camera with many lens opportunity. For this reason the interest about this camera.
robert
PS: I promised GAS or not GAS I'll no buy anything before photokina, but now I'm not so sure...