Olympus Pen Digital 4/3 advice please

Dan M wrote:
Rich
On Feb 20, 2:28*pm, "c_atiel" wrote:

Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

I was using one tonight. The E-P2's problem isn't the viewfinder,
which is good, maybe as good as the G1's. It's problem is the dead-
slow and hunty AF. The Panasonic offering runs rings around it.

Slow auto-focus reports for all cameras are more often caused by human
error. Someone not being able to hold a camera still enough for it to lock
onto something to focus on.

Not a problem for a quality SLR which can lock onto focus in a small
fraction of a second. But an asshole troll wouldn't know anything
about THAT.

--
Ray Fischer

On 21 Feb 2010 06:29:51 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Dan M wrote:
Rich
On Feb 20, 2:28*pm, "c_atiel" wrote:

Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

I was using one tonight. The E-P2's problem isn't the viewfinder,
which is good, maybe as good as the G1's. It's problem is the dead-
slow and hunty AF. The Panasonic offering runs rings around it.

Slow auto-focus reports for all cameras are more often caused by human
error. Someone not being able to hold a camera still enough for it to lock
onto something to focus on.

Not a problem for a quality SLR which can lock onto focus in a small
fraction of a second. But an asshole troll wouldn't know anything
about THAT.

As they hunt for many seconds in low-light situations or fail to lock at
all. Not a problem for contrast-detection systems when used properly, where
the gain can be ramped up in low-light situations to allow them to focus
where you can't even see an image in an optical viewfinder anymore. Then
when phase-focusing systems do lock on focus they are faced with front and
back focusing problems. Back and front-focusing problems being the unending
talk of the town and many a missed once-in-a-lifetime shot. Reducing your
images to print sizes of 6"x4" so your intended point-of-focus doesn't
reveal the blur. Might as well have used a web-cam.

We are discussing mirrorless contrast-detection focusing systems. Now
kindly remove that whole leg and thigh of yours from your throat so you can
crawl away to your DSLR-Troll's lair and lick your gaping wounds yet again.
Or whatever it is you happen to always enjoy licking when alone in your
dank mommy's-basement lair.

Dan M wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Dan M wrote:
Rich
On Feb 20, 2:28*pm, "c_atiel" wrote:

Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

I was using one tonight. The E-P2's problem isn't the viewfinder,
which is good, maybe as good as the G1's. It's problem is the dead-
slow and hunty AF. The Panasonic offering runs rings around it.

Slow auto-focus reports for all cameras are more often caused by human
error. Someone not being able to hold a camera still enough for it to lock
onto something to focus on.

Not a problem for a quality SLR which can lock onto focus in a small
fraction of a second. But an asshole troll wouldn't know anything
about THAT.

As they hunt for many seconds in low-light situations or fail to lock at

Nobody believes the lies and stupidity of asshole trolls.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:09:29 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Dan M wrote:

You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
never been truer than in these newsgroups.


It's amazing that such a scholar and gentleman such as yourself would
spend so much time among the hoi poloi.

It's a thankless and dirty job, but someone on this planet should sacrifice
themselves to try to drag you up out of that sewer's gutter of ignorance
and stupidity that you're all content to crawl and lie in. Even while you
continue to relentlessly spew your ignorance and stupidity, all in the
cause of convincing others as incapable as yourselves to lie in your filthy
ignorance and uselessness right along with you.

I can always walk away from this. Sadly, there's nothing you will probably
ever be able to do about your ignorance and stupidity unless someone tries
to help you. This is why I don't mind. For me it's a temporary choice. For
you, it's your useless destiny if you continue to enjoy your bliss of
self-induced ignorance.

Next time, try to post some true and factual advice about camera's and
photography, along with photography samples for proofs, ones you have taken
yourself (if you even have a camera); instead of your usual troll's typical
one-liner as you did here, again. Your motives and face never change, do
they. Pity.

John McWilliams wrote:
Dan M wrote:

You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
never been truer than in these newsgroups.

It's amazing that such a scholar and gentleman such as yourself would
spend so much time among the hoi poloi.

When all your wannabee peers laugh at your self-assessment what other
recourse does a poor braggart have?

--
Chris Malcolm

On 2010-02-20 13:19:17 -0500, Michael said:

Please no flamers. Please will the P&S troll stay out of this. i'm
looking for honest advice, preferably from someone with firsthand
experience with the new Olympus 4/3 Pen Digital cameras.

I am a film photographer using good SLRs (Pentax 6x7 for MF, Olympus
OM2 and OM10, and Nikon F for 35mm) but I want to get a good digital
camera. I was looking at the Nikon D5000 and the Olympus Digital Pen
EP1. The Nikon will NOT take my manual F lenses, though they will fit
on it. The Olympus, with an adaptor, WILL take all my OM lenses with
full function except for the auto focus part. That makes the Olympus a
much more attractive camera. But the EP1 has only a live screen, not a
viewfinder, because it is not an SLR but is the closest thing to a
digital "rangefinder" that I've seen. I don't know how that screen
behaves in bright sunlight. Then they came out with the EP2 which has
the EVF attachment, eliminating the problem of the LCD screen in
sunlight, but it costs $300 more. And now I saw announced yet a third
EP that is LESS expensive than the EP1 AND it contains a built in
flash. So there must be a fair amount of compromise there.

Does anyone have firsthand experience with any of these cameras and can
you advise? If I leave the issue of compatible old lenses out of it, is
the Nikon D5000 at the same street price as the EP1 a better camera
with more functionality?

Please no flames, no trolls, but helpful information would be very much
appreciated.

The Troll has again taken over this discussion, as he always does,
whatever name he uses. We all know how to identify him. So again,
PLEASE: does anyone have hands on experience with any of these three
Olympus micro 4/3 retro styled (to look like the old Olympus Pen
half-frames) cameras who might give me the advice I asked for: 1: what
are the significant differences between the three, and 2: looking
SPECIFICALLY at the Nikon D5000, what is the comparison. Photo dealers,
such as there are any left other than big box stores and online stores,
are of no help. Thanks.
--
Michael

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:32:17 -0500, Michael wrote:

On 2010-02-20 13:19:17 -0500, Michael said:

Please no flamers. Please will the P&S troll stay out of this. i'm
looking for honest advice, preferably from someone with firsthand
experience with the new Olympus 4/3 Pen Digital cameras.

I am a film photographer using good SLRs (Pentax 6x7 for MF, Olympus
OM2 and OM10, and Nikon F for 35mm) but I want to get a good digital
camera. I was looking at the Nikon D5000 and the Olympus Digital Pen
EP1. The Nikon will NOT take my manual F lenses, though they will fit
on it. The Olympus, with an adaptor, WILL take all my OM lenses with
full function except for the auto focus part. That makes the Olympus a
much more attractive camera. But the EP1 has only a live screen, not a
viewfinder, because it is not an SLR but is the closest thing to a
digital "rangefinder" that I've seen. I don't know how that screen
behaves in bright sunlight. Then they came out with the EP2 which has
the EVF attachment, eliminating the problem of the LCD screen in
sunlight, but it costs $300 more. And now I saw announced yet a third
EP that is LESS expensive than the EP1 AND it contains a built in
flash. So there must be a fair amount of compromise there.

Does anyone have firsthand experience with any of these cameras and can
you advise? If I leave the issue of compatible old lenses out of it, is
the Nikon D5000 at the same street price as the EP1 a better camera
with more functionality?

Please no flames, no trolls, but helpful information would be very much
appreciated.

The Troll has again taken over this discussion, as he always does,
whatever name he uses. We all know how to identify him. So again,
PLEASE: does anyone have hands on experience with any of these three
Olympus micro 4/3 retro styled (to look like the old Olympus Pen
half-frames) cameras who might give me the advice I asked for: 1: what
are the significant differences between the three, and 2: looking
SPECIFICALLY at the Nikon D5000, what is the comparison. Photo dealers,
such as there are any left other than big box stores and online stores,
are of no help. Thanks.

Crickets .... because you'll find that the trolls you've been listening to
that infest these newsgroups have no first-hand experience with any
cameras, always revealed in their lies when I expose them for exactly what
they are. It's always good to add that simple little phrase "first hand
knowledge" to try to weed them out, but they still like to pretend they are
experts on things they've never touched nor used.

You can thank me now for exposing them for you.

You ****ing idiot that doesn't deserve anyone's help.

Good luck!

Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bull**** artists
that spew them.

Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.

For what its's worth.....I see the deflection tactics in use on this
newsgroup.

It seems that all one has to do is call someone a troll to discredit
them. I don't buy in to that. I find your posts legitimate and
informative.

On 2010-02-21 14:31:30 -0500, said:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bull**** artists
that spew them.

Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.

For what its's worth.....I see the deflection tactics in use on this
newsgroup.

It seems that all one has to do is call someone a troll to discredit
them. I don't buy in to that. I find your posts legitimate and
informative.

Of course you find the Troll's posts legitimate you jackass, you ARE
the troll posting under yet another name. If by some chance you are NOT
the troll then you are a newbie who should learn who the troll is.
He/she is well known to all of us. The problem is because he always
posts under different names it is not easy to add him to the kill file.
--
Michael

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:31:30 -0500, wrote:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bull**** artists
that spew them.

Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.

For what its's worth.....I see the deflection tactics in use on this
newsgroup.

It seems that all one has to do is call someone a troll to discredit
them. I don't buy in to that. I find your posts legitimate and
informative.

Careful, now they're all going to claim that you're just another P&S-Troll.
They're all pretty silly, aren't they. If they didn't have their bliss of
self-induced ignorance to rely on they'd probably be under doctor's
supervision on a 24-hour watch year round. Some probably are already.
They're psychotic imaginings of what certain cameras can and cannot do
never ceases to amaze me.