One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I find that my 1Dmk2 can autofocus correctly in light so dim that I can
barely see through the viewfinder.

Bully for your camera. Mine does well in low light too.
But there are still times when I find manual focusing useful.

It's telling how those stuck with OVF try to move the goalposts
when it's pointed out how much better an EVF is for manual focusing.

one is not 'stuck with ovf'.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

yes, it is.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

In your opinion, not in mine.

Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

In your opinion, not in mine.
You can only speak for yourself.

that goes for you too, so why do you insist on arguing?

In article , John Navas
wrote:

In your opinion, not in mine.

Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

In your opinion, not in mine.
You can only speak for yourself.

that goes for you too, so why do you insist on arguing?

Actually just setting the record straight.

it's still just an *opinion*.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I find that my 1Dmk2 can autofocus correctly in light so dim that I can
barely see through the viewfinder.

Bully for your camera. Mine does well in low light too.
But there are still times when I find manual focusing useful.

It's telling how those stuck with OVF try to move the goalposts
when it's pointed out how much better an EVF is for manual focusing.

one is not 'stuck with ovf'.

You are if that's all you've got.

not at all.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
Your comment indicates you haven't used a good one. My G1 is easier
to focus in any lighting condition than my D300 which has a very good
optical viewfinder. It has to do with the way the out of focus image
behaves in an EVF compared to an optical viewfinder. The moment focus
is lost, you see it in the EVF. In the optical viewfinder it is very
gradual and with less than perfect, wide aperture lenses, it becomes
somewhat of an issue with the optical viewfinder, especially in poor
light.

Most optical SLR finders today are /not/ designed to show out-of-focus
particularly well, but you can buy add-on viewfinder screens which do,
should you do a lot of manual focussing. You /only/ see slight
out-of-focus errors in an EVF when it is zoomed in to just a small part of
the image - if that's automatic when the focus ring is touched that's
quite helpful.

David

"Bristolian" wrote in message
...
John Navas wrote:

snip

In your opinion, not in mine.


It's only my opinion, of course, and you may not agree but you're
starting to sound like a politician desperate to avoid the question and
therefore spouting the agreed party line ad infinitum.

--
Regards


Bristolian

John is one of the few people I regret having in my kill-file, as he may
sometimes come up with good point, but his inability to admit when he is
wrong made it impossible to carry out a reasoned discussion for me.

David

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:49:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:


Your comment indicates you haven't used a good one. My G1 is easier
to focus in any lighting condition than my D300 which has a very good
optical viewfinder. It has to do with the way the out of focus image
behaves in an EVF compared to an optical viewfinder. The moment focus
is lost, you see it in the EVF. In the optical viewfinder it is very
gradual and with less than perfect, wide aperture lenses, it becomes
somewhat of an issue with the optical viewfinder, especially in poor
light.


I was disappointed that the optical viewfinder of my D76 did not have
any of the old optical focussing aids the old film SLRs used to have.
With my eyes, that mean that manual focussing was a no-no anyway,
which is a shame.

Can't see that an EVF would be any better in that respect but I remain
to be convinced.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

John Navas wrote:
responding to jpmcw:

Enough folk
have spoken on the issue to be able to state clearly that your opinion
is a small minority.

In your opinion, not in mine.

In my opinion and that of the majority here. I've agreed that your
opinion is yours, and is in the minority.

--
lsmft

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:51:45 +0100, Bristolian wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

snip
In your opinion, not in mine.
It's only my opinion, of course, and you may not agree but you're
starting to sound like a politician desperate to avoid the question and
therefore spouting the agreed party line ad infinitum.

You are of course welcome to think and say whatever you want,
no matter how unfounded and defensive. Denial doesn't work.

But, John! It's your best allie......

--
lsmft

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:41:17 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
responding to jpmcw:

Enough folk
have spoken on the issue to be able to state clearly that your opinion
is a small minority.

In your opinion, not in mine.

In my opinion and that of the majority here. I've agreed that your
opinion is yours, and is in the minority.

"If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it
remains a foolish thing."

Your minority/majority argument is the argument of a complete and utter
fool. But then you're too big of a fool to know that, much less understand
why.