«

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <j6eemr$jhr$>, David J Taylor says...
>> I've not seen an EVF with good enough image
>> quality or low enough lag so far.
>
> The one in the Sony A77 or NEX 7 supposedly is good - 1024*768*3.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

I suppose just under 0.8 Mpix isn't too bad, but it's still going to
suffer lag. What are the frame rates? A pity they spoiled the NEX-7 by
giving it too-high a resolution sensor! ANd a pity that Nikon won't be
coming out with something similar taking their DX-format lenses.

David

On 10/4/2011 8:53 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
>> Here's a one size fits all solution. With this external stabilizer,
>> which worked very well when I tested it, you don't need either in
>> lens, or in body stabilization.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> .. although you may not be allowed to use it in some establishments!
>
> David

Why.
BTW did I omit the link?

<http://www.kenyongyro.net/kenyongyro/id14.html>

It's not a lightweight.

--
Peter

> In article <j6grdo$g7g$>, David J Taylor says...
>> I suppose just under 0.8 Mpix isn't too bad, but it's still going to
>> suffer lag. What are the frame rates?
>
> No idea, but 1024x768 is very good. That's twice the pixel count of the
> best LCD screens in digital cameras.
>
> Actually even less resolution is sufficient to focus manually because
> you usually zoom into the image down to pixel level if necessary.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

Frame rate (or delay, to be more precise) is quite important. Agreed
about manual focus, but some of the subjects I take are moving people, so
auto-focus is required, together with reasonably precise timing to capture
expressions.

Cheers,
David

On 10/6/2011 1:31 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
>> In article <j6grdo$g7g$>, David J Taylor says...
>>> I suppose just under 0.8 Mpix isn't too bad, but it's still going to
>>> suffer lag. What are the frame rates?
>>
>> No idea, but 1024x768 is very good. That's twice the pixel count of the
>> best LCD screens in digital cameras.
>>
>> Actually even less resolution is sufficient to focus manually because
>> you usually zoom into the image down to pixel level if necessary.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>
> Frame rate (or delay, to be more precise) is quite important. Agreed
> about manual focus, but some of the subjects I take are moving people,
> so auto-focus is required, together with reasonably precise timing to
> capture expressions.
>

Moving people aren't very fast when they are loading furniture and
cartons at an hourly rate.


--
Peter

> Moving people aren't very fast when they are loading furniture and
> cartons at an hourly rate.
>
>
> --
> Peter

... but their expressions are equally as fleeting!

David

Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> In article <j6eemr$jhr$>, David J Taylor says...
>> I've not seen an EVF with good enough image
>> quality or low enough lag so far.

> The one in the Sony A77 or NEX 7 supposedly is good - 1024*768*3.

Wake me when there's visible difference in resolution and lag
between an EVF and an OVF. 1024x768? I've got more pixels on
my laptop. The OLPC has more pixels than that. Never mind HDTV.

Might as well view photos on your computer in the full glory of VGA
(320x200), just to get an idea how far away from 'good' that is.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> Wake me when there's visible difference in resolution and lag
> between an EVF and an OVF.

<edited>

You'd meant "invisible"...correct?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

John Turco <> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> <edited for brevity>

>> Wake me when there's visible difference in resolution and lag
>> between an EVF and an OVF.

> <edited>

> You'd meant "invisible"...correct?

I need to be woken up every day. When I get old, feeble,
feebleminded and shaky, I'll probably use an EVF since I
wouldn't see the differences any more. :->


Of course you were correct.

-Wolfgang