Can the EVF move sideways as well or just up and down?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

What is the benefit of moving sideways?

vario1 wrote:
What is the benefit of moving sideways?

I was thinking it's the same as a screen that moves sideways.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Can the EVF move sideways as well or just up and down?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nope.

vario1 wrote:
What is the benefit of moving sideways?

Maybe he wants to shoot around a corner?

desvenne wrote:
vario1 wrote:
What is the benefit of moving sideways?

Maybe he wants to shoot around a corner?


, that thought occured to me.

where are the pictureees, and the 100% crops

Since I bouth the XE-1 which doesnt have AA filter, I kind of hesitate going back to a camera that have one.

The lens look much bigger as compared to the body. Otherwise I really like the concept.

Vern Dewit wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Can the EVF move sideways as well or just up and down?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nope.


Thanks for the info. If I was drawn into such a camera I think I'd prefer an OVF.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Do you mean rangefinder? Otherwise a mirror and prism are needed, and then the camera won't be small.

frezeiss wrote:
where are the pictureees, and the 100% crops

Since I bouth the XE-1 which doesnt have AA filter, I kind of hesitate going back to a camera that have one.

Why? Compared to properly sharpened output from a camera with an AA filter, removing the AA filter only gives the impression of more detail through artifacts, and, in the case of the XE-1, even that impression of more detail isn't any higher than a regular 16mp sensor, because raw conversion is still pretty bad for X-Trans.

I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.

The Kodak doesn't give the typical modern AA-less camera look though. It has a sort of unusual watercolour look at 100%, and thus it really isn't typical compared to, say, a Leica M9 or S2.

Btw, I thought the SLR/c and SLR/n were identical apart from body and mount, but my SLR/n definitely doesn't look great with every lens. It had real problems with the Zeiss 21/2.8. Weird colours in the corners, and a strong reaction to the sun anywhere near the edge of the frame.

The SLR/c even made the Canon 50/1.8 look great. My point is - I trust my eyes. Looking at a 1048 px image online, an A3+ print or a 1,5x1,5 m canvas - if it looks good, that's what matters. The AA-less SLR/c looked better than about all other cameras I've had. Watercolor, false detail - so what? The end results were awesome, and that's what matters to me.

I wasn't criticising the watercolour look, it does seem to work. It looks weird at 100% but it enlarges well. I think Kodak knew what they were doing with it.

Agreed. I still have my SLR/c, never use it though. Too quirky.

Yeah, me too I am keeping it to do a colour comparison one day between my D3, D800, SLR/n and the Fuji S5.

I prefer the color while you prefer the colour.

Your version of colour lacks nuance

mortyb wrote:
I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.

Hey, I'm solely an M9 shooter these days, but it still holds true, as TheSuede has pointed out and illustrated many times. Of course, as pixel count goes up, AA filters will be less and less necessary, but, as its stands now, it is false detail that we're seeing with our AA-less cameras. That being said, it seems that many prefer this look, regardless of where it comes from.

p.s. The big advantage of no AA filter, outside of cost, is that it does improve things at the periphery of the sensor, since the AA filter isn't there to cause astigmatism.