Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Istvan Nagy's Take on the Rolleiflex  (Read 2980 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2013, 04:14:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Well I would prefer the smaller size, sensors improve fast enough. A 20x20mm for an M4/3 lens system. Roughly wastes an equal amount of the sensor area and the lens coverage, I estimated. Should cover a 1.61 : 1 aspect ratio, vertical and horizontal, and a square format halfway + all aspect ratios within the limits. Viewfinder window adapting to the chosen frame aspect ratio and Tiff or Jpeg output based on that but RAW output with the data of the entire sensor area. Some Panasonic M4/3 cameras already have a few choices in aspect ratios that are not simple crops on the normal frame but shift the use of the sensor area. This is a more radical approach. Ergonomics optimized for a camera that has no need for rotation. Olympus OM-D style image stabilisation and sensor quality.  A viewfinder that is more aimed at composition,  like the TLRs or SLRs without a prism. EVF style that can be tilted upwards but with a square viewing field or integrated in the camera with the same features.  The M4/3 lens catalog is already quite big and that size of lenses will keep the camera quite small.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, i500+ inkjet media white spectral plotso


But the whole point of a bigger format, beyond mega pixels, is to have a bigger camera and, consequently, a proper viewfinder that means you don't have to peer at a panel on the back, but can do all the creative stuff in the viewfinder.

Personally, I dislike looking down into a finder; I much prefer a pentaprism!

Rob C
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2013, 05:32:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Different tastes for viewfinders I guess. I use an MF rangefinder and it gives me perfect focus but it is not the nicest one for composition. APS DSLR cameras compromise on the viewfinder but my FF DSLR is already better for composition but not as nice as the TLR viewfinder Istvan mentioned or an MF SLR with and without a prism. The digital camera without a mirror has no optical limitation on the size of its digital EVF viewfinder or the EVF position, vertical or horizontal. Not talking about a display on the back but a proper viewfinder that resembles the TLR viewfinder more but of course replacing the foldable loupe with digital enlarging in the viewfinder. The TLR had either a 56x56 format or a 40x40 mm (Baby) format and the viewfinder had to have the same size given the TLR concept. The same for the Gowland reflex that has an even larger format. As written tastes for viewfinders differ.

Ernst Dinkla
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad