SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
19,475 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I would like to know your opinion on The Olympus E-330. For those who don't know, this is a live view SLR camera and also the first of its kind.

Would you consider buying this camera or do you prefer shooting picture, the traditional way?

 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
19,475 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
To be honest I don't have this camera and I don't have plans of buying it. I just wanted to hear people's opinions on it because it's a live view DSLR. I own a Canon Digital Rebel XT and I'm more used to taking pictures the traditional way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
My opinion:

Olympus has fallen far behind Nikon and Canon. They are desperate so they come out with a gimmick. I dont know any serious DSLR shooter who would shoot through the live viewer.
In an episode of Dexter, you can see him use this exact camera's live view function to photograph a crime scene. So yes there are serious applications for live view.

Of course there is also macros, underwater photos, or any situation where precise focus is needed.

There is a good reason why right-angle finder attachments are available for all SLRs. Are are also LCD attachments too. There just some situations where a traditional viewfinder is difficult or impossible to use.
 

·
Gotta lite?
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Be careful of this camera Wanch. The live view is an interesting development, but it doesn't really match up in reality.

Basically, there are two settings.
Setting A) only gives you 92% frame coverage, this is less than the viewfinder at 94%. The live view in low light is also terribly grainy and you have to manually shut the viewfinder otherwise metering will be off.

Setting B) Originally this had no auto focus! But since then a software update has provided some, but not as fast or accurate as from the viewfinder. This is serious as you cannot judge sharpness from the live view screen and would hate to find your photos unsharp after shooting. You get 100% coverage. There is no metering in this mode until you take the actual shot! There is also a noticeable shutter delay in mode B.

In both, the viewfinder is darker than usual (dual to splitting the light to the 2nd view finder sensor, and the viewfinder is very small.

Personally I don't see any real advantage. When I shot with a consumer camera, I still preferred to use the viewfinder. It blanks out the rest of the world so you can concentrate on the composition (a very very important part of good photography). Using the screen to compose, your eye catches colours and shapes in the real world and this distracts you from perceiving the final result.

There are some advantages. Once I placed my camera on a monopod, and walking through a demonstration, I shot the crowd from above, using the screen flipped down so I could get some idea of the composition. Still, this is not a common situation in photography.

Personally, I think this is a novelty, but of no real use to a camera. When you look through the traditional viewfinder, you can see much more clearly what composition you wish to get. The world around you is lost, and your entire concentration is on the photo. Afterall, your final result and concern should be for the photo itself.

Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Historian, photographer
Joined
·
2,298 Posts
The live preview is nothing but a gimmick to entice amateur photographers into picking up a DSLR. While amateurs would appreciate having a 'live' view of what they are taking, I cannot fathom others using it. For one, a 'live' view would take a considerable toll on the battery; I can manage nearly 1,500 shots on my Nikon D70 without changing the battery. On my old Nikon 4500 that had a 'live' feature, that was down to ~300 shots.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
19,475 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Be careful of this camera Wanch. The live view is an interesting development, but it doesn't really match up in reality.

Basically, there are two settings.
Setting A) only gives you 92% frame coverage, this is less than the viewfinder at 94%. The live view in low light is also terribly grainy and you have to manually shut the viewfinder otherwise metering will be off.

Setting B) Originally this had no auto focus! But since then a software update has provided some, but not as fast or accurate as from the viewfinder. This is serious as you cannot judge sharpness from the live view screen and would hate to find your photos unsharp after shooting. You get 100% coverage. There is no metering in this mode until you take the actual shot! There is also a noticeable shutter delay in mode B.

In both, the viewfinder is darker than usual (dual to splitting the light to the 2nd view finder sensor, and the viewfinder is very small.

Personally I don't see any real advantage. When I shot with a consumer camera, I still preferred to use the viewfinder. It blanks out the rest of the world so you can concentrate on the composition (a very very important part of good photography). Using the screen to compose, your eye catches colours and shapes in the real world and this distracts you from perceiving the final result.

There are some advantages. Once I placed my camera on a monopod, and walking through a demonstration, I shot the crowd from above, using the screen flipped down so I could get some idea of the composition. Still, this is not a common situation in photography.

Personally, I think this is a novelty, but of no real use to a camera. When you look through the traditional viewfinder, you can see much more clearly what composition you wish to get. The world around you is lost, and your entire concentration is on the photo. Afterall, your final result and concern should be for the photo itself.

Just my 2 cents.
Again I don't have plans of buying this camera. But I do plan of upgrading my EOS 350-D to a 30-D
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top