Poll on the use of Live View on DSLR

Started Oct 11, 2010 | Discussions thread
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,899
John, am I no longer on your "Ignore list"?

John King wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

John King wrote:

I could not have got this shot at all without liveview on my E-510.

Why not? I mean assuming you have an accurate focusing camera...

Because the cat was sitting on my chest as I explained to Green.

Yes, I did read your response to Sergey, which is why I asked again, in hope you'd give a better explanation.

I was lying down in bed. Lizzie's face was less than a foot from my own. I was holding the camera over my right shoulder top, using it one handed with liveview

Now, this story is a bit strange and not very accurate. You say you needed LV for this image. The E-510 don't have a swivel screen, so the camera must have been between your head and the cat. I don't know the eye sight you have, but not even at young age could I see anything which was held right in front of my eyes, I need to have at least a few centimeters between my eyes and the thing I am looking at. That distance must be more than just a few centimeters if I need to judge focus, but since the E-510 focus is as accurate as the E-500, I'd trust the auto focus. Even so, for the composition there is a need of at least 5-8 centimeters. Now, you say the cat's head was less than a foot from your own. A foot is 30cm (I like to use the same units, I hope that's OK). The 50/2 has a minimum focus distance of 24cm, at that distance you will get an image with 1:2 magnification, meaning the image from right to left side is representing 24.6mm, for simplicity, say 2.5cm. That's very tight, because 30cm - 24cm makes it equal to 6cm, which is just about the minimum stace needed for being able to see the composition in the live view display. Never the less, I have a bigger problem with your information. Having the lens at maximum magnification, which obviously it must have been if the distance between your head and the cat's was 30cm, makes the cat's head 2.5cm if it would fill the whole frame, but it does not. In 1/5th of the image area (yes, I measured) there is an empty space, making the cat's head from ear to nose 2cm. I have no cat, but I had one a long time ago. I have seen many cats in my life, both old and newly born, but never ever seen an adult cat with such small head. Assuming there is nothing wrong with that cat and is a perfectly normal individual, I say the distance from the ear to the nose is at least twice as much, probably even more, which makes the distance from your head to the cat's head considerably more than the (less than!) 30cm you mentioned earlier. My guess is that the distance was about twice as much and I still don't understand why LV would be necessary for this image. I hope the above was not a too complicated reasoning.

Please note, I am not saying you did not use LV to take the image, I am just not seeing any absolute need for LV in this case and also questioning your information about the distance to the cat. I do understand it is more comfortable to use LV in that position but the reason for that is not the short distance, but possibly the angle, even though I'd in that angle prefer using OVF and with the camera upside down, i.e. the bottom of the camera aimed at the ceiling. No doubt LV can be useful in that image for some people however; I still think it is not necessary and could have been taken with any camera even without LV.

and the appallingly bad focusing f2/50 (according to some, at least ... I find it focuses exceptionally well, and fast, in almost all circumstances ... on all 3 of my bodies ... ).

Well, it may be fast enough for you but it is definitely not fast. It takes about two seconds from infinity to close focus, so that's definitely not fast. Accurate yes, but fast, definitely not. In fact, I think the slowness is an advantage of it because if it was fast, like the 50-200, you'd get accuracy problems with the E-3. I know you don't have the E-3, but never the less, it is the flagship of Oly until the E-5 becomes available.

E-510, f2/50 macro, ISO 800, f2 @ 1/45th, OoC JPEG with minimal PP by automated PS action ...

It's a very nice close up image, no doubt.

EXIF data in image, as usual ...

Yes, I know. Too bad that the Oly EXIF does not contain any valuable distance information.

Sorry, I forgot that the E-510 "can't do ISO 800". Someone should have told me ... ;). NF in camera was set to off. No NR in PP.

Thank you for the information, even though not asked for and never questioned the E-510's ability to shoot ISO800. The problem I have with your comment is that any camera I know of, including the P&S cameras I have, can shoot ISO800 if larger sizes are not needed. This image is no proof of ISO800 capabilities of the camera, just an OT comment.

Lots of fish swim with the stream. Otherwise the headwaters would be chock full of fish, and there would be none anywhere else ...

So Malcolm Muggeridge is patently and obviously wrong ...

Why is it that Malcolm Muggeridge only upsets two Aussies and no one else seems to care? Not that I expect others to be upset, but I think that says more about you than about me or Malcolm Muggeridge. Why is it that you seem to think your comment makes me want to go into discussions concerning this quote, or that I would get upset because you disagree with what he said? Sorry John, but that's typical for a fanboy’s mobbing, bullying attitude, trying to find new angles of attack when one angle is not working. The problem is I honestly don't give a damn if you think he is wrong or not, apart from the very basic fact that what he said has nothing to do with real fish, but I suppose that's too complicated for you to understand. Muggeridge never claimed to be an expert in fish and the behaviour of different fish species.
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow