BebuLamar

It's not different from a 35mm SLR viewfinder except that for the DX format it's smaller than a typical 35mm SLR. Since all DSLR are autofocus they don't have the split image or microprism focusing aid. Also because they are autofocus the LCD layer needed to show focus point makes the focusing screen more difficult to manually focus than a typical 35mm SLR using only the ground glass area.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I just did recently, no thanks!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I definitely think you should not bother with film!

kb you must use the camera and canvas that you love. For pros there is time an money. For hobbyists And artists there is no right or wrong to that we are free to use what we like. I support your choices.

Viva la choices! We live in a great time period to be a photographer!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

kb, that statement makes me chuckle!!
A few years ago I made this post about just how FREE digi IS!!! LoL
Read on......
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-313837-1.html
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

td, I have no beef with Edelman and his choice of equipment. In fact I'm a big fan of Edelman and find his work both VERY creative and very inspiring!
I did watch parts of the video and it's mostly fan-boy gobbledygook. I've never said that a ML or 4:3 was NOT a good camera. BUT since they've been assigned the
DSLR undertaker status, My question was SIMPLY if a 4:3 was actually BETTER than a FF dslr of the same mp?
When printing to 30x20, my question was merely if the 4:3 does a BETTER job at that size than than say a 50mp FF?
NOT whether an untrained eye will simply find both prints acceptable. JUST because a 4:3 can make an 8'x6' acceptable print does NOT mean it's a better print when put 10 feet of the ground. What about when you can walk right up to it in a gallery?
The flowing is an image I made a couple of weeks ago. This ia a crop from a FULL BODY image so the image is pretty small pixel-wise.
But go ahead and look up close! I could NOT have made this crop had my original file not been 50 mp!!!
Would a 4:3 do a BETTER job here and not merely a job that is good enough???
Go ahead and look at the veins in her eyes and the blue fabric, the detail is amazing!
td, you know I'm always gonna put my money where my mouth is! LoL

Taken with crummy Canon with floppy mirror! LoL

(Download)

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Is that flipping mirror the reason for that ultra saturated teal blue color? That flipping mirror threw glow-blue oil all over your sensor? ;) Man it really glows! :) Just kidding. OK!? Nice work.

I say we should all use what recording tools we like and that work for us. And we should support each other’s choices. Yeah right. Let’s see how that statement pans out here. Ha ha ha.

Viva la choices. It is a good time period to be a photographer.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

JD, LoL, I did once know a photographer that almost drowned his Model in oil, it was about ten years ago but he was using a Nikon D600!!!
SS

JD750 Loc: SoCal

HA! That poor model. I feel her pain. Hopefully she had a female oil wrestling shoot planned next.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I sincerely don’t think that was your question but now that you have made it clear, it is no different than the difference between FF vs MF. What you normally do is downplay it like it is a toy and not worth serious photography. I doubt that any pro would use m4/3 for the sake of using it. And in my opinion, is 50mp better than 16 or 20mp? Of course it is, if you need to crop a lot. And remember, that I have a 64mp camera at my disposal. But the real trouble will show up when Olympus finally figures out how to make the hi res feature hand holdable. And since Pentax did just that recently, with the K1 mark2, even though it is clearly not as good of an implementation (pentax’s Hi res) as Olympus’s, Oly has no more excuses.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

I Started with 120 in my personal Rollei and at work I used a B&L bellows camera through a microscope with 8x10 plate film for technical photography. 8x10 plate film rules