Brian Sweeney wrote:The E3 would have been easier to work with. The other point of note is how BIG the view through the E3 finder is compared with the D1x and D1.
Hi,
Yes, I can see where the E3 would have been the tool that best matched that particular job. Of course, I use my E2 for exactly the same purpose - images meant for display on a computer screen.
I have a 10x12 foot space over at the wife's screenprinting shop for a photo studio, so I don't have much space to back up in. The subjects are usually T-shirts on a torso display. With an APS format DSLR, I'd need to use a 35mm lens, which isn't too bad. However, we also screenprint larger things like signs, that can be as large as 4x8 feet. I'd need a 14mm lens on an APS format camera to shoot one of those.
Then, when I'm finished, that 3 or 4 or 6 MP image needs to be downsampled since it's too large for what we need. What I want is 1.5 MP at most, for the 'supersized' version, along with a couple of smaller versions.
Enter the E2. It has a wider FOV, so I can get by with the usual set of prime lenses. It has only 1.5 MP, so the thing matches the need quite well. It also offers a 4:3 aspect ratio, which happily matches most of the computer display screens out there. The big plus was that I had the thing already, and it was sitting on a shelf. I had replaced with with an original D1, followed by a host of others.
Actually, what happened was one day I was already at the shop when the wife brought in a stack of new shirt designs to be shot. I had left the D1 at home, of course, so I had to trek back and get it. On the way, the thought of using the E2 occured to me. I could collect that up, along with several of those old AI and AI'd lenses I had sitting unused and left over from my old FE and FA's. So, I could just take that stuff over and leave it there. All I needed to do was swing by the photo store and pick up an extra tripod and I'd be all set.
So, that's what I did, and it's been a great solution for the past few years. I use the full-size E2 image for the supersize shot, make up a 640x480 for the standard shot, and make a thumbnail for the web store index.
As far as the viewfinder goes, I know exactly what you mean. I always thought that all the DSLR makers really needed to rethink their viewfinders to be more like the standard 35mm film SLR ones, and not these 'look through a pipe' views they all have.
Now that I have the 1Ds, which is just as sweet in the viewfinder department as the E series, I get a shock every time I pick up the D2H and look through it's viewfinder. It's not that the D2H view is bad - it does it's job just fine - it's just that I need a few minutes to get used to the feeling of tunnel vision.
Well, maybe one day, Nikon will figure out that there is enough of a market out there for a FF DSLR to be worth their while. I fully understand the tradeoffs between the 35mm fomat and the APS one when it comes to digital sensors (something a 1Ds will teach one in a hurry!), but I do prefer the larger format.
In fact, liking the 35mm DSLR format got me to thinking hard about a 645 body and a Kodak Pro Back Plus (now that the backs are showing up in the used market), since that's even larger. But, the cost of glass for any of the three 645 systems the PBP supports puts that idea to rest. All I can say is that any time anyone thinks that the glass for the 35mm systems cost too much, they need to head to B&H's website and look at any of the 645 system prices. That'll make the 35mm stuff look positively cheap!
Later!
Stan
