I could stretch to an SL2 if I had to perhaps, but it is not a 'pocket camera' - I find I need a camera that fits into my pocket, that's my whole buzz sort of thing.
🙂
This doesn't seem to allow of viewing the whole thread while writing a reply so I can't cut and paste, quote, the other reply about the display and I think it not worthwhile to make a dedicated reply to it so perhaps it'll be acceptable if I just include it in here and say that whatever display type I choose makes no difference to what I see through the viewfinder.
Seems to me.
This might be a tiny thing peculiar just to me - or perhaps a big thing that many, many photographer want, I wonder?
Me, I like to photo ants, beetles and such, bees at work, even wood galls, insides of flowers, grass seed heads and so on and a macro facility that I can use out in the ausse bright sunshine would be great, totally great and lack of it is sometimes quite an annoyance.
what I do, of course, is photo in ordinary mode as closely as I can get and then magnify on the computer.
I want macro because, of course, I believe that I'll get higher resolution that way. But perhaps I'm wrong anyway? Perhaps a macro shot actually has no greater resolution than a blowup of a max res shot?
If that were the case I could stop worrying..... or even using macro...
I can test that for myself can't I. I will have a go right now..
Did a test. The macro seems to return about a 5 fold increase in resolution.
These screenshots show it. 5 pixels for one bar of the scale on the ordinary shot and 25 pixels for one bar of the scale on the macro shot.
So it would be great if I could use macro in the open but though I can see the display I can't see anything well enough to focus.
