videogamemaker
Well-known
Whoah! Is this representative in your mind of the AF speed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5Gik-x4gc&feature=related
That's delightfully quick. I can totally live with that.
First look preview of X100 at dpreview.com
- Thread starter shambla
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 180
- Views 23K
Whoah! Is this representative in your mind of the AF speed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5Gik-x4gc&feature=related
That's delightfully quick. I can totally live with that.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I've never really understood the crowd of people who want a digital camera, but who want everything about it to be mechanical.
Spyro
Well-known
Ι dont want a digital camera, I was quite happy when there was a Kodak lab in every corner and Konica/Minolta was still around and servicing cameras and scanners. But since the world has decided that film must die and they are forcing digital cameras on us, they may as well build them properly.
The significance of the mechanical ring is that it has an infinity stop, it doesnt turn perpetually. Which means that it can have a tab, which means that with practice, you can focus a camera by feel without even looking through it. Tabs and distance scales on the lens were there for a reason, not for decoration. They offered options that people actually used. And these people are trying to work out how many options they are willing to give up, with your permission and if you dont mind of course. Because we are a little bit excited, digital technology finally caught up with 1970's camera design and managed to squeeze a viewfinder in a sort of compact camera, woohoo.
Last edited:
P
Peter Irwin
Guest
I think it is the desire for a user interface that makes us feel comfortable.
I'm not sure that a close mimic of a mechanical film camera is all that logical a choice, but I would like focus, shutter speed and aperture where I can see and feel them easily. The standard 35mm film camera interface does a pretty good job of this. It occurs to me that the Rolleiflex TLR interface is almost entirely different, yet it also feels right and is a delight to use.
Peter.
videogamemaker
Well-known
Sorry, but this post makes you a minority. This means the market for people who want this type of thing are small, and the profit margin on each product sold must be much higher. You need to buy an M8 or M9 or RD-1. Those are your choices (if you want a built in OVF). If you want a much cheaper (new) camera, you will have to deal with popular features that ensure more sales, and thus, that lower price point, such as video, autofocus, and a mini-flash.
I feel perfectly confident in saying that overall sales of the X100 would be less with a mechanically coupled focusing ring and no autofocus (especially since the OVF isn't rangefinder coupled, making manual focusing in OVF mode much harder, if not impossible). So while I am sure you, and many others would prefer it that way, the needs of making a profit and the multitude of people who feel opposite to you about AF are going to win out in product design.
Spyro
Well-known
yes I know I am a minority, and quite comfotrable about it so dont feel sorry. I also couldnt care less (with all due respect) about their profit margins and their accounting, not my problem, I dont have shares in Fuji. They gotta do what they gotta do, if they end up making my kind of camera I'll buy it. If not I already have a bucketload of cameras I love, and kodak is still churning out the good stuff 🙂
Sparrow
Veteran
Very well reasoned and articulated sir!
gavinlg
Veteran
That there is quicker than my 5d and the d700....
This is more what I was thinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uig2uB6LMKE
videogamemaker
Well-known
Still quite reasonable. Now I'm less worried.
GSNfan
Well-known
When using the OVF to photograph moving subjects, the picture will only match what was seen through the OVF if there is absolutely minimum shutter lag and AF lock delay. Otherwise with AF lock delay, which is inevitable, combined with shutter lag, there will be a discrepancy with was seen and framed through the OVF and what was captured in the final picture... Anyone who has used a auxiliary VF with a digital camera might know what I'm talking about.
So, for X100's OVF to be actually effective like a RF, there has to be absolute minimum shutter lag (on par with high-end DSLRs) and minimum Af lock delay, or for that matter a really easy to do MF, otherwise the OVF image is never going to match what ends up in the final image... This is not a big deal when photographing stationery subjects, but for street scene and classic RF style of shooting, X100 really has to be fast otherwise it will lose its trump card, which is the OVF functionality.
So, for X100's OVF to be actually effective like a RF, there has to be absolute minimum shutter lag (on par with high-end DSLRs) and minimum Af lock delay, or for that matter a really easy to do MF, otherwise the OVF image is never going to match what ends up in the final image... This is not a big deal when photographing stationery subjects, but for street scene and classic RF style of shooting, X100 really has to be fast otherwise it will lose its trump card, which is the OVF functionality.
videogamemaker
Well-known
All signs point to every possible delay happening at the half shutter press. Once the shutter is half pressed, the lag from half press to full press is .01 seconds. That should be fast enough for anyone.
Plus, my 5D and many other cameras have a "fire without AF lock" option, which means it takes the photo when you fully depress the shutter, regardless of if the AF has locked or not. Meaning you always get the image, sometimes blurry, but it's there no matter what, right when you clicked.
For street shooting, I imagine you might need to do a little pre-focusing or zone focusing with the half press, then track the composition with the OVF, and when it's where you want, fully press (the .01 second lag).
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Both cameras focus faster than me fussing with an RF patch. The only thing faster is not focusing at all...otherwise called preset zone focusing.
I can live with doing zone focusing in the X100 using MF and the "focal distance + DoF" scale displayable in the LCD or in the O/EVF. Also I will have no hesitation of enhancing the unmarked focusing ring for a couple of chosen f-stops...takes 5 minutes.
I don't mind using AFL and recompose. The button is in the correct place anyway.
Still, if Fuji opt to also enable a preset focal distance function to the Fn+jog combo, I will be delighted.
videogamemaker
Well-known
How will marking the lens work? Many focus by wire rings can turn indefinitely in either direction, wouldn't it mess up your markings the second you turned "past" the near or far limit?
GSNfan
Well-known
I had mentioned in another post that Nikon D3 has a .08 second of shutter lag... Now in case X100 is the first compact that has a shutter lag on D3 scale of digital cameras with 0.01, that would be a paradigm changing innovation, but unfortunately i highly doubt that.
But once again, the AF has to be very fast and accurate for X100 to match the OVF framing. The manual focus option does not look very promising with X100 so AF speed is crucial if someone wants to shoot the lens wide open for moving subjects... But even if one shoots in zone focus to not engage AF, that would mean only shooting at F8 and above to get a decent dof, shooting wide open gets ruled out and so is low light shooting.
But I guess in a nutshell what I'm trying to get at is for X100's OVF to be effective like a RF, it has to have the shutter lag of a Nikon D3 and the AF speed and accuracy of a Nikon D3 as well.
videogamemaker
Well-known
Well if you're going to doubt their released numbers, there is nothing I can say to convince you. Keep in mind that no modern camera has used an in lens 4 leaf shutter like the X100. It's completely possible they bypassed the previous speeds of huge curtain shutters on a dslr with a mirror that has to move.
The actual AF speed and your shooting style is going to come into play, but I've used a slow focusing lens before on my dslr, and it very rarely gave me trouble with my shooting style.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
This was what I wrote:
The lens barrel has one fixed red reference mark for the apertures, which can also be used as a reference mark for zone focusing.
The way I would do it is this:
Set camera at manual focus and shoot. Simple really.
It is true the focusing ring might turn and turn if not in MF mode [but might also have a dead-stop]. But given the lens FL and in MF mode, the turn might only be half a 360-degree. Besides, my method is not to use the DoF scale, but use a personal preset focal distance [given a chosen f-stop]The way I would do it is this:
- Color-code the aperture numbers. [A tried-and-true method for 3 decades is to fill in the engraved f-numbers with grease pencil then finger rub off the excess. Believe it or not, the fillings rubs off clean with water on a Q-tip.]
- Color-code the focusing ring position with corresponding color Sharpies. [The ring has fine gear-like knurls that would protect the colors.] A DoF table will tell you where the sweet spot is.]
- Use the focal distance scale in the O/EVF to set the ring position. [At f5.6, the lens will have a DoF from 6~28'; and at f8 from 5~118'...pick the mid-field distances or any personal-biased points would be fine.]
Set camera at manual focus and shoot. Simple really.
videogamemaker
Well-known
We will have to see if it can rotate indefinitely, but most focus by wire, and even some coupled rings (like on Canon L lenses) can rotate forever.
If that proves to be the case, won't that wreck your lens rings color coding? I knew most of what you wrote, and I can see how that would work on a mechanically coupled focusing ring missing dof markings, but I don't think that works on a ring that is decoupled completely from the mechanism and just provides turn bytes to the focus motor.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Further down in the same thread, I wrote:
I do believe the X100 lens is focus-by-wire [and internal], which is another way of saying inside the lens barrel is a rotary encoder with an infinity dead-stop at 12 o'clock position.
When AF is selected, the lens module is controlled by the firmware and focused-by-wire internally without causing the outer focusing ring to also auto-rotate.
When Manual Focus is selected, the encoder position is instantly read and lens immediately refocused [by wire] at whatever focal distance the lens focus ring happened to be at. There after focusing [still by wire] is a direct firmware reaction to new ring position. [I have been using high resolution encoders in my work for 2 decades.]
You can almost see the encoder marking in the lens module picture. [Take apart a computer mouse and look at the turbine-like scroll-wheel encoder.]
And a little later:When AF is selected, the lens module is controlled by the firmware and focused-by-wire internally without causing the outer focusing ring to also auto-rotate.
When Manual Focus is selected, the encoder position is instantly read and lens immediately refocused [by wire] at whatever focal distance the lens focus ring happened to be at. There after focusing [still by wire] is a direct firmware reaction to new ring position. [I have been using high resolution encoders in my work for 2 decades.]
You can almost see the encoder marking in the lens module picture. [Take apart a computer mouse and look at the turbine-like scroll-wheel encoder.]
Focus-by-wire translates down to the number of encoder counts per complete 360-degree rotation and the thread pitch of the focus drive motor shaft. For example, if the encoder is a 360-count unit, and the thread pitch is 0.5mm, then the internal focus increment will be 0.00138mm per count...1.4u focal distance change per count is very fine, but step-by-step. [I have used encoders as fine as 1200 counts per revolutions...]
In comparison, typical helicoid pitch is very coarse...but supports continuous motion.
In comparison, typical helicoid pitch is very coarse...but supports continuous motion.
videogamemaker
Well-known
It's not me mis-remembering your past posts, it's you not reading what I'm asking. I understand how focus by wire works, the problem is that you are assuming a hard stop at 12 o'clock. The vast majority of focus by wire lenses do not have this feature.
Check this video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntdLuTHckPY It looks like he rotates the focusing ring far more than 360 degrees at two different times.
Marks on the focusing ring are going to be useless if there is no hard stop, and all signs point to there not being one.
Check this video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntdLuTHckPY It looks like he rotates the focusing ring far more than 360 degrees at two different times.
Marks on the focusing ring are going to be useless if there is no hard stop, and all signs point to there not being one.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
It is really not understanding how an encoder works that caused a lot of questions...you are not the only one in RFF.
Encoders are available in rotary or linear forms. Rotary encoder can only rotate 360-degrees...period.
[Liner encoders are essentially a very fine scale and EXPENSIVE, unlikely being used within a lens, else there will have to be a mechanical coupling between the ring and encoder "read-head"].
In AF mode, rotating the focusing ring around and around means nothing.
In any case, rotating the lens ring around and around simply means restarting at the 0-degree position whether you intend to or not. The 0-degree position can be marked or unmarked, hard-stopped or not. Whether the X100 focusing ring can rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise is immaterial...it is still limited to 360-degrees.
So, all you need to do is to selection clockwise or counter-clockwise mode; set desired focal distances and mark the focusing ring.
And, if the X100 only needs 165-degrees to focus from infinity to near limit, then the firmware can and will have to also place any arbitrary ring position to the nearest effective position [and that was how encoders are reset to zero positions in engineering applications].