Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

[tapesonthefloor]

Wow. I wish I had just linked to this and left it at that. Thanks, raytoei!

 

[jsrockit]

I don't use autofocus. Ever. I don't want to look at pixels until they're on my Mac. I like happy accidents, and sometimes I like blurry subjects. I also have disposable income for a camera that will satisfy all these strange needs, and I can't be entirely alone in all this. Fujifilm! Is the X100 my camera?

I may have missed it, but why don't you like the M8 or M9?

 

[tapesonthefloor]

I may have missed it, but why don't you like the M8 or M9?

I'd maim kittens for an M9, but I don't have that much disposable income. I'm still pursuing my next-best option, which is, of course, using cheap b&w film in old rangefinders and having a friend at a lab scan them for me fairly inexpensively. It gets me through, but I do wish I had something half-decent to shoot digital, for quick snaps. Hence my hanging out in the X100 thread.

 

[Matus]

Tapesonthefloor - you've got a point - in particular about the viewfidner. But - if Fuji keeps on the specs - that makes it 0.5x and 90% coverage. Now - I do not really understand what do they mean by the 90% coverage (the viewfinder is larger than the image taken, so ... ?), but 0.5x magnification is nothing to write home about. Even the Hexar AF is 0.6x. Now if one wants to focus manually this could be a problem, but this of course depends how the manual focusing will be implemented.

 

[tapesonthefloor]

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle. Are there other examples of similar viewfinders that I may have put up to my eye sometime in the past year for comparison? 🙂 dSLRs? P&Ss? Fujifilm disposable 35mm cameras?

 

[ebino]

I do not really understand what do they mean by the 90% coverage (the viewfinder is larger than the image taken, so ... ?),

what it means is that you only see 90% of what will be in the picture taken. Most budget DSLR's are 95% but with a DSLR you see exactly what will be in the frame, but with X100's 10% of the picture out of the frame and factor in the inevitable parallax (which is inevitable when you don't look through the lens), i see why Fuji has gone to the trouble of including the EVF through the OVF as well.

 

[Frankie]

My hindsight is 20/20.

Fuji can and did keep a secret...but need not worry about the Leicaphiles because they won't believe it and won't look, even now...

I believe the development must have started soon after Photokina '08 where Leica only had the cropped M8...yes 1.33, Pany G1 EVF emerged, and soon Oly E-P1 as well. But most important, Epson's development of the EVF panel would have been known to potential OEM customers, long before mass production announced a few month later in October '09.

The X100 announcement in Photokina '10 was opportune and well timed: Canikon had no EVIL news and Leica had nothing for the X1 worth talking about... A press conference, e-literature and web-site can be preplanned and pre-made; and Fuji would have many prototypes [the ones used were labeled PKINA-2 and -3...I said I was very careful looking and reading.]

Inviting "our" comments in the X100 web site was merely political and marketing moves...not because they needed engineering ideas. There were scanty NEW ideas here anyway, but lots of dogma.

I believe the hardware as shown is frozen; firmware is not yet published and might benefit from good ideas. Ignoring or deleting junk-emails could even be automated. Comments like "all menus suck" are useless anyway.

Counter-X100 arguments floated to the surface in RFF are: RF and M-mount.

Truth is: any and every camera, even P&S, has something for finding the range. The question is how well and how fast. Leicaphiles believe in only the parallax-wedge method, some believe studying the ground glass under a dark cloth. Others believe contrast- or phase-detection with automation is better yet. Everyone agreed that parallax-wedge method depends on the human eye [CoC and all that], while contrast or phase detection is not...

The M-mount is 50+ years old and had not been improved [on what?] one bit. The M8 6-bit coding was laughable...but generated a little upgrade business in Solms for a short while.

[How tough is it to make blank M-mounts with 6 empty slots for self-highlighting, even cheap no-name LTM to M adapters sold on eBay are now sporting such feature. Undoing a few screws cannot be so tough.]

The irony here is: M-mount lens owners complained only because Leica had no alternative offered...except the unaffordable M8/9. The M9/T was a slap in their face..."let them eat cake". I think they should just revolt.

Encouraging rather than criticizing Fuji will get outsider pre-M8 Leicaphiles what they want quicker...please don't start again with engineering problem counter-arguments. JFK was not an engineer then either...yet man landed on the moon.

 

[jsrockit]

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle. Are there other examples of similar viewfinders that I may have put up to my eye sometime in the past year for comparison? 🙂 dSLRs? P&Ss? Fujifilm disposable 35mm cameras?

The CV Bessa R4a/m has a .52 viewfinder I believe... but it also has framelines starting at 21mm.

 

[Matus]

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle. Are there other examples of similar viewfinders that I may have put up to my eye sometime in the past year for comparison? 🙂 dSLRs? P&Ss? Fujifilm disposable 35mm cameras?

I guess the easiest is to check low-end DLSRs as these are around 0.5x (after the 1.5 crop factor for APS-C sensors and m4/3 camras):
Nikon D3100 - 0.53x
Canon 550D (T2i) - 0.58x
Pentax K-X - 0.56x
Nikon D7000 - 0.62x
Panasonic G2 - 0.7x
Panasonic G10 - 0.52x
Samsung NX10 - 0.57x
Olympus EP cameras with VF-2 finder - 0.57x

 

[semilog]

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle.

It's not at all difficult to imagine.

Think of a Nikon FM (0.9X with 50mm lens) but with a 28mm lens mounted. That's the magnification. The FOV is probably a bit wider, equivalent to a 21-24mm lens.

If the eye relief is reasonable, and the VF is bright and clear, without too much geometric distortion, it should be fine.

(I'll add that I prefer higher-mag VF's -- I shoot a 35 on an M6 0.85 -- but that's a preference, not a cast-in-stone requirement.)

 

[ampguy]

what are the mag. ratios of higher end dslrs?

what are the mag. ratios of higher end dslrs?

like say the D3, d700, canon 5d, etc.?

The old film Nikons varied, but the F3 with DE finder is .8x, the HP which gives more eye relief distance, is .75x.

I guess the easiest is to check low-end DLSRs as these are around 0.5x (after the 1.5 crop factor for APS-C sensors and m4/3 camras):
Nikon D3100 - 0.53x
Canon 550D (T2i) - 0.58x
Pentax K-X - 0.56x
Nikon D7000 - 0.62x
Panasonic G2 - 0.7x
Panasonic G10 - 0.52x
Samsung NX10 - 0.57x
Olympus EP cameras with VF-2 finder - 0.57x

 

[tapesonthefloor]

It's not at all difficult to imagine.

Well, I've got a D40 beside me which, as Matus mentions, has a VF magnification of 0.53x. But it's always going to be much more "tunnel-esque" than the pure VF on the X100 because it's an SLR, right? So it's not the most fair comparison. This VF is 0.53x and TINY (relatively... I'm used to my old Canon SLRs which have picture window VFs), whereas the X100 will be 0.5x and probably pretty huge and bright.

So, agreed. It should be just fine.

And I agree with Frankie about providing Fujifilm with positive reinforcement for this new development. Any manufacturer should be applauded for innovation. I think the positive greatly outweighs the negative in this thread should Fuji decide to flip through, so I'm not too worried.

 

[semilog]

I guess the easiest is to check low-end DLSRs as these are around 0.5x (after the 1.5 crop factor for APS-C sensors and m4/3 camras):
Nikon D3100 - 0.53x
Canon 550D (T2i) - 0.58x
Pentax K-X - 0.56x
Nikon D7000 - 0.62x
Panasonic G2 - 0.7x
Panasonic G10 - 0.52x
Samsung NX10 - 0.57x
Olympus EP cameras with VF-2 finder - 0.57x

Note that all of those magnifications assume that a 50mm lens is mounted. With a 35 mounted the given magnifications are multiplied by 35/50=0.7.

Thus the D3100 with a 35mm lens mounted would be 0.53 X 0.7 = 0.37x

The X-100 will of course show a wider FOV, with more of what's outside the framelines.

 

[v_roma]

Actually, I think this may have been a communication error. I believe the 90% coverage thrown around refers to the OVF and not the EVF. The OVF has framelines and it makes no sense that these framelines would be placed at 90% of the frame. Instead, I think they meant to say that, with the OVF, you see an extra 10% around the framelines but the framelines themselves represent 100% of the image that the camera will capture. My interpretation, at least.

what it means is that you only see 90% of what will be in the picture taken. Most budget DSLR's are 95% but with a DSLR you see exactly what will be in the frame, but with X100's 10% of the picture out of the frame and factor in the inevitable parallax (which is inevitable when you don't look through the lens), i see why Fuji has gone to the trouble of including the EVF through the OVF as well.

 

[Matus]

Actually, I think this may have been a communication error. I believe the 90% coverage thrown around refers to the OVF and not the EVF. The OVF has framelines and it makes no sense that these framelines would be placed at 90% of the frame. Instead, I think they meant to say that, with the OVF, you see an extra 10% around the framelines but the framelines themselves represent 100% of the image that the camera will capture. My interpretation, at least.

Yes and no - check the http://www.finepix-x100.com/es/x100/hybrid-viewfinder - the optical viewfinder is larger than electronic, but the frame show on the optical viewfinder is smaller than the whole electronic viewfinder.

Also - the frame lines of the optical viewfinder are parallax corrected.

 

[Paul T.]

Thanks, Matus. So, for clarification, the optical viewfinde is like a Leica, or Hexar, in that the entire view shows more than is captured on the sensor, but the framelines are slightly undersized and show slightly less than is captured.

 

[Frankie]

The OVF has an optical magnification of 0.5X and is independent of the EVF. It has a horizontal FoV 33% larger than the 23mm (=35mm) frameline or ~72.5 degrees...enough for a 26mm equivalent lens at 100% coverage. [From my own photogrammetric measurements.]

All [Leica/Zeiss...] RF framelines are smaller than actual coverage...~85%; and coverage inaccurate...dependent on focal distance. [A Leica 35mm frameline is actually 40mm in coverage and offset somewhat at close focal distances.]

The X100 frameline is claimed to be tighter...at 90%. The firmware generated frameline graphics is parallax compensated [based on lens focus ring position...and can be instantly recalculated with changing focal distance] and thus also more accurate [not set at 1m...].

The EVF sees what the sensor sees...100% coverage and accurate. At 100%, the EVF view is 11% larger than the 90% OVF frameline. A graphic illustration is available in the X100 web site. The EVF is modern ground glass and much finer. [All sorts of focusing-aid ideas could be added later...via firmware updates.]

There is no [known] focusing aid for the OVF, except AF-S and AF-C.

Earlier, Brian Sweeney had thought an optical parallax-wedge [Leica RF style] could be implemented. I suggested an easier method might be to also project from the EVF a focusing patch...no hardware, no adjustments needed.

Yes, the extra-wide FoV of the OVF could support wider lenses, and if one also accepts 85~90% coverage...~24mm equivalent. The EVF will take care of itself. If longer lenses were added, a screw-in eyepiece magnifier could make the OVF frameline larger...Leica 1.25X or 1.4X style. Even Hong Kong suppliers had equivalent offerings.

 

[ebino]

so manual focus cannot be done with OVF? This is what we were afraid of...


As far as EVF is concerned, well, most of us really don't care about an EVF. Its known to make one feel nauseous, cause a headache and in some situations trigger a panic attack.

Anyway, as time passes the excitement of X100 seems to fade away.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'm not a huge fan of auto focus, but for what I'd like this camera for, I don't see a lack of good MF through the OVF to be an issue.

Just ran a roll through the Hexar AF last night...walking through a museum, taking the shots as unobtrusively as possible. Relying on AF in those situations makes sense to me. I did not want to keep my eye to the viewfinder long enough to manually focus, so I was happy to let the Hexar take over.

For slower, closer, narrow dof work, I'd want to enjoy the parallax free experience of the EVF anyway...so I don't mind that it would be the best/only way to do manual focus.

Still seems to be the best of all worlds to me.

 

[PKR]

The OVF has an optical magnification of 0.5X and is independent of the EVF. It has a horizontal FoV 33% larger than the 23mm (=35mm) frameline or ~72.5 degrees...enough for a 26mm equivalent lens at 100% coverage. [From my own photogrammetric measurements.]

All [Leica/Zeiss...] RF framelines are smaller than actual coverage...~85%; and coverage inaccurate...dependent on focal distance. [A Leica 35mm frameline is actually 40mm in coverage and offset somewhat at close focal distances.]

The X100 frameline is claimed to be tighter...at 90%. The firmware generated frameline graphics is parallax compensated [based on lens focus ring position...and can be instantly recalculated with changing focal distance] and thus also more accurate [not set a 1m...].

The EVF sees what the sensor sees...100% coverage and accurate. At 100%, the EVF view is 11% larger than the 90% OVF frameline. A graphic illustration is available in the X100 web site. The EVF is modern ground glass and much finer. [All sorts of focusing-aid ideas could be added later...via firmware updates.]

There is no focusing aid for the OVF, except AF-S and AF-C.

Earlier, Brian Sweeney had thought an optical parallax-wedge [Leica RF style] could be implemented. I suggested an easier method might be to also project from the EVF a focusing patch...no hardware, no adjustments needed.

Yes, the extra-wide FoV of the OVF could support wider lenses, and if one also accepts 85~90% coverage...~24mm equivalent. The EVF will take care of itself. If longer lenses were added, a screw-in eyepiece magnifier could make the OVF frameline larger...Leica 1.25X or 1.4X style. Even Hong Kong suppliers had equivalent offerings.

My understanding from earlier reading was that the focusing sensor (contrast system) would project a patch (heads-up display) on to the optical system? This is not new technology as you know.. but new to the camera business. I think, in manual mode, the processor would refine the focus point and confirm it visually via a display item in the window? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I want to add.. when I did design (electronics-optical) work in a large photo lab the questions were: can you do this, how much will it cost, when will it be ready for testing? Oh.. and, don't tell Kodak anything about this project!