Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

[Frankie]

I've never used a tele-converter. When properly designed, what sort of image degradation takes place with such a converter?

There was a time third-party 2X teleconverters abound, all can double the lens focal length [meant for 50mm and longer], reduced effective aperture by 2-stops, and generally poor IQ...one might be better off sometimes by enlarging more and crop. It was a cheap solution with cheap results.

Then major manufacturers got into the act, all claimed the extenders were designed with their own lens in mind 😉.

Nikon offered 2X and 1.4X versions...I still have the 1.4X version [only takes 1-stop away]. They work very well with the lenses each version was designed for...especially lenses that were released after the converters. The results are far better than enlarge and crop...for sure.

AND much later, even Leica had to offer one for the R-lenses...as did Hasselblad, Bronica...I have one for my Bronica ETRSi.

Fuji is apparently developing these converters along with the fixed prime lens, I would therefore speculate: the X100 lens will remain fixed for some time, AND the converters would deliver decent results.

A 2X extender is all I want...I hope it will be pancake style, like the Nikon TC-14A I have. You know, camera around the neck, Extender in the pocket...don't need no stinking camera bag. 😀

 

[RayPA]

Apparently, no IS. From the article:


Fujifilm has yet to disclose any significant information regarding image stabilization. From what we could gather, the X100 will not have any kind of traditional stabilization, but will instead rely upon lens and sensor sensitivity to compensate for camera shake. Yeah, we have no idea what that means either. Is that code for: no optical stabilization; just digital stabilization?

I think what that means is that Fuji is relying on the speed of the lens and the ISO to 'stabilize' the image. 😀

/

 

[PKR]

I take it these go behind, not in front, of the lens and reduce the aperture by one stop. The converters for the Ricoh GRD2 and GRD3 that I referred to go in front of the lens, maintain the maximum aperture and have no discernable image degradation that I can see.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

Hi Mitch; When you asked about tele-converter I thought about the rear element variety used on long lenses. My (brief) experience with the front element kind are usually wide angle devices and not "tele". My little Nikon P6000, has a front element converter for a WA enhancement. So, I can't be of any help.. sorry for the confusion.

p.

 

[Spyro]

What I dont understand in that review is how the OVF can have 90% coverage and the EVF 100% (page 5)? Maybe it is the other way round, as from the photos it seems that the OVF shows more than the actual frame like an RF while the EVF shows only the actual frame? Which makes sense as the EVF sees through the lens.

I hope "peaking" or whatever manual focusing aid is available in OVF mode and you dont have to switch to EVF to focus manually.

 

[RayPA]

I hope "peaking" or whatever manual focusing aid is available in OVF mode and you dont have to switch to EVF to focus manually.

I was just wondering the same thing. It sounds like peaking would have to occur on the EVF. That would be cool if it could be superimposed over the OVF, but I'm guess the OVF will be AF only.




/

 

[PKR]

There was a time third-party 2X teleconverters abound, all can double the lens focal length [meant for 50mm and longer], reduced effective aperture by 2-stops, and generally poor IQ...one might be better off sometimes by enlarging more and crop. It was a cheap solution with cheap results.

Then major manufacturers got into the act, all claimed the extenders were designed with their own lens in mind 😉.

Nikon offered 2X and 1.4X versions...I still have the 1.4X version [only takes 1-stop away]. They work very well with the lenses each version was designed for...especially lenses that were released after the converters. The results are far better than enlarge and crop...for sure.

AND much later, even Leica had to offer one for the R-lenses...as did Hasselblad, Bronica...I have one for my Bronica ETRSi.

Fuji is apparently developing these converters along with the fixed prime lens, I would therefore speculate: the X100 lens will remain fixed for some time, AND the converters would deliver decent results.

A 2X extender is all I want...I hope it will be pancake style, like the Nikon TC-14A I have. You know, camera around the neck, Extender in the pocket...don't need no stinking camera bag. 😀

I'm confused here. I thought the lens designed for this camera was a retrofocus design? I don't know how a front element converter would work to make the lens longer. Maybe some one on here that knows about optics will explain the principle. The retrofocus formula is an Angénieux design that is very popular. It's kind of a backwards telephoto..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9nieux_retrofocus

 

[Frankie]

What I dont understand in that review is how the OVF can have 90% coverage and the EVF 100% (page 5)? Maybe it is the other way round, as from the photos it seems that the OVF shows more than the actual frame like an RF while the EVF shows only the actual frame? Which makes sense as the EVF sees through the lens.

I hope "peaking" or whatever manual focusing aid is available in OVF mode and you dont have to switch to EVF to focus manually.

The OVF is independent of the sensor in coverage and sees far wider than the 90% frameline...~20% more.

The EVF can only see what the sensor sees...naturally 100%.

When switching between them, the coverage is expanded from 90% to 100%...by 1.11X. Fuji's website has exactly that simulation. Watch the sequence through and you will see.

http://www.finepix-x100.com/x100/hybrid-viewfinder

The EVF, when not used as a VF, can also project whatever dataset onto the OVF...from frameline to histogram; perhaps also peaking.

 

[__--]

...A 2X extender is all I want...I hope it will be pancake style, like the Nikon TC-14A I have. You know, camera around the neck, Extender in the pocket...don't need no stinking camera bag.

Absolutely, but you're not distinguishing between the tube-type tele-extender that goes behind the lens and reduces maximum aperture by one stop and a converter lens that goes in front of the lens like the ones for the Ricoh GRD2 and GRD3, which maintain the maximum aperture, and which is the type that Fuji would have to make for the X100.

Here are two pictures made with the 40mm tele-converter for the GRD2 (1.4x). In a post above I mentioned that the issue with this tele-extender was frequent flaring in one of the corners: in both pictures below there was a yellow-colored flare in the lower left corner, which in B&W can easily be hidden by burning-in or applying a vignette, but which is very diffiult to deal with in color, at least with my processing skills.



Ricoh GRD2 | 40mm tele-converter | ISO 400 | f/2.4 | 1/73 sec

Ricoh GRD2 | 40mm tele-converter | ISO 800 | f/2.4 | 1/26 sec

The flare problem of this 1.4 tele-converter presumably stems from the ralatively large glass area of the converter lens that is necessary, which I think might be an even greater issue for the X100's f/2.0 lens. In contrast to this, the 21mm wide-extenders for the GRD2 and GRD3 (0.75x) have no such problem. Here is an example with the 21mm wide-converter:


Ricoh GRD3 | 21mm wide-converter | ISO 200 | f/3.2 | 1/500 sec

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

 

[Frankie]

I'm confused here. I thought the lens designed for this camera was a retrofocus design? I don't know how a front element converter would work to make the lens longer. Maybe some one on here that knows about optics will explain the principle. The retrofocus formula is an Angénieux design that is very popular. It's kind of a backwards telephoto..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angénieux_retrofocus

I don't know either.

BUT I know when you peep through a door peep-hole fisheye lens, the view is fisheye...perhaps similar magic.

 

[photophorous]

I just wonder why they went to all that trouble to create such a high-tech viewfinder when they could have just put a rangefinder in it's place. If it isn't capable of quick and accurate manual focusing, then the autofocus better be something amazing.

 

[BillBingham2]

From all the posts @ the Ricoh forum and other sites around the net I've seen Ricoh has done the wide angle add on as good if not better than anyone else has done. As Mitch mentions telephoto, not so much.

You can keep the same maximum aperture as the basic lens because you can enlarge the front element to pull in the same amount of light (very simplistic description but reasonably accurate). Converters in the rear only have the same amount of light to work with so all they can do when the enlarge the image is loose effective aperture (make the lens slower). If you match the converter to the lens front or back you can attain much better results than if you make it generic.

The EVF makes it possible to do a telephoto add-on that only uses EVF which might be very interesting.

B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

I just wonder why they went to all that trouble to create such a high-tech viewfinder when they could have just put a rangefinder in it's place. If it isn't capable of quick and accurate manual focusing, then the autofocus better be something amazing.

Their solution does not get knocked out of alignment, is easier for them to build and no one else has it!

I'm not convinced that there will not be a very interesting manual focus option. They have an interesting patent for one option that looks way cool.

B2 (;->

 

[__--]

From all the posts @ the Ricoh forum and other sites around the net I've seen Ricoh has done the wide angle add on as good if not better than anyone else has done. As Mitch mentions telephoto, not so much.

You can keep the same maximum aperture as the basic lens because you can enlarge the front element to pull in the same amount of light (very simplistic description but reasonably accurate). Converters in the rear only have the same amount of light to work with so all they can do when the enlarge the image is loose effective aperture (make the lens slower). If you match the converter to the lens front or back you can attain much better results than if you make it generic...

Very good explanation, Bill. Indeed, the front of the Ricoh wide- and tele-converters have a much larger diameter than the base lens. I'm blown away of the quality of the wide-converters. And 21mm lenses with an aperture of f/1.9 are fairly rare.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

 

[PKR]

Very good explanation, Bill. Indeed, the front of the Ricoh wide- and tele-converters have a much larger diameter than the base lens. I'm blown away of the quality of the wide-converters. And 21mm lenses with an aperture of f/1.9 are fairly rare.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

I've seen the WA adapters, do they make a tele adapter for the front element?

 

[__--]

I've seen the WA adapters, do they make a tele adapter for the front element?

See post #1201. Ricoh made a 1.4x (40mm EFOV)m tele-extender for the GRD2, which suffered from a flare problem thatfrequently appreared in one of the corners of the frame. They have not made a 40mm tele-extender for the GRD3 presumably because it would involve a realtively large chunk of glass for the f/1.9 aperture of this camera and prbably would suffer from an even worse flare problem.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Syrface

 

[__--]

90% Frame Line Coverage

90% Frame Line Coverage

I also don't understand the 90% frame line coverage. Is it that, while the frame lines move for parallax correction, they don't increase or decrease the size of the rectangle for close and far focus?

If that is the case, then for what distance is the frame line rectangle set? That is, it's 90% coverage for what focus distance? Is it 100% at another focus distance?

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

 

[semilog]

I wonder whether the 90% frameline coverage figure is simply a mistake in the specs.

 

[PKR]

See post #1201. Ricoh made a 1.4x (40mm EFOV)m tele-extender for the GRD2, which suffered from a flare problem thatfrequently appreared in one of the corners of the frame. They have not made a 40mm tele-extender for the GRD3 presumabky because it would involve a realtively large chunk of glass for the f/1.9 aperture of this camera and prbably would suffer from an even worse flare problem.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Syrface

I think it's a common design for retrofocus lenses. Here's the Nikon P6000 WA (front element) adapter.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-N...erters/25792/WC-E76-Wide-Angle-Converter.html

I think they are all big, heavy, and suffer from flare.

 

[tapesonthefloor]

I was just wondering the same thing. It sounds like peaking would have to occur on the EVF. That would be cool if it could be superimposed over the OVF, but I'm guess the OVF will be AF only.

Manual focus aids such as a high-contrast patch or the solid colour peaking of in-focus edges are definitely going to be possible on the OVF: just like shot data and framelines, the peaking coverage areas will be superimposed directly over the real-life OVF image, like a fighter jet's HUD. They wouldn't really be worth mentioning, otherwise. The article specifically mentions rangefinding distances appearing on the right side of the OVF, and it mentions the peaking display more or less in the same breath. That's the revolutionary part, really. Not that the viewfinder can switch, but that it can provide the best of both worlds simultaneously.

I'm excited; can you tell? I hope this forces the rest of the market to return to Earth a bit. Fewer in-camera pico-projectors; more viewfinders and focus aids. 😀 I want people to say: "Wow, this optical viewfinder is awesome! One wonders why they haven't been used in cameras all along!"

 

[semilog]

^----- Big +1. What Tapesonthefloor said. Even if the X100 doesn't do everything we want in iteration 1, the potential of this optical system is huge.