Paul T.
Veteran
If we're playing guessing games, that's what I think is most likely: the option of magnified digital image overlaid onto the optical finder view.
Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm
- Thread starter jbielikowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 226K
If we're playing guessing games, that's what I think is most likely: the option of magnified digital image overlaid onto the optical finder view.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
igi
Well-known
Arjay
Time Traveller
Oh c'mon folks - get over it. This is a digital camera, and BW conversion as well as film simulation can be done much better and with much more control using image editors. It just doesn't make sense to pretend you can stay in analogland with this camera.
This camera will build a bridge for all those who couldn't warm up to digital in the past. However, that doesn't mean they will be able to continue ignoring digital.
Sure, you might miss strange smells and messing around in the dark 😉 , but digital is by no means synonymous with the end of art.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
Keep in mind that to have an EVF patch with full dynamic range superimposed on an OVF, you'll actually need to mask a portion of the OVF.
The reason Fuji is able to superimpose bright objects on the OVF is because the EVF is a light source, and high-intensity projections will be enough to compete with the varying amounts of light streaming in from the OVF. We don't know yet how even the framelines will look when competing with direct sunlight.
The EVF will not, however, be able to project dark objects onto the OVF, therefore a true full dynamic range (black through white) "zoom patch" is impossible based on what we know. A high-contrast funny-looking-but-usable bright-colours-only zoom patch is possible. A bright-colour peaking indicator is possible, too. Aaaaand—
...it's time to go home, so I'll stop rambling. BYEEE
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Between concept and final release, there is a quite a lot of work in software development. I know...having managed a team of specialists for 20 years.
My most recent project was actually implementing a parallax-wedge in reverse...with all sort of vector graphics superimposed. I have some idea of the issues to overcome.
My most recent project was actually implementing a parallax-wedge in reverse...with all sort of vector graphics superimposed. I have some idea of the issues to overcome.
I want my superimposed patch to look like a the "F" (large microprism) screen for my Nikon F. Just keep the magnification matched to the OVF, focus the "virtual Microprism Patch" on top of the OVF, done. It will look a lot like the older Leicaflex Bullseye screen. Aerial viewing with center focus patch.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Maybe there is a new business doing App's for the X100. 😀
__--
Well-known
Knock yourself out, mate! I'm sure there's going to be a fortune in it: you can become another Zuckerman, although perhaps a bit superannuated.
—Mitch/Paris
Scratching the Surface
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Dear Mr. Non-sequitor:
It would be so helpful if you'd respond to what I actually wrote, and not what I did not write.
v_roma
Well-known
This is actually something that had occurred to me as well. How do you project a digital EVF "box" onto the OVF and make it clear enough to be usable, particularly in direct sunlight? Seems like a challenge to me though I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the specifics of the technology involved in hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinders 🙂
One other potential solution for manual focusing would be for the OVF to automatically switch to the EVF on "manual focus mode" when you turn the focus ring and then automatically revert back to the OVF when you're done. Depending on how fast the camera can switch between OVF and EVF, this seems to me like the easiest thing to implement out of everything that's been discussed. Of course, it would be more of a workaround than true manual focusing with the OVF.
One other potential solution for manual focusing would be for the OVF to automatically switch to the EVF on "manual focus mode" when you turn the focus ring and then automatically revert back to the OVF when you're done. Depending on how fast the camera can switch between OVF and EVF, this seems to me like the easiest thing to implement out of everything that's been discussed. Of course, it would be more of a workaround than true manual focusing with the OVF.
ebino
Well-known
this is how manual focus through OVF will work. you focus with the focus ring on the lens and when you lock in you'll hear a beep.
so if you're trying to be spot on you'll hear many beep, beep, beep until the final beep and then you press the shutter.
Easy, simply. lol
so if you're trying to be spot on you'll hear many beep, beep, beep until the final beep and then you press the shutter.
Easy, simply. lol
Arjay
Time Traveller
Point taken, then I will spell it out in other words:
Built-in film emulation modes IMHO aren't anything new, and somehow defeat the purpose of a digital camera, because these are simply JPG image file output modes. Anyone seriously using a digital camera will do his/her post-processing based on raw files.
This feature in my eyes is nothing else than a bridge for people that are new to the digital side of photography - i.e. that's a marketing feature.
The real innovation in this camera is elsewhere: the hybrid VF, and probably yet undisclosed details in lens , sensor and shutter design.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
First of all, you are drawing a false dichotomy between what's innovative and what's useful. Secondly, there can be good reasons to shoot JPEG or (as I often do) RAW+JPEG. Not the least of which is that life is short, and I don't need to spend more time on post than I already spend.
Moreover, for high-ISO shooting, in-camera JPEG has at least the potential to correct a sensor's output pixel-by-pixel, providing better noise suppression (because it's tailored to the specific sensor in one specific camera) than any generic post- camera RAW developer.
The better JPEG engines get it right enough of the time that little or no RAW processing is needed. The same is true of film filters. And I guarantee you that for a starting point, Fuji's profiles are going to get you closer to the look of Provia or Neopan 1600 than your own filters, unless you put in a LOT of work in post.
Obviously, some images demand RAW, especially when you blow the exposure or the scene's DR or WB is wonky.
Whether these features are useful or not depends NOT on whether you are "serious" or not (whatever that actually means), but rather on what your specific goals are for a given project.
Last edited by a moderator:
ebino
Well-known
You make Ken Rockwell proud.
Last edited by a moderator:
Z
zumbido
Guest
He is exactly correct on every point, regardless of the Ken Rockwell remark. Where exactly do you think he's wrong? Is he incorrect about life being short? Possibly you're immortal, and enjoy spending hours tweaking a RAW file to get it to a state that nobody will (positively) distinguish from a JPEG? 😉
v_roma
Well-known
Not sure if you were joking but, if you were still relying on the camera's autofocus system to tell you when to stop turning the ring, what would be the point of a manual focus option in the first place. You would just use the autofocus. Plus, "peaking" as been reported as an aid to manual focus, which would not be necessary if the "manual" focus worked in the way that you described it.
BillBingham2
Registered User
From my perspective why would you want to make a camera more complicated than you need to? More to test and tweak, means more money and more time to market.
I've always been a proponent of having the camera just shovel the RAW file to the card and let me do the rest on my computer. While I would prefer a smaller LCD specific to control and communication (e.g. histogram) to help reduce cost but I'm fine with the big honkers that are in place today. Having the camera create a JPG is OK, but there are people who want to twiddle with bits. I know for most of my pictures I am very happy with JPGs from my cameras, but on my REALLY good ones I would love the ability to work with RAW (though I do not today). I'm OK with machine prints for most of my stuff, but when I want to make something big it's by hand so I can burn and dodge as I like.
B2 (;->
I've always been a proponent of having the camera just shovel the RAW file to the card and let me do the rest on my computer. While I would prefer a smaller LCD specific to control and communication (e.g. histogram) to help reduce cost but I'm fine with the big honkers that are in place today. Having the camera create a JPG is OK, but there are people who want to twiddle with bits. I know for most of my pictures I am very happy with JPGs from my cameras, but on my REALLY good ones I would love the ability to work with RAW (though I do not today). I'm OK with machine prints for most of my stuff, but when I want to make something big it's by hand so I can burn and dodge as I like.
B2 (;->
Arjay
Time Traveller
Ok, I will try to be more polite than you are:
I enjoy reading this thread because most of the users here draw a fine line between what this camera probably does exactly like other cameras, and what's really new in this camera.
The JPEG engine as a feature is nothing revolutionary, and will only exhibit evolutionary changes as compared to the same function on other cameras. High-ISO JPG rendering is mostly noise suppression, generally at the expense of image resolution. Since good noise suppression algorithms are very cpu-intensive, in-camera NR will always be a compromise between available compute time and acceptable quality loss. I have yet to see a digital camera whose internal noise suppression is more powerful than any external, well configured PC/Mac-based software (I'm referring to dedicated tools or PS plugins).
Another aspect in a JPG engine is DR: Raw files are recording the sensor's true DR, whereas a conversion to JGPG inherently is connected with clipping. Where shall the clipping be performed, in the highlights or the shadows? Only the photographer can decide that. A one-size-fits-all software can only apply one generic tonality compression curve (I know this problem ad nauseam from my Nikon DSLR).
JPG engines, IMO are only a 'last resort' for those that don't have enough time to process raw files. To claim they can be superior to manual processing is courageous. I admit, however, that Fuji has offered one of the best JPG engines on the market in its previous products.
I followed your link on the same issue, and there are, however two important caveats: (1) One needs to be sure that the camera is precisely nailing the exposure. As a fact, we don't know yet how good the X100's metering system and its metering pattern will be. (2) Direct work into JPG files assumes that image contrast won't be excessive. Especially for those who might be new to digital, the reduced contrast range of a digital image can be a shocking realization: Film is still capable of reproducing a wider contrast range. So, if good shadow detail and smooth highlights are needed in a high-contrast scene, manual post-processing is probably unavoidable.
Film filters (I assume you mean something like a pre-set bw conversion for Tri-X, Neopan etc.): In addition to a specific luminance-based (bw) gradation curve, all these films have a specific spectral sensitivity curve that locks a converted color image into a certain 'color interpretation'. Since the camera will never be able to guess the photographer's interpretation, it can by definition never be better than a manually set bw conversion.
Color film filters: That's a touchy subject and very much a question of taste. I have played a lot with the equivalent sets of settings on Nikon's DSLRs, and most of the time, results will be exaggerated, limiting any subsequent post-processing. I know many photographers who disabled functions like these after the first few days of using their new camera.
Just as wet lab competence is a matter of course for seasoned analog photographers, digital 'light room' post-processing with its specific competences will still be required.
Maybe normal JPG engines do indeed fit the bill for your applications, they don't for my idea of post-processing, and that's probably why this issue has a higher priority for me. YMMV.
Last edited:
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Fuji actually had said the camera supports 49-point metering...but I have not read however-many point in auto-focusing.
Meanwhile, many images had been published showing little rectangles all over the VF...presumable auto-focus points selected?
Also, the camera supports AEL/AFL. That normally means you can select your focal point and lock it, recompose and shoot...pretty standard MO.
In terms of auto-EVF switching, there are two small hooded windows on the right side of the VF ocular. Similar device [sensor] was used in u4/3 camera for switching on the EVF if the user raise the camera to the eye rather than practicing arms-length shooting. We don't know what those two windows are for yet. [I am pretty sure the left side wheel is for diopter adjustment, also commonly found in other EVF.]
Manual focusing aid need not beep. We are supposed to use our eye...presumable better than the camera's CPU. If you can't decide except when hearing a beep anyway, then let the camera do its thing...what is the difference?
Meanwhile, many images had been published showing little rectangles all over the VF...presumable auto-focus points selected?
Also, the camera supports AEL/AFL. That normally means you can select your focal point and lock it, recompose and shoot...pretty standard MO.
In terms of auto-EVF switching, there are two small hooded windows on the right side of the VF ocular. Similar device [sensor] was used in u4/3 camera
Manual focusing aid need not beep. We are supposed to use our eye...presumable better than the camera's CPU. If you can't decide except when hearing a beep anyway, then let the camera do its thing...what is the difference?