Fuji X100 EVF will turn every picture into a dutch still life!

videogamemaker said:
I don't know anything about old rangefinders and I'm not comparing it to them. I wanted the question answered based on what Fuji has announced, and it's not obvious without extra rangefinder knowledge which I did not have as a dslr user. I was commenting on your insinuation that I haven't read their specs, else I'd understand, because I have read, and it's not till I asked here that it was made clearer.

Let's play a thought experiment, since you're sure the example is accurate. Do you really think they took all the equipment necessary out into that field with the tree, in order to take a snap of the EVF feed AND put a camera up to the viewfinder to show what it can see, to ensure total accuracy, for a website illustration? It's possible, but unlikely. It's far more likely it's an image from a camera not even the X100, with the graphics overlayed in illustrator, and a rough estimation made for FOV changes. It might still be accurate even done that way, I'm just saying I'm not going to trust it implicitly since it's unlikely it's accurate. Not because of dishonesty on the part of Fuji, but just because it's not something important enough for them to go to all the trouble of doing correctly at this point. I don't think it's vapourware at all, and I am definitely buying one, having already pre-ordered. I just wanted clarification.
Click to expand...

It is not about you.

I had a very early involvement in posting on the X100, especially in the mega thread. I have read too many silly or ignorant comments to count.

In attending school, there are pre-requisites for higher courses. In everyday photography, the same applies. Even in this thread, I read hesitations about basic RF facts of life. Sometimes, my 40 years' experience in all kinds of cameras leaked out.

As to the Fuji illustrations, I long know it was not an actual capture [through the X100 VF] because the f-stop chosen did not correlate to the distance-DoF scale. I had actually pointed that out in the mega thread.

As to the EVF view being larger than the OVF view, Fuji illustrated it correctly...matching the 90% v. 100% relationship.

In the final analysis, my bottom line for the X100 are:
  • It has all necessary manual control if and when I want it, auto if I don't.
  • It has an OVF with decent magnification and tight enough framelines than most. I would likely use it with AF-C. [And, I have long worked out how to do zone focusing if I need it, or AFL and recomposed.]
  • It has an EVF if I need super tight composition or critical focusing, etc., etc.
No cameras is exactly what I want, but the X100 comes closest to be the best walkabout camera...for me.
 
Frankie said:
As to the EVF view being larger than the OVF view, Fuji illustrated it correctly...matching the 90% v. 100% relationship.
Click to expand...

It's not just about scaling the frame down 90%, else you could scale it up 10% and have a 100% accurate frameline. there must be some reason the outer area isn't useable, and it most likely is related to the OVF distortion not matching the fov of the lens. If you just take a photo and make a selection bracket 90% of the image, it's not giving you a good example of how it works. In fact this might be the kind of thing that can only be seen in person to fully understand, as I'm sure having a close subject will make the outside-the-90% frameline area even less accurate than far landscapes.

But the way you phrased it has possibly confused me again. Do you mean that the 90% is referring to the OVF only filling 90% of the viewfinder? or does it mean that the frameline is only showing 90% of what will be projected onto the sensor. Because the latter is how I understand it, but if it's the former, then everything is hunky-dory, the OVF size is just 90% of the viewfinder, that's much better, as that means the frameline is as accurate to 100% as is possible, it's just a bit smaller than the EVF.
 
videogamemaker said:
All clear now, thanks for the information. I read that thread but for some reason the info didn't click then.

Why is the area outside the frameline unusable? What makes them unable to make the framelines larger so they are 100%? I'm not doubting it's some kind of technical limitation, I'm just curious what that is. Is it too distorted or what?
Click to expand...

Almost all RF OVF is of sufficient quality to make the margins usable. Switching framelines from 35 to 50mm in a Leica M or ZI is a similar situation.

However, there are advantages in being able to see outside of the frame...one example is anticipating actions moving toward your intended scene background.

Also, [instead of fixed corner mark offset] frameline auto-parallax compensation in better RF cameras moves the whole frame toward the taking lens [right/lower] and some room must be allowed.

Fuji could have ignored all that except in auto-parallax compensation.
 
Frankie said:
Almost all RF OVF is of sufficient quality to make the margins usable. Switching framelines from 35 to 50mm in a Leica M or ZI is a similar situation.

However, there are advantages in being able to see outside of the frame...one example is anticipating actions moving toward your intended scene background.

Also, [instead of fixed corner mark offset] frameline auto-parallax compensation in better RF cameras moves the whole frame toward the taking lens [right/lower] and some room must be allowed.

Fuji could have ignored all that except in auto-parallax compensation.
Click to expand...

But if you're only seeing outside of an arbitrary and artificially constructed frameline, it's kind of pointless. You could do that with a dslr and just use a slightly wider lens than you want (40 vs 50, 28 vs 35) and pretend only the middle area is useable.

Are you saying there is no technical reason the frameline can't be scaled up for a full 100%, and that it's only brought in so people can use it as a composition framing element?

Ooooh, I just thought of something, is it because it needs room to move for parallax correction that it needs breathing room? *edit* never mind you already said exactly that, and it didn't sink in.
 
videogamemaker said:
Ooooh, I just thought of something, is it because it needs room to move for parallax correction that it needs breathing room? *edit* never mind you already said exactly that, and it didn't sink in.
Click to expand...

THink about it. The VF is in a different place from the lens. Hence the framelines CANNOT be 100 per cent accurate. Therefore the framelines have to be slightly smaller - otherwise, not everything inside the frameline is guaranteed to be on the sensor. This is pretty much what every separate VF camera does.
 
Paul T. said:
THink about it. The VF is in a different place from the lens. Hence the framelines CANNOT be 100 per cent accurate. Therefore the framelines have to be slightly smaller - otherwise, not everything inside the frameline is guaranteed to be on the sensor. This is pretty much what every separate VF camera does.
Click to expand...

Thank you both for walking me through this. As someone who's never used an offset viewfinder like this, there were just aspects I couldn't understand till now. I appreciate the hand-holding.
 
Frankie said:
In the final analysis, my bottom line for the X100 are:
  • It has all necessary manual control if and when I want it, auto if I don't.
  • It has an OVF with decent magnification and tight enough framelines than most. I would likely use it with AF-C. [And, I have long worked out how to do zone focusing if I need it, or AFL and recomposed.]
  • It has an EVF if I need super tight composition or critical focusing, etc., etc.
No cameras is exactly what I want, but the X100 comes closest to be the best walkabout camera...for me.
Click to expand...

And for me too!
You make all good points.
 
GSNfan said:
The comments on engadget website is quite interesting. Almost all of the say its expensive at $1000 -- sadly they don't know that is 1000 Euro and the price is actually $1200.

But this was the best comment that i came across:
Click to expand...

That is pretty good seeing how even Fuji states on its website that it is not a rangefinder.

Personally, I'm chomping at the bit for this camera. It offers me several things I want, the retro styling not really being one of them. It offers aperture on the lens, a shutter dial, a viewfinder, and it weights a 1/50th what my Nikon D2Hs with the 24-70, and 70-200 weigh. Yeah it's fixed focal length, but compared to how my back feels at the end of the day, I can care less.
 
jsrockit said:
I don't use lenses longer than 50mm. 😉
Click to expand...

I believe jsrockit meant within the 135 format...this is RFF and Leica dominates. Leica is 135 format.

Whether Rollei uses 75 or 80mm focal length for the 120 format...and really a 50mm eqv. is just pedantic. Showing off that one knows a little tidbit is......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom