and it will be discussed again in a future thread a few weeks from now.
None of us are new to the X100... but we love the idea so much that we will just keep regurgitating the same info over and over.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
and it will be discussed again in a future thread a few weeks from now.
None of us are new to the X100... but we love the idea so much that we will just keep regurgitating the same info over and over.
Discussion is health, dogma is not.
Reading up on what was said or already known is useful.
And, if not interested, silence is golden.
GSNfan
Well-known
The spec sheet says X100 OVF has 90% coverage, but looking at some of the videos from CES it seems there is ample space around the 35mm frame line in OVF... Why not make use of that space and expand the coverage to at least 95%? after all isn't 90% coverage of 35mm, 40mm?
videogamemaker
Well-known
Can someone elaborate on this? When a DSLR says 90%, it means there is a further 10% you just don't get to see in the viewfinder. But with a frame line, doesn't that mean you are seeing the last 10% outside the frameline? Why project it at all then? I don't really understand this technical specification. What is being shown inside the frameline? Are you seeing 100% of the image that will be captured if you pay attention to the entire viewfinder?
GSNfan
Well-known
90% means, you see 90% of what the lens sees.
GSNfan
Well-known
Exactly, why a 90% frame line when there is a lot of space around that frame line?
videogamemaker
Well-known
I'd love for someone who knows for certain to chime in, but could it be that only what fits inside the frameline is accurate as to what will look like what the lens captures? that the OVF and it's optical formula distorts or goes much too wide in the portion outside of the frame line? So what's inside the line is 90% the final image fov, and totally accurate, but what is outside may or may not be what the final 10% looks like through the actual lens and projected on the sensor.
Still, if that's how it works, basically means people are going to either 1. use the frame lines and always crop, making it more like a 10mp sensor than a 12, or 2. ignore the frameline and use the whole ovf and hope the stuff outside the framelines gets recorded. (or of course 3. use the evf and see 100%, but I'm meaning for those who prefer an OVF)
Has there been a rangefinder in the past with less than 100% coverage, similar to the X100?
Paul T.
Veteran
We've been over this before.
THe framelines can never be completely accurate, primarily due to parallax, which you can minimise with moving/shrinking framelines, but not eliminate, with a VF camera. 90 per cent gives a margin for error, and you will get slightly more on the sensor than you get in the framelines.
Most/all of them, for the reasons stated above.
GSNfan
Well-known
In the case of other RF cameras, its usually the magnification that is important, I don't think there has been any talk of actual frame line coverage, because its assumed a given for it to be 100%.
GSNfan
Well-known
Its not about the accuracy of the frame line, its about the actual coverage inside that frame line. The rectangle that we see in the OVF of X100, if that is 90% of the 35mm focal length then in fact that frame line is close to a 40mm focal length.
Maybe Fuji needs to make it clear what they actually mean by 90% coverage for the OVF. It cannot be all of the OVF because of the space visible outside the actual frame line, if its the frame line itself then that would be a bummer.
videogamemaker
Well-known
Ok, here is a question then, let's say you used a Hexar AF, or an RF of any flavor but with a single lens affixed for most of your shooting; Do you eventually get good at guessing what will be included at different distances? or is it always, oh more will make it in so make sure the important stuff at least falls inside the framelines.
I'm just trying to figure out how you work around this outside of just always cropping. I guess I would do it just like my 5D where I only have 96% coverage, and I let the important stuff just touch the viewfinder, knowing they will make it in once the full 100% hits the sensor.
I'm just trying to figure out how you work around this outside of just always cropping. I guess I would do it just like my 5D where I only have 96% coverage, and I let the important stuff just touch the viewfinder, knowing they will make it in once the full 100% hits the sensor.
Spyro
Well-known
some people eventually get good at it,
others accept it as one of the prices you pay for using the camera you want,
others are so conscious of all the other important mistakes they make that a 10% frame inaccuracy is the least of their worries.
I'm in the 3rd category. I cant speak for others but I cant remember a photo I had to delete because of framing inaccuracy. I did however had to delete a few because of the difference in viewing angle between VF and lens, eg I do a portrait of somebody, the background looks clean in the VF but in the actual photo there is a tree growing out of their head. Through the VF it was hiding behind the head. I reckon the x100 will be great help in that area, being able to quickly check with the flick of a switch what the lens actually sees.
others accept it as one of the prices you pay for using the camera you want,
others are so conscious of all the other important mistakes they make that a 10% frame inaccuracy is the least of their worries.
I'm in the 3rd category. I cant speak for others but I cant remember a photo I had to delete because of framing inaccuracy. I did however had to delete a few because of the difference in viewing angle between VF and lens, eg I do a portrait of somebody, the background looks clean in the VF but in the actual photo there is a tree growing out of their head. Through the VF it was hiding behind the head. I reckon the x100 will be great help in that area, being able to quickly check with the flick of a switch what the lens actually sees.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
You might get an argument from people who use Leica Ms as to how accurate frame lines are as to what they actually cover. I don't believe framelines are %100 accurate on most RF cameras. In most cases they are close enough though.
Bob
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The X100 VF has a larger FoV [almost a 26mm equivalent] than the taking lens, enough to provide margins. [This is also the case with some RF cameras, from Leica's to Bessa's...an equivalent situation when using a 50mm on an M6.]
The X100 taking lens frameline is a rectangular graphic projected onto the OVF...said to be 90% of its actual coverage. [A Leica M uses illuminated edge framlines, with only 85% coverage at best.]
The VF framlines shifts toward the taking lens in closer focusing...compensating for view parallax; so is in the X100 and most RF cameras. [Some RF cameras only provide shifted frame corner markings.]
[BTW, most SLR's, except Nikon F, F2..., do not provide 100% coverage either. What is not seen in the VF is not seen at all until after the film is processed. Manufacturers like to excuse themselves by saying its VF coverage matches a cardboard slide mount......]
I modified the lens mount in my CV 40/1.4 to bring up the 35mm frameline, which is now very accurate in my ZI...at infinity.
A simple and most reliable way to check all that is to place a piece of matte film or ground glass on the guide rails, set shutter at B, and compare what is imaged on the matte film and seen in VF. [This method can also be used to check lens hood cut off......]
Meanwhile, the X100 EVF sees exactly what the sensor sees, and 100% accurate. In fact, if you compare the OVF to EVF views in Fuji's web site...you know that lone tree view...you will find the EVF view ~11% larger than the OVF in coverage and spilled over to the fixed-position graphic [EV compensation on the left, and distance scale in the bottom.]
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/x100/hybrid-viewfinder
I am simply surprised that many never seem to have read and thought about what Fuji has to say...but opinions abound.
The X100 taking lens frameline is a rectangular graphic projected onto the OVF...said to be 90% of its actual coverage. [A Leica M uses illuminated edge framlines, with only 85% coverage at best.]
The VF framlines shifts toward the taking lens in closer focusing...compensating for view parallax; so is in the X100 and most RF cameras. [Some RF cameras only provide shifted frame corner markings.]
[BTW, most SLR's, except Nikon F, F2..., do not provide 100% coverage either. What is not seen in the VF is not seen at all until after the film is processed. Manufacturers like to excuse themselves by saying its VF coverage matches a cardboard slide mount......]
I modified the lens mount in my CV 40/1.4 to bring up the 35mm frameline, which is now very accurate in my ZI...at infinity.
A simple and most reliable way to check all that is to place a piece of matte film or ground glass on the guide rails, set shutter at B, and compare what is imaged on the matte film and seen in VF. [This method can also be used to check lens hood cut off......]
Meanwhile, the X100 EVF sees exactly what the sensor sees, and 100% accurate. In fact, if you compare the OVF to EVF views in Fuji's web site...you know that lone tree view...you will find the EVF view ~11% larger than the OVF in coverage and spilled over to the fixed-position graphic [EV compensation on the left, and distance scale in the bottom.]
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/x100/hybrid-viewfinder
I am simply surprised that many never seem to have read and thought about what Fuji has to say...but opinions abound.
Last edited:
le vrai rdu
Well-known
There is to my point of view nothing wrong with this camera, don't care about DOF because I sometime prefer to have more than less. This could be the perfect street camera for my needs, my only concern is the finder size, I really want to see how it is IRL.
COncerning the RF or not RF, well as long as it find the range, it is a rangefinder maybe not a coincidence rangefinder but I don't care, my contax G2 act the same way and it is quite okay, I don't really miss my bessa
COncerning the RF or not RF, well as long as it find the range, it is a rangefinder
maybe not a coincidence rangefinder but I don't care, my contax G2 act the same way and it is quite okay, I don't really miss my bessa
Last edited:
videogamemaker
Well-known
As for the 2nd part I quoted, I've read everything Fuji has had to say, but it doesn't clearly explain the idea of a 90% framelined viewfinder to someone who doesn't already know everything about rangefinders and how they work.
As for the first part I quoted, yes that does help explain how the frame lines can't be widened without accuracy declining... sort of...
Obviously we can do all kinds of checks with how it works once the camera is out, but it's highly likely initial shipments will be sold out to pre-orders, and many of us want one of these first shipments, so we have to make up our minds beforehand with only released specs.
As for checking their simulated EVF vs OVF, please, the likelihood those are 100% accurate to the differences in the real OVF vs EVF is almost nil. They are almost definitely mock-ups, and the relationship between views and angle is not worth noting. I believe within reason almost everything they've released, but I just don't think that portion of the website (the animated gif of the viewfinder changes) had that much accuracy poured into it for the website.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Speculate for all you're worth guys - the answers will soon be apparent. Just a few more weeks when all will be revealed and there will, I predict, be howls of outrage from those who feel that Fuji have failed to provide their pet key feature that would have resulted in an immediate sale - oh, and provided the price is under $500 too!
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
In these RFF, experts are everywhere about everything in RF. Often, my common sense observations are contradicted on the tiniest of points or plain dogma. I wonder where they are now on the X100...maybe none are interested just because it ain't RF their way.
RF aficionados celebrate their beloved VF has extra margin for them to see beyond the frame...anticipate actions, etc., etc. All Fuji did was provide the same, perhaps better. As to 85% v. 90%, neither is 100%. Yet no one ever question the ancient 1954 Leica M VF/RF design.
Fuji is not a fly-by-night company. They publish what they intended to do or had actually done. Whether the OVF and EVF views are actual captures or graphic illustration can be trusted on that basis. Yet many adopt the attitude of "I'll believe it when I see it", as if Fuji is selling a hoax. Some outright call it vapourware...
My greatest joy will soon be reading all such critics eat crow.
GSNfan
Well-known
Preorder and trust the spec sheet because initially it will all be sold out.
So, that is your objective, getting us to preorder X100?
videogamemaker
Well-known
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.
Not at all. That is just my worry, especially at the low levels it will be ordered here in Iceland, and that's if any of the initial shipment arrive here at all. I just want the question answered for my personal decision making. Does this mean I can question your negative comments about passing on purchasing as trying to influence people not to buy?