Fuji X100T - Rangefinder or not?

[aizan]

in rangefinders, the bottom right corner is often blocked by a lens, so i think it's a reasonable location for the live view. the middle would be weird since it can't overlap the primary view like a rangefinder spot.

the fact that we're talking about a hybrid viewfinder seems to have been forgotten in this discussion.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

A true hybrid VF would combine OVF and EVF, not merely toggle between them. We have heads-up displays in vehicles, and it may be premature to decide that a projected EVF "rangefinder patch" "can't overlap" the primary image. For me, having to look down at the corner would be close to peering through the separate rangefinder of a Barnack.

 

[archeophoto]

A true hybrid VF would combine OVF and EVF, not merely toggle between them. We have heads-up displays in vehicles, and it may be premature to decide that a projected EVF "rangefinder patch" "can't overlap" the primary image. For me, having to look down at the corner would be close to peering through the separate rangefinder of a Barnack.

And yet, a Barnack is considered a Rangefinder by pretty much everybody on here. The Fuji is not and it is cramped on this site in a subforum under "non rangefinder cameras" along with Holgas and Smart phone cams. Hmm, I wonder why this is?

Maybe the 'wrong' manufacturer is currently advancing rangefinder technology? Naaa, that's crazy!

 

[Matthew Runkel]

Or maybe becuase the X100T was annouced on September 10 and no one has seen one.

 

[Scrambler]

Many online stores and review sites divide all cameras into SLR style and Rangefinder style, based on the presence or absence of a reflex or VF hump. On that basis the X100T is a Rangefinder.

If what we are asking is "Does it have a mechanically coupled rangefinder mechanism or some form of 'ground glass' focusing, or no inbuilt focus confirmation?" then the question is meaningless.

This was what Rangefinder meant before digital, indeed up to the advent of live view interchangeable lens cameras.

For my money using a visualisation of phase detection sensors isn't really anything that yet has a name.

Rangefinder still implies optical systems so unless it spawns a lot of imitators which are judged to be functionally equivalent to optical rangefinders I don't see it.

IMHO it's a "Phasevis" camera. Or more correctly, a camera with "Phasevis" mode.

 

[FA Limited]

I believe this will happen. I can't see the right bottom as being the area that most people want this function...

.

could they not have the black patch in the middle floating in glass and project onto the middle instead? that would give a very RF experience.

 

[JohnTF]

By that silly standard, Barnack Leicas are not rangefinders.

I believe I noted something similar?

Regards, John

 

[Spicy]

A true hybrid VF would combine OVF and EVF, not merely toggle between them. We have heads-up displays in vehicles, and it may be premature to decide that a projected EVF "rangefinder patch" "can't overlap" the primary image.

there's no reason it couldn't "overlap," but even if it were made to, it would not be possible to make it coincide (viewfinder/sensor parallax -- no amount of trick engineering is going to overcome optics/physics) with the optical finder.

also, the X100T is not a mechanical-optical rangefinder.

 

[semilog]

I believe I noted something similar?

Regards, John

Indeed. A few apparently did not get the message. It seems that September is Silly Season on RFF.

 

[Scrambler]

Indeed. A few apparently did not get the message.

Or thought it meaningless? All cameras with a distance scale on the lens can be considered rangefinders by your definition. Plus any that use an active or phase detection AF system. Doesn't leave many out!

The question being posed is whether the new X100T focussing mode makes it a rangefinder. I say about as much as a CLE has a metered manual mode. In other words, no, but perhaps near enough for nearly all purposes.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I believe this will happen. I can't see the right bottom as being the area that most people want this function...

The alignment of the subject in the white focus target box and that in the corner sub-view looks really poor.

 

[Addy101]

Or thought it meaningless? All cameras with a distance scale on the lens can be considered rangefinders by your definition. Plus any that use an active or phase detection AF system. Doesn't leave many out!

You get it! If you take a broad definition of rangefinder, it is any system that measures distance, i.e. "finds the range".

However, on this site, a rangefinder is a specific form of focussing. In that sense a X100T isn't a rangefinder. Anyway, I guess Fuji has a field day because we're discussing the merits of the X100T.....

 

[Roger Hicks]

I believe I have a Pentax and an Alpa that are SLRs and have a separate rangefinder, and idea that evidently did not really catch on.

I suppose a suspenders and belt approach, though, I would suspect Roger knows the real history?

The Pentax looked so cool I had to buy it about ten minutes after it hit Igor's table.

I have a number of RF like VF cameras that zone focus, some with indicators in the finder, and actually, zone focus can work rather well, especially for the price and speed. I still used zone focus for many situations in journalism.

The Leica in my avatar has a RF, but I did not clip it on for its portrait, same with the Standard.

Regards, John

Dear John,

A Pentax with a separate rangefinder? I've never encountered that one, though of course the early Alpa rangefinder/reflex cameras are well known. I think the Model 7 with the vertical RF was the last.

Cheers,

R.

 

[willie_901]

I am puzzled by the polarization in this thread.

Since the Leica M240, the analog, optical rangefinder has become just another way to manually focus a camera with more accuracy than scale focusing.

How come SLRs eventually became more popular than rangefinders?

Besides a specific brand loyalties and preferences, what were the fundamental attributes of analog, optical rangefinders that essentially created RFF?

The answers to these two questions are no longer relevant. Technology has eliminated the need to choose. You can buy a very compact, lightweight DSLR or a digital mirrorless body, or both. You can use small lenses on the small DSLR or rather large lenses on the mirrorless body.

Technology has slowly but surely changed the landscape in with regard to how to quickly and accurately obtain focus in a camera body that has all the advantages of a classic rangefinder body.

Some of us hate that technology. People still prefer cameras without batteries.

Some of us tolerate the new technologies in order to avoid DSLRs. This is not much different than using an analog, optical rangefinder body in 1995, except the RF technology was not new.

Some of us embrace the new technologies.

Almost a dozen camera brands could market a digital body where manual focus was the first priority. But only one brand does. And now their newest model supports electronic manual focusing. The optional Leica EVF2 finder supports focus peaking, a 5X or10 X magnified view, automatic selection of magnified views and automatic image review. There is no fundamental reason the M240 could not implement contrast section AF. A body with a faster CPU and data stream, sufficient resolution (the EVF2 only has 1.4MP) and larger OLED technology the EVF would be am efficient focusing tool. The quickest EVF on the market right now has a 5 millisec. delay. How often would a 0.005 sec lag be a serious handicap?

I think the OP's question is moot.

 

[Piers]

fuji rangefinder

fuji rangefinder

By the broadest definition of "rangefinder", any camera that can automatically focus on an object, or help you to manually focus on the object, contains a rangefinder. If all cameras that contain a rangefinder (so defined) were considered to be rangefinder cameras, then SLRs would be rangefinder cameras.

Historically, everyone understood a rangefinder camera to be a manual-focus camera with a Leica-M-style split-image conicident rangefinder. Today it would make sense to include those optical-mechanical cameras and also cameras with electronic manual-focus aids that provide an analogous user interface. Whether the analogy is close enough is really up to the individual user.

I would love to see Fuji superimpose a central EFV "rangefinder patch" over the OVF, and wonder if some technical limitation or just lack of interest prevents this from happening.

I use a X100s (in the distant past used Leica IIIc, M6, Contax G1 and 2) - technically, I imagine the need to have the mechanical shutter in the VF window closed to view the EVF prevents the split image patch being available via the OVF.

BUT the OVF is very usable for manual focus, as a slight nudge on the lens mount immediately shows the magnified electronic split image for fine focussing - then a touch on the shutter release and the OVF is instantly restored. The parallax deflection of the OVF bright frame is accurate too...

In OVF manual focus mode, you can still use the one touch autofocus to get a quick fix on the subject and refine down manually, as above

 

[shadowfox]

I believe this will happen. I can't see the right bottom as being the area that most people want this function...

To me, none of these cameras will feel right manual focus wise, even with a quasi RF patch, until they make lenses that are not focus by wire. Fuji has made a few with MF clutches that are promising...but the X100t doesn't have this functionality.

(thanks for the picture, John)

That's it?
That's not even close to a digital rangefinder. I agree that the lower-right image would just be very distracting.

I thought the superimposed image would actually looks like it is out of alignment when the subject is off-focus. And it would be at the center of the frame.

Now, about the term rangefinder, to me it's very simple. If a device allow me to take a correctly-focused photo by aligning two superimposed images, it is a rangefinder camera, which is the one I like to discuss, own, drool about, and use in this forum.

I don't particularly care if it uses triangulation, or powered by running hamsters inside.

 

[archeophoto]

Sigh. No that's not it. You can mirror in the digital split screen rangefinder of the X100S.

It's funny that the most people with negative opinions on here seem to have never even touched a X100(S)

(thanks for the picture, John)

That's it?
That's not even close to a digital rangefinder. I agree that the lower-right image would just be very distracting.

I thought the superimposed image would actually looks like it is out of alignment when the subject is off-focus. And it would be at the center of the frame.

Now, about the term rangefinder, to me it's very simple. If a device allow me to take a correctly-focused photo by aligning two superimposed images, it is a rangefinder camera, which is the one I like to discuss, own, drool about, and use in this forum.

I don't particularly care if it uses triangulation, or powered by running hamsters inside.

 

[Addy101]

Sigh. No that's not it. You can mirror in the digital split screen rangefinder of the X100S.

It's funny that the most people with negative opinions on here seem to have never even touched a X100(S)

Well, that is just that, at least according to this Fuji Guys Video. According to dpreview it is the same Digital Splitscreen the X100s already had. To be honest, seeing that Fuji Guys video and reading the information on Dpreview, I'm quite underwhelmed. It is nowhere near the experience of a true rangefinder.

To be honest, I didn't have negative opinions until I saw how it was implemented. It surely isn't a rangefinder.

 

[archeophoto]

Well, that is just that, at least according to this Fuji Guys Video. According to dpreview it is the same Digital Splitscreen the X100s already had. To be honest, seeing that Fuji Guys video and reading the information on Dpreview, I'm quite underwhelmed. It is nowhere near the experience of a true rangefinder.

To be honest, I didn't have negative opinions until I saw how it was implemented. It surely isn't a rangefinder.

To me it is. You have to keep in mind that the digital rangefinder is implemented in addition to a pretty good AF system, others can't even dream of. Such a combination of optical viewfinder, AF and rangefinder manual focusing is unique. There is nothing on the market that comes even close.

I know some people are stuck in the past and will be forever, but I know good technology when I see it. This is very promising and I think it deserves credit. At least they are trying something new and don't want to brain wash us to believe technology should be reverted to the 1950s.

 

[Scrambler]

To me it is. You have to keep in mind that the digital rangefinder is implemented in addition to a pretty good AF system, others can't even dream of. Such a combination of optical viewfinder, AF and rangefinder manual focusing is unique. There is nothing on the market that comes even close. I know some people are stuck in the past and will be forever, but I know good technology when I see it. This is very promising and I think it deserves credit. At least they are trying something new and don't want to brain wash us to believe technology should be reverted to the 1950s.

I applaud Fuji for implementing the true hybrid VF.

Still, I am long in the tooth and can remember the same question being asked about the X100. The consensus seems to be that the original is not a RF. Time ( and use) will lead to consensus on the T.