Fuji X100T - Rangefinder or not?

archeophoto

archeophoto

I love 1950's quality
Local time
4:29 PM
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
252
Hi all,

The new digital Rangefinder function mirrored in the optical viewfinder of the Fuji X100T gives the camera pretty much full manual focus rangefinder capabilities.

So is the X100T considered a rangefinder or not?

What's your opinion?
 
Hopefully this doesn't sidetrack the conversation, but how was the manual focus of the earlier models? I would think that'd be a pretty essential aspect of the feature, regardless of the name ;).
 
It's a window-viewfinder camera that can determine the subject's range. Although the mechanism of range finding is not classical image-overlap parallax, it would be nonsensical to say that it's not a rangefinder.
 
I haven't used the x100t, but the videos showing the hybrid VF make the unit seem less than ideal. I would imagine one focusing on the tiny window in the corner rather than the rest of the frame. I like a rangefinder because I can really nail focus without distancing myself from the rest of a composition. That said, the HVF is a game changer an I can't wait to try it.
 
aizan said:
no, but why does it matter if you call it a rangefinder or not?
Click to expand...

How is it not a digital / electronic rangefinder?

x100t_3_amended-288x480.jpg


If the question was... is it a mechanical rangefinder, then the answer is no
 
It is a viewfinder, not a rangefinder. You may call it a digital rangefinder, but that is a misnomer. BTW the image on the EVF ("V" for "viewfinder) is an electronic representation of what the sensor sees. That "Electronic rangefinder" graphic does not depict a rangefinder. A rangefinder has two windows separated by enough distance to determine distance by triangulation. Maybe the electronic version uses a somewhat similar principle, but it is far fetched to call it a rangefinder.

Bottom line is, who cares..? What matters is that it works. I love my Leicas and my X100S. I couldn't care less what the focusing system is called as long as I can focus properly. The combination of EVF and OVF is great. Though I use the OVF 90% of the time, when I need the EVF, I m happy that it's there. They both work just fine. I use my X100S in the same manner as my M4-P and M2. The Leicas just require a bit of forethought.

Gil.
 
It is a rangefinder, just like a splitscreen is a rangefinder - a different device for measuring. But if we don't consider a splitscreen a rangefinder, why would we consider this to be one?

But it is an irrelevant question. If you like usning it, use, if you don't, don't.
 
gilgsn said:
Bottom line is, who cares..?

Gil.
Click to expand...

Cameras are my hobby, that's why I care.
The people who operate this forum seem to care. There are different forum sections and under "Digital rangefinder Cameras" are only two camera makers.
I find it interesting how cameras are sorted in different sections.
 
Cameras are my hobby, that's why I care.
The people who operate this forum seem to care. There are different forum sections and under "Digital rangefinder Cameras" are only two camera makers.
I find it interesting how cameras are sorted in different sections.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand. To me it just doesn't matter. My concern is primarily improving my composition. A camera with a window in the corner seems to help, so that's what I use. I call it a viewfinder on the X100S and a rangefinder on the Leicas. Fuji calls it a viewfinder. They designed it, they know.

Gil.
 
jsrockit said:
How is it not a digital / electronic rangefinder? If the question was... is it a mechanical rangefinder, then the answer is no
Click to expand...
It's a strange method of focusing. You focus in a corner a selected zone that is in another place of the viewfinder. Diplopy is a risk.😉 may be the practise will help.
 
Electronic rangefinder, but a rangefinder nonetheless -by definition and by function. Fuji does indeed refer to it as such.
 
The X100 I was one of the worst cameras I have owned. Menu from _ _ _ _, autofocus fair at best, manual focus almost impossible. I am sure the T will be much better, but for me it's not a "true" rangefinder camera.

Peace
 
A lot of people disagree with you on the X100, but that's not what my question was. What is a "true rangefinder camera" for you?

DCB said:
The X100 I was one of the worst cameras I have owned. Menu from _ _ _ _, autofocus fair at best, manual focus almost impossible. I am sure the T will be much better, but for me it's not a "true" rangefinder camera.

Peace
Click to expand...
 
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
 
My OM-10 is also rangefinder, because it has two images in the middle of VF and I have to put them together to have it in focus. Moderators, please, move OM-10 to rangefinders!
 
Ko.Fe. said:
My OM-10 is also rangefinder, because it has two images in the middle of VF and I have to put them together to have it in focus. Moderators, please, move OM-10 to rangefinders!
Click to expand...

You damn well know the difference here... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom