Fuji X100T - Rangefinder or not?

[froyd]

Electronic rangefinder, but a rangefinder nonetheless -by definition and by function. Fuji does indeed refer to it as such.

I don't understand where the Fuji gets its second distance reading: one is through the lens, via the sensor...and the other?

 

[btgc]

Rangefinder? Camera employing RF as a main mean to focus lens besides distance scale. Triangulated AF system? It's AF camera, no matter how distance is computed there.

Do you call instant coffee a coffee? Lots of people love it and consider it to be same as coffee, just quicker to prepare. To me this looks like this.

 

[jsrockit]

Rangefinder? Camera employing RF as a main mean to focus lens besides distance scale.

So, if someone buys a M240 and only uses it with the LCD or EVF, then it is no longer a rangefinder? Ok, that's pushing it and I get what you are saying, but the X100T appears to implement this electronic RF style patch that could be comfortable for those of us who are used to RF patches. Sure, it is an AF camera first, but its inclusion of a manual focus mode, an OVF, and this new focusing aid shows that Fuji is trying to cater to rangefinder fans.

 

[semilog]

It is a viewfinder, not a rangefinder.

A rangefinder is a device that determines the range or distance to a target.

Such a device need not use trigonometry. Leica Geosystems, for example, makes laser rangefinders that find range by using time-of-flight, or interferometry (phase detection), not by trigonometry. Guess what: they're still rangefinders.

The X100T is a window camera that determines subject range. It's a rangefinder. Certainly it's much more of a rangefinder than these cameras mentioned by John:

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.

Seems some here want to butcher the language simply so that they can try to prevent certain modern cameras from being called rangefinders.

It's a weird conceit.

 

[burancap]

Let us keep in mind that rangefinding does exist outside of photography and that classic optical, or coincident rangefinding, is but one increasingly smaller subset of rangefinding.

As much as we love our optical devices -camera or otherwise, one day they will be regarded in the same breath as an astrolabe ... and rangefinding will still exist.

 

[semilog]

Precisely so:

Let us keep in mind that rangefinding does exist outside of photography and that classic optical, or coincident rangefinding, is but one increasingly smaller subset of rangefinding.

As much as we love our optical devices -camera or otherwise, one day they will be regarded in the same breath as an astrolabe ... and rangefinding will still exist.

 

[archeophoto]

Seems some here want to butcher the language simply so that they can try to prevent certain modern cameras from being called rangefinders.

It's a weird conceit.

Thank you! This is exactly what I think. The real innovations are being pushed to some niche subforums on here. Sad.

 

[judsonzhao]

Certainly not, the viewfinder is not used as a range-finder
Even Contax G2 is not a rangefinder camera is you are going to be seriously strict.

 

[semilog]

By that silly standard, Barnack Leicas are not rangefinders.

Certainly not, the viewfinder is not used as a range-finder
Even Contax G2 is not a rangefinder camera is you are going to be seriously strict.

 

[archeophoto]

Now the Viewfinder has to be used as a "rangefinder". Interesting. So by your definition Barnack Leicas are no Rangefinders.

Certainly not, the viewfinder is not used as a range-finder
Even Contax G2 is not a rangefinder camera is you are going to be seriously strict.

 

[semilog]

I don't understand where the Fuji gets its second distance reading: one is through the lens, via the sensor...and the other?

As I and others have said elsewhere in this thread: a rangefinder need not operate by triangulation (trogonometry). Commercial rangefinders, including those sold by Leica Geosystems, use other methods measure the distance to a target.

These include but are not limited to active and passive systems that employ phase detection or interferometry, and time-of-flight. The latter methods are in many cases more reliable, precise, accurate, light, and tough than mechanical trigonometric rangefinders such as those used in, say, my Minolta CLE.

 

[Lss]

Any device that determines the distance between a target and an observer is a rangefinder. Not all cameras that have such a functionality have traditionally been called rangefinder cameras. It's not a badge of honour, it's a description of how the camera works.

Without actually trying the X100T out, it does not seem there is much harm in calling it an electronic rangefinder camera. This assumes the user experience is similar to (not necessarily in all aspects as good as or the same as) a traditional rangefinder camera. It appears it could be quite similar in many ways, although at least in the regular mode it will lack the ability to judge how much the focus is off and in which direction as easily as on a traditional rangefinder camera. Also, if stopping down affects focusing, the experience is even conceptually rather different.

 

[btgc]

I just don't really get why someone who likes his camera would want to associate it with technology from past, nowadays almost gone. Yes, principle is still used, implemented differently, but main point is pattern of usage. Old mechanical RFs had no other means of focusing. AF cameras have. Nowadays RF's mean something cool because some remarkable pictures were made using this type of cameras. Can AF cameras used spontaneously and still get great pictures? Sure they can. If this helps to take great pictures then I vote for calling X100T a rangefinder. Can GR be called scale focus or P&S because of preset distance? Yes! Anything that helps to accomplish the task, is goodness.

 

[jsrockit]

I just don't really get why someone who likes his camera would want to associate it with technology from past, nowadays almost gone.

The name of the site and the amount of manual focus M lenses still in use here should offer a clue as to why...

The X100t is interesting to many because we assume that this technology will be in the X-Pro2 and this will allow the use of M lenses with a semi-familiar focusing method. Not everyone wants to shell out the cash for a digital leica M.

 

[judsonzhao]

Now the Viewfinder has to be used as a "rangefinder". Interesting. So by your definition Barnack Leicas are no Rangefinders.

Leica II is the 1st Leica camera with build in rangefinder

 

[judsonzhao]

By that silly standard, Barnack Leicas are not rangefinders.

So what is your brilliant standard?
Also regarding Barnack camera, see reply above

 

[judsonzhao]

From Wiki:

"The first rangefinders, sometimes called "telemeters", appeared in the twentieth century; the first rangefinder camera to be marketed was the 3A Kodak Autographic Special of 1916; the rangefinder was coupled.

Not itself a rangefinder camera, the Leica I of 1925 had popularized the use of accessory rangefinders. "

Also From Leica Camera, this is how they describe Ur-Leica;

"The construction of the first, fully functional prototype of a revolutionary new still picture camera for 35 mm perforated film was completed by Oskar Barnack in March 1914."

 

[Matthew Runkel]

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.

 

[emayoh]

It's a good and valid question. I'd say it comes closer than just about any other digital camera to the elan, spirit, and vibe of what is widely associated with the emotional term "rangefinder." Those who take no pleasure in the nuances of language and the soul and history of words may not see the point in investigating the distinction, and so one wonders why they are moved to comment on the topic.

 

[jsrockit]

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 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.