burancap
Veteran
Following is the X100S finder. Skip to 1:12 if you are as impatient as some of these posts...
http://youtu.be/H6a7_NNP-t8
http://youtu.be/H6a7_NNP-t8
Lss
Well-known
I have tried the X100s split-image focusing a couple of times, but must admit I concentrated on evaluating the easiness and speed of acquiring focus. How usable is it in judging the degree (distance) of being out of focus? It looks very messy when the deviation is larger, but should do quite well at least when being close to focus, am I right? Just how close is close?
Alberti
Well-known
If I am correct, you focus through a window with screens in front of it (these are not artifacts of the finder.). It is interesting the split screen system still works.
I (that is: my wife) has a X100. Lovely machine, and because I have a Leica, it is easy to understand "why it misses" sometimes: it is just the parallax. In the EVF this is of course presented correctly as your video shows. Consequently when in EVF, I always use MF myself. And I often go MF below 1 meter.
Piers
Newbie
Interesting link - thank you - but does not demonstrate the really valuable X100s manual assist set-up that instantly enters a magnified live view (EVF) image of the digital split-screen while working in the OVF as you rotate the lens focus ring. This allows precision focusing and instant return to OVF on touching the shutter release...
willie_901
Veteran
The X-Series split-screen mode does not reveal much information about how far out one is until focus is relatively close. This is not an issue at all with the X100S as in manual focus mode the AF system can be used manually, independently of the shutter button and then the focus object selection and accuracy can be checked and/or adjusted. This means you can – at the least – get close quickly with the push of a button. For The XE-2 and XT-1 this technique only applies to Fujinon lenses.
With the newer, fast X-Series bodies, the focus response using the Fujinon lens collars is much quicker and smoother than the slower bodies. In this case focus peaking is a good choice, especially if there is decent contrast in the scene. You can see objects coming in focus and going out of focus and other objects coming into focus as you turn the lens barrel. This is quite convenient for shorter focal lengths where the DOF is wide.
For some scenes I find the the spilt patch is not very useful. The newer bodies offer a diverse ways to achieve focus. The spit-screen mode makes a big difference. With some practice and experience you can switch between manual focus techniques quickly. Without practice changing between manual focusing modes best suited for the scene of interest would seem fiddlely compared to an analog RF patch.
Lss
Well-known
Thanks for the confirmation.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
What negative opinions?
And why would I ask questions if I already have a Fuji X100s.
Rather than sighing, why don't you educate me on what is that split rangefinder thing in these cameras. Are they similar to the ones we'd find in a film rangefinder or not?
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
Will, yes I think the "split rangefinder thing" is similar.
But I will not educate you on it. You have to do that yourself. With well over 8000 posts on this forum, I assume you are mildly interested in the subject
The posted video further up is a good start and an open minded check at your local camera store will round up the experience. Getting a used one and selling it two weeks later for the same price is also an idea.
I love my old film rangefinders as well, but one can't just dwell on the past all the time. With one manufacturer left that makes "old fashioned" rangefinders but charges exorbitant prices for digital technology that is already two years behind others the time it comes out, it's time to look at alternatives IMHO.
But I will not educate you on it. You have to do that yourself. With well over 8000 posts on this forum, I assume you are mildly interested in the subject
The posted video further up is a good start and an open minded check at your local camera store will round up the experience. Getting a used one and selling it two weeks later for the same price is also an idea.
I love my old film rangefinders as well, but one can't just dwell on the past all the time. With one manufacturer left that makes "old fashioned" rangefinders but charges exorbitant prices for digital technology that is already two years behind others the time it comes out, it's time to look at alternatives IMHO.
Kwesi
Well-known
My opinion is its a rangefinder styled camera.
Does that make it a traditional rangefinder camera? No.
I think Fuji should be commended for doing such a great job of emulating opto-mechanical focusing methods in their X cameras.
btgc
Veteran
I understand when similar aids are implemented in system cameras where one slaps on manual focus lens. But now tell when one would reject to rely on AF or simply dialing in distance in X100? Is this a practical mean to work around underdeveloped AF or a fifth wheel mounted in back of car to look like English three-wheeler?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Really, there are two camps here. One camp uses the term "rangefinder" in a technical sense. The other camp uses the term in an emotional sense. Hence the talking-past-one-another.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
(a) One uses MF in situations where MF is, for whatever reason, preferred. One uses AF in situations hwere AF is, for whatever reason, preferred.
(One might think that this particular conversation would have been over 2 or 3 years after Canon introduced the EOS system for film, and Canon's system came to dominate the professional 35mm camera market. That's about how long ago most serious photographers learned when to use MF, and when to use AF.)
(b) No.
kuzano
Veteran
Put the question in a simpler format.
Does it calculate the "range" (distance) to the subject. YES! NO!... you decide.
Simpler yet.
Does it find the range?
Does it calculate the "range" (distance) to the subject. YES! NO!... you decide.
Simpler yet.
Does it find the range?
Kwesi
Well-known
Even simpler yet. The camera was designed to evoke the experience of using a traditional rangefinder camera. I think Fuji has done a great job of this and has garnered a huge fan base for the X100 series for this very reason. For some users ( perhaps the OP included) calling it a rangefinder completes the experience. How it acquires a focussed image is (outside of this thread), secondary for most users.
btgc
Veteran
Macro comes to mind, but X100 isn't about macro, right? Other uses of X100 when AF isn't too useful, I'd like to hear which situations force you to focus manually?
Older than X100 digital cameras I own lock focus just OK, I have used their MF modes but have reverted back to AF. Why bother when AF is faster than me? OK, on 28mm DP1 I sometimes set distance and close down aperture a bit, in certain situations but this and infinity are about only cases when I use MF on digital cameras but this is very basic, just like it's possible on any other camera. And then I just dial in distance without external measurements. In fact, only unreliable AF lens I've used is from pre-mass-AF-era with electrical rangefinder accomodated in lens body.
Do you really can't rely on AF these days, and on DOF to cover those rare occasions when AF would be too slow or simply unnecessary?
Reading back through the thread, it appears that for many this definition renders "rangefinder" virtually meaningless, as it broadens the definition to include all AF cameras and manual-focus SLRs.
And it leaves out "direct view" guess-focus cameras, which many would like to include in "RF".
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Will, yes I think the "split rangefinder thing" is similar.
But I will not educate you on it. You have to do that yourself. With well over 8000 posts on this forum, I assume you are mildly interested in the subject
Okay.
I just thought that for an owner, it takes no effort to explain to me what that *digital* split-rangefinder thing looks like, I didn't expect it to be complicated. I know what a rangefinder camera is in the film world, never seen one that is digital.
Never mind, let's carry on.
willie_901
Veteran
One could use the EVF/OVF or LCD real-time focus scale display to preset focus. This does not require reliance on the AF to decide when focus is appropriate.
Or, without relying on a firmware algorithm to make the focus decision, one could use any number of visual aids. The utility and flexibility of the visual aids increases from the X100 < X100S < X100T.
In my view the fifth wheel analogy does not apply because different subjects in different light and different circumstance mean several method of focusing are not redundant. Additionally, compared to an analog. optical RF, one does not have to use special aids for close ups (goggles), or the Visoflex, or an external finder, or own bodies with different rangefinder base lengths for different lens focal lengths.
JohnTF
Veteran
I actually believe the focusing method is somewhat incidental to terminology and has varied and derived meanings.
As I mentioned two SLR's with a hump and RF viewer and mechanism separate from the framing/viewing, and many of what we lump in to the RF category with no linked RF, or any at all.
More simply, what is casually referred to as a RF camera is quite often simply a View Finder camera that often serves very closely the same/similar niche in practice.
I do not think anyone other than a pedant would take the time to say that the work done by HCB was not done with a RF as he obviously zone focused much of his work.
The taxonomy is simply not precise, which makes the discussion, however of interest, lead to equally imprecise conclusions.
The subject niche and mode of use might be easier to classify, if one was of a mind to do so.
Regards, John
JohnTF
Veteran
Roger, I will have another look at it, but with the other cameras occupying too much space at home, it was the reason I purchased it from the dealer who had just taken it in, and it sits next to the Alpa which I had rebuilt as the shutter was a bit similar to my shoe laces and whose RF is indeed vertical.
You would not mistake it for a 60's era Pentax. I think the next one in line for the Pentax would be an H1 with its semi automatic diaphragm?
I had the matching 35mm semi auto, purchased new, until a friend admired it for 25 years until I gave it to him.
My actual first 35mm was a Kodak scale focus, and I did not miss the RF all that much-- am sure you became a pretty good judge of distance as well.
I also fell into the habit of looking at the scale to see if the RF focus was close to what I thought it should be.
J