jmkelly
rangefinder user
That was the biggest point and shoot I ever owned. Amazing lens for the money.
bwcolor
Veteran
What difference does it make what you call it? All my cameras work the same. I point and shoot. All of my firearms do the same. If I like what the camera does, I will buy it. If I don't I won't. I'm vacationing with a RF645 and Zeiss Ikon.. I only brought one lens each. Both are point and shoot. I can't change lenses until I get home. BTW.. both have lenses approximately equivalent to the X100.
andersju
Well-known
So I can turn my Leica M into a point and shoot by putting some super-strong glue on the mount before mounting the lens?
ChrisN
Striving
I guess that makes the Hasselblad SWC a very basic point & shoot - no metering, scale focusing.
Soeren
Well-known
Using the fixed lens as a definition is not correct. The fuji's mentioned and e.g. th Canon QL 17 are rangefinders though having a fixed lens. They require you to do some focussing, adjusting exposure and even setting the film speed. Most modern cameras has the P&S option but since you can set your exposure and focus they are not just advanced point and shoot cameras. Heck even some of the first plate cameras had fixed lenses but still required you to focus them.
Best regards
Definition of: point-and-shoot camera
A film or digital camera in which the focus and exposure is entirely automatic. You aim and press the button; the camera does the rest. Point-and-shoot cameras can range from cheap throw-aways to pocket-sized digitals. Even high-end cameras have a point-and-shoot option, in which the camera makes all settings automatically. Although there may be settings for different lighting conditions such as bright sun vs. dusk, point-and-shoot cameras have no options to manually set the aperture, shutter speed and focus.
Best regards
Definition of: point-and-shoot camera
A film or digital camera in which the focus and exposure is entirely automatic. You aim and press the button; the camera does the rest. Point-and-shoot cameras can range from cheap throw-aways to pocket-sized digitals. Even high-end cameras have a point-and-shoot option, in which the camera makes all settings automatically. Although there may be settings for different lighting conditions such as bright sun vs. dusk, point-and-shoot cameras have no options to manually set the aperture, shutter speed and focus.
P&S isn't a bad thing generally ... but many on this forum use it in a derogatory manner.
reverie
Newbie
Fuji have just updated The Story (of the X100) with Chapter Two: The Viewfinder
http://www.finepix-x100.com/story/viewfinder
Although curiously it's not yet advertised on the X100 website
http://www.finepix-x100.com/story/viewfinder
Although curiously it's not yet advertised on the X100 website
monochromejrnl
Well-known
If the Fuiji engineers executed the design then I think we have a winner in the race to redesign the camera viewfinder. It's an eloquent design. I'm looking forward to seeing how good or how bad the viewfinder will be. From past experience with Fuji MF rangefinders, I'll be shocked if it's isn't excellent.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Thanks for the link.
The optical diagram of the O/EVF on page 2 confirms [for me] that a digital parallax-wedge focusing aid is indeed feasible...the equivalent of an optical split image patch.
If only Fuji would release a SDK.
The more I learned about the details, the more I am convinced that the X100 is "in a class of its own"...something I had posted early in the mega thread. However, raging debates on whether it's a P&S, EVIL, professional, RF or whatever lingers.
The head bartender decided early that it is a P&S, sort of a left-handed denouncement of an important new camera design in a long, long time. Other M-evangelists express doubts whether Fuji could even pull it off...as if Fuji is a bunch of amateurs. The self-proclaimed professionals basically object that a low price camera can challenge their beloved tools.
I am just happy that the X100 "was my idea".
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Love this bit from the fuji site.
"In recent years, photographers commonly frame and confirm their compositions using the LCD panel on the back of digital cameras. However, the display can be hard to see in bright sunlight, and for those who have a deep familiarity with cameras, it was wondered whether such users would like to once again experience the pleasure of shooting photos through an extremely clear and sharp viewfinder." emphasis mine
I really can't sell myself on a digital camera, and I still sort of want this one.
"In recent years, photographers commonly frame and confirm their compositions using the LCD panel on the back of digital cameras. However, the display can be hard to see in bright sunlight, and for those who have a deep familiarity with cameras, it was wondered whether such users would like to once again experience the pleasure of shooting photos through an extremely clear and sharp viewfinder." emphasis mine
I really can't sell myself on a digital camera, and I still sort of want this one.
skibeerr
Well-known
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Not to mention the bad "arms' length photography" stance one has to adopt in using the LED as a VF; also requiring us aging boomers [who has money to buy toys] to put on reading glasses just to see the LCD close enough.
I was long toying with the idea of buying an Oly EPL-1 with both the OVF for the fast prime and an additional EVF if I venture into the zooms. The X100 killed the idea immediately. Regardless of the "announced" pricing of US $1000 that many won't believe or complaints that it's too high, buying the OVF and EVF will add another $500 to the Oly...sort of making it even, doesn't it?
AND, with many more bonuses in the X100 to boot.
GSNfan
Well-known
All this camera needed was a RF patch-like mechanism for manual focus in the VF and there was no need of an EVF. I cannot see how MF will work in a OVF with no gradual mechanism like an RF patch, where one sees the lines aligning gradually and also right on the subject that is being photographed. A simple light indicator or even a gradual light indicator will not do, and I'm afraid that in the end one might end up using the EVF for manual focus, which will be fine for some but not satisfactory for others.
I love RFs for the viewfinder and focus mechanism. Yesterday I took my newly acquired Konica Auto S2 out for a spin and its VF simply astonished me, it was even better than some other far more expensive RFs that I have. I shot a role of 24 in under 15mins... I will be hard pressed to spend $1000 for X100 if it cannot match the experience of my >$100 1960s RF.
I love RFs for the viewfinder and focus mechanism. Yesterday I took my newly acquired Konica Auto S2 out for a spin and its VF simply astonished me, it was even better than some other far more expensive RFs that I have. I shot a role of 24 in under 15mins... I will be hard pressed to spend $1000 for X100 if it cannot match the experience of my >$100 1960s RF.
FrankS
Registered User
Luckily we live in a free country and no one is forcing any of us to buy anything we don't want to.
Arjay
Time Traveller
Sure, there is a parallax between the OVF and the EVF picture that might be usable for a Leica-type rangefnder. This concept in the X100 would be flawed however, because there is both a horizontal and a vertical parallax. Any meaningful RF action would entail diagonally shifting the EVF image in relation to the OVF image. And then there are the different magnifications between EVF and OVF ...
Any seasoned Leica or Hexar RF user would at first glance suspect some truly weird rangefinder misalignment ...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I guess that makes the Hasselblad SWC a very basic point & shoot - no metering, scale focusing.
And remember: 120 was originally developed as an amateur format. So the SWC is an amateur point & shoot.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
As I've posted before here, the idea that the classical RF is the end-all/be-all focus aid is just preposterous. I have used Nikons with grid or matte screens (no split image; no microprisms) since the mid-1980s, and I have used an M6 (currently with MP finder optics) as my main camera since 1998. And I've had other RF's (XA, Electro 35, etc). The first "real" camera I ever used was my dad's M3, starting when I was 4 or 5 years old.
Guess what: in my hands the RF patch is a decidedly inferior focus aid compared to the matte screen. It is less accurate, and it is slower. There are good reasons why Nikon and Canon and Olympus and Pentax ate Leica's lunch in the general photojournalism and sports markets, starting fifty years ago. And speed and accuracy of focus were among those reasons.
Look, I love RF's. They're fun to use and with practice they produce great images, reliably. And I really like composing with a good optical VF. But this idea that a classical RF patch is some sort of holy grail for setting focus is just a silly orthodoxy.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Amen, brother. Preach on!
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
In digital photogrammetry [my field], independent correction [via resampling] of X [horizontal] or Y [vertical] parallax is long practiced. My gang have actually just completed such a feature in synthetic stereoscopic display...isolating only the X-parallax [also called stereo-mate for orthophotos in the analog era].
To put it in simplistic terms: retaining only X-parallax based on focal distance.
Dynamic equalization of image scales between OVF and EVF is child's play...a sub set of epipolar resampling; well proven for 20 years.
I immediately see the adaptation of our synthetic stereo algorithm in this "parallax wedge" implementation. However, I did post it some time ago in another X100 thread that the data input is the focal distance, which is either extracted via MF when rotating the focusing ring [at that time it was not certain that the lens ring was not just decorative] or extracted via CDAF.
The effect will range from "barely visible" at hyperfocal to "pronounced" up close.
Why bother if CDAF is already available?...tradition, tradition...
Last edited: