Yeah, I hear ya... I mean, it really pisses me off that Canon didn't put a mechanical rangefinder in the 5d. Why on earth would any company ever make anything other than optical / mechanical rangefinders?
The bottom line is that this camera is not a rangefinder and it never will be one (nor did Fuji claim it to ever be one). It's still going to be nice and I for one think Fuji is doing the right thing here by not including a mechanical rangefinder. Rangefinder fans are a very small niche.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I'm not concerned that it won't have an rf patch. I'm hoping the viewfinder will be good. I hope the af is quick enough - certainly fuji are suggesting it will be. The 'Story' section of the site adds a whole lot more info and enthusiasm from the engineers that I find very encouraging. Not least this little snippet, included as a throwaway comment at the end of the lens section:
'Before each X100 lens is shipped, the MTF characteristics are measured and the lens is tuned. That is why I am confident that the photographer will enjoy the satisfaction of a lens that performs according to the original design specifications. '
Great every lens tested for MTF. If htat's worth doing then the rest of the camera is also worth doing right.
Mike
'Before each X100 lens is shipped, the MTF characteristics are measured and the lens is tuned. That is why I am confident that the photographer will enjoy the satisfaction of a lens that performs according to the original design specifications. '
Great every lens tested for MTF. If htat's worth doing then the rest of the camera is also worth doing right.
Mike
Soeren
Well-known
Ah. So the D3s is a P&S, but a Canonet is not.
What a stupid argument we're having.
Did you read the last line of my post???? As far as I know the D3 is not full auto only.
The ability for the photog to step in and take control easily makes the difference not whether its a fixed lens design, slr or whatever.Best regards
GSNfan
Well-known
I agree that SLR matte screen is the more precise of the two focus mechanisms compared to RF patch, but not necessarily the more the elegant and the more intuitive of the two.
Going back to X100, I really hope its successful.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Long ago in the mega thread, Brian Sweeney had already proposed projecting a small EVF patch onto the OVF...sort of a matte screen equivalent focusing aid.
In Post 121, I described a "parallax-wedge" RF patch that could be implemented. The dynamic resampling we typically do is for the whole system monitor now at 1920 x 1080 or higher [invoked by the system in every monitor refresh, panning or zooming]. Doing a small sensor or EVF patch is easy.
My likely MO in using the X100 would be let AF/AE do their thing and apply AEL/AFL and recompose if necessary...just like the way I use AE in my ZM. For critical shots, I would switch onto the EVF and use the lens focusing ring...easy enough. I have no doubt that the EVF is as fast as the OLy EP-1/2 [uses the same Epson EVF panel]...fast enough.
If Fuji would not provide a SDK, then hacking into the camera firmware is doable.
Arjay
Time Traveller
Yes indeed.
After having used digital autofocus cameras for years, I can only say that this technology is mature, and just as controllable as coincident image rangefinders - and it offers the advantage of being independent of the user's eyesight with regards to focusing accuracy.
To me, there is nothing wrong with an autofocus camera as long as it also offers completely manual operation for a fallback scenario. Once you get used to AF cameras, you will be surprised how easy it is to do without manual focus.
If I use my DSLR, I rarely ever use it in manual focus mode - I even use it in AF when shooting stealthily w/o looking through the viewfinder (provided there is enough light for AF operation).
So, I dont think that there's anything wrong with a camera that does not offer a coincident image rangefinder, as long as there is some sort of viable manual focus technique. It will only be a fallback measure anyway.
emraphoto
Veteran
going to take one to west africa in January.. the wide version pretty stoked!
Soeren
Well-known
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^--- software development kit.
Soeren
Well-known
Aha thanks. hmm and that is??? Feeling really stupid
Best regards
Feeling really stupid Best regards
craygc
Well-known
Aha thanks. hmm and that is???
Best regards
If your not involved in any form of software development theres probably no reason to know what an SDK is. Basically its a development framework that hardware/software companies create to allow third party developers to leverage off the base system. It provides APIs (application program interfaces) which are defined methods of calling functions within the system being interfaced to. For example, you might have a defined function that was "GetLastImageHistogram() which would also provide the format of the returned response. Subsequently, you could write your own functions around calling this input and potentially use others to write information back.
Basically a toolkit to allow others to further build on the oringinal functionality without being able to casue any harm or have visibility of how the base system is working.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Hacking a firmware is for playkids only. If you want to have a reliable tool over a longer period then don't do this. The next time you update the regular firmware either your hacks are all gone or they don't work properly anymore.
Soeren
Well-known
hub
Crazy French
Programaticability of a cameras is sort of uncommon, sadly. While I see some challenges, I do believe that it is possible to offer the feature while keeping the camera safe from "bricking"[1]. The problem is that the manufacturers are:
1. paranoid about their software a whether they perceive this a threat to their secrets
2. they seems to be unable to write proper software for PC[2]. And I'm talking about experience where both the Canon and Olympus software are horrible on Mac. Worse: they seem to not support the software for very long either leading to obsolete software that require obsolete OS to run. Exhibit: the Nikon CoolScan software.
3. they seem to not be open in general, which mean that this programmaticability feature would be tied heavily to them providing the PC software (see 2.) Exhibit: Canon, Olympus, Nikon that all refuse to document their tethering protocol and provide a SDK (for PCs) of dubious quality and support[3].
All in all this would lead to an obsoleting feature.
FWIW, their use to be a company back in the 90's and early 2000 that made a firmware for cameras know as Digita that allow programing the camera. Kodak had the DC220, 260, 265 and 290. But Google lead me to believe that the company is long gone.
Sorry, I had my software engineer hat today.
Cheers,
Notes:
[1] "bricking" is the action of rendering a device unusable by overwriting its firmware with something that does not work. This mostly happen when there is an error in the process
[2] PC means personal computer, whichever it is a Mac or runs Windows or Linux.
[3] There are actually solutions based on reverse engineering.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I agree with Arjay
I agree with Arjay
AF and AE are mature technologies...if you know where to point and shoot. If the sweet spot is not dead centre of the frame, then point, AFL/AEL and recompose before you shoot. I have been doing that for ages, and this MO is faster than programing off-set focal point [now known to be possible] and/or exploiting multi-point metering. Bracket if deemed necessary, the X100 is capable of 5F/s...and film/processing is free.
Despite debates or derogatory comments about P&S, zone focusing a classic Leica-M by presetting aperture/shutter, then frame a scene quickly and shoot is conceptually no different.
What I find amusing is that raging debates abound in the mega thread about focusing aid or the lack thereof, with few seemed to have grasped what Brain Sweeney and I was talking about. Now that more concrete news are in hand and the same subject revisited, many now say AF is fine...
I agree with Arjay
AF and AE are mature technologies...if you know where to point and shoot. If the sweet spot is not dead centre of the frame, then point, AFL/AEL and recompose before you shoot. I have been doing that for ages, and this MO is faster than programing off-set focal point [now known to be possible] and/or exploiting multi-point metering. Bracket if deemed necessary, the X100 is capable of 5F/s...and film/processing is free.
Despite debates or derogatory comments about P&S, zone focusing a classic Leica-M by presetting aperture/shutter, then frame a scene quickly and shoot is conceptually no different.
What I find amusing is that raging debates abound in the mega thread about focusing aid or the lack thereof, with few seemed to have grasped what Brain Sweeney and I was talking about. Now that more concrete news are in hand and the same subject revisited, many now say AF is fine...
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
There are hacking and then there are hacking...
All I need is the focal distance, [then create the parallax wedge off-line in real-time] and display the result using part of the EVF panel [now unused whatsoever].
For the hell of it, I would even give that algorithm to Fuji just to shut the RF-addicts up.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^---- ROTFLOL, Frankie.