Fujifilm X-Pro1 details leaked!!!

Can't agree totally

Can't agree totally

Mcary said:
Since the X-Pro-1 was designed from the start as an APS-C sensor camera rather then just sticking an APS-C sensor in a 35mm legacy body its every bit as much a full frame sensor camera as any 36x24mm camera. Just like 645, 6x6, 6x7. 4x5, 8x10, cameras are all full framed despite not being 35mm.
Hopefully the stupid term full frame will one day vanish and we'll return to just saying one format is smaller or larger then another.
Click to expand...

I can't agree totally. As long as you use only native lenses for the mentioned bodies it is exactly as you tell. But you know, here in this forum 😀 , I suppose more than 50 % of the potential X-Pro1 buyers intend sticking the "well known legacy 35mm format lenses" on this body. Me too.
I think having this premise makes the discussion about cropped (~24mm) or full frame (~35mm) sensor suddenly meaningful. Just to make clear this very important difference.
 
Sorry if I missed this, but what about the Fuji X lenses' lack of DOF and distance scale info? Is that data displayed in the viewfinder? That information is very important to the way I photograph. Obviously the work around would be using legacy lenses, but we don't yet know how well manual focus is implemented.
 
dct said:
I can't agree totally. As long as you use only native lenses for the mentioned bodies it is exactly as you tell. But you know, here in this forum 😀 , I suppose more than 50 % of the potential X-Pro1 buyers intend sticking the "well known legacy 35mm format lenses" on this body. Me too.
I think having this premise makes the discussion about cropped (~24mm) or full frame (~35mm) sensor suddenly meaningful. Just to make clear this very important difference.
Click to expand...


The way I see it lens, yes even a legacy lens, are still the same focal length whither their used with/on a 24mm, 35mm, 120, ext format camera/sensor. What changes is the FOV and how DOF is effected.
So when you put say a 35mm format 50mm Legacy lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor, despite what some people seem to think/believe it doesn't make it a 75mm or 80mm lens, what it does is change the FOV.
50mm
APS-C short telephoto-Portrait lens
35mm Normal lens
6x6 Wide Angle
4x5 Extreme Wide Angle
 
Mcary said:
Since the X-Pro-1 was designed from the start as an APS-C sensor camera rather then just sticking an APS-C sensor in a 35mm legacy body its every bit as much a full frame sensor camera as any 36x24mm camera. Just like 645, 6x6, 6x7. 4x5, 8x10, cameras are all full framed despite not being 35mm.
Hopefully the stupid term full frame will one day vanish and we'll return to just saying one format is smaller or larger then another.
Click to expand...

Use of the term "full frame" might appear stupid to you, but the convention of referring to 135-format lens focal lengths as a way of implying specific angles of view seems a bit more convenient than, say, referring to a 28mm lens as possessing a "57.3 degree horizontal angle of view". It might be more precise (referring to lens angles of view directly) but in most photographers' experience they reach into their bag for a 28mm lens, not a 57.3 degree horizontal angle of view lens. Hence the need, when mentioning focal lengths as an indirect reference to angle of view, to specify format size. Specifying lens focal length without reference to the sensor format size tells nothing about the system angle of view.

A 90mm lens on m-4/3'rds produces entirely different imagery than a 90mm lens on 4x5, for instance. And since the 135-format was so popular for so many decades, it has become a convenient, de facto standard of comparison.

Do you have any problem with the term "135-format", instead of "full-frame"? Or does your objection have more to do with old codgers lurking on photo forums who've been shooting way too long to care?

-Joe

P.S.: The numbers I quoted for the horizontal angle of view of a 28mm lens were merely for purposes of illustration, and were pulled "out of my back pocket," so to speak. Sticklers for accuracy can look up the figures in an optics textbook.

Edit: To add one more snarky comment.
 
froyd said:
Sorry if I missed this, but what about the Fuji X lenses' lack of DOF and distance scale info? Is that data displayed in the viewfinder? That information is very important to the way I photograph. .
Click to expand...

Yes, it's in the VF. I guess scales on focus by wire lenses don't make sense?
 
JoeV said:
Do you have any problem with the term "135-format", instead of "full-frame"?

-Joe
Click to expand...

Nope since that's what I've always look at it as "135-Format" or 35mm format.

BTW just posting an opinion/point of view, just like everyone else. People are free to agree disagree no big deal either way 🙂
 
jsrockit said:
I guess scales on focus by wire lenses don't make sense?
Click to expand...

Not much of a problem as long as the scale separate from the focusing ring.
For example, I have here a couple of Canon lenses in EF mount that all have distance scales, but on all except one they're behind a little window.
 
Does anyone with experience of the Fuji hybrid viewfinder know if there's any technical reasons why they couldn't implement focus peaking as an OVF overlay? That would seem to be the best possible implementation of manual focussing on the X-PRO1.
 
JoeV said:
Do you have any problem with the term "135-format", instead of "full-frame"?
Click to expand...

Well if we want to get all pedantic about avoiding "full frame", then I guess "135 format" isn't really a good replacement either. After all it refers to a film format, not an image format, and there are cameras that record all sorts of weird image formats on 135 format film (half-frames, Robots, panoramics, you name it). If you do insist on a better term, then assuming that "135 format" means 24x36 mm is really no better than assuming that "full frame" menas 24x36 mm.

I find the discussion really pointless. Full frame is a pretty established term by now. Everybody knows what is meant by it. So discussing whether it's 100% semantically accurate doesn't really lead anywhere. Except maybe for those who think that technically correct is the best form of correct.
 
gramorris said:
Does anyone with experience of the Fuji hybrid viewfinder know if there's any technical reasons why they couldn't implement focus peaking as an OVF overlay? That would seem to be the best possible implementation of manual focussing on the X-PRO1.
Click to expand...

Well, the EVF shows the field of view from the lens, while the OVF shows the field of view from the viewfinder. Together with parallax, that means that on an interchangeable lens camera you get tricky issues with scaling and placing the EVF image depending on the actual focal length and focusing distance.
 
rxmd said:
Well, the EVF shows the field of view from the lens, while the OVF shows the field of view from the viewfinder. Together with parallax, that means that on an interchangeable lens camera you get tricky issues with scaling and placing the EVF image depending on the actual focal length and focusing distance.
Click to expand...

I suspected parallax would be the big issue, not having held a Fuji I don't know what that looks like on their viewfinder.
 
gramorris said:
I suspected parallax would be the big issue, not having held a Fuji I don't know what that looks like on their viewfinder.
Click to expand...

The big issue isn't parallax, it's that the angle of view of the EVF changes with the focal length of whatever lens you use, while the OVF only has two zoom levels.
 
"Full-frame" is fine when you're talking about lens focal length equivalents - it gets kind of tiresome when it's used pejoratively against m43 or APS cameras, as if 24x36 is a holy grail.

(especially since my holy grail is 6x6 - I seem to see in square and darkroom printing was a whole lot more fun with medium-format than 35mm)
 
Mcary said:
The way I see it lens, yes even a legacy lens, are still the same focal length whither their used with/on a 24mm, 35mm, 120, ext format camera/sensor. What changes is the FOV and how DOF is effected.
So when you put say a 35mm format 50mm Legacy lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor, despite what some people seem to think/believe it doesn't make it a 75mm or 80mm lens, what it does is change the FOV.
50mm
APS-C short telephoto-Portrait lens
35mm Normal lens
6x6 Wide Angle
4x5 Extreme Wide Angle
Click to expand...

i'm sorry that just doesnt make any sense at all. in the real world it is a distinction without a difference, and is utterly meaningless. when i spend $500 to get a 24mm lens i'm doing so to get that particular angle of view. i dont want a 35mm lens or a 35mm angle of view, since theyre both essentially the same thing. FF means i will get what i wanted; crop factor means i won't, its that simple.
 
Huh? You're spending $500 to get that angle of view on a specific format. It's only a 'distinction without difference' if you never shoot anything but 35mm (film or digital equivalent) and have no desire to do so.

With my Bronica SQ-A, I'd need a 50mm (or 40mm - somewhere in there) to get the equivalent of a 24mm on 35mm film. With a Sony NEX, I'd need a 16mm lens. I don't think any of those numbers are needlessly complicated or opaque.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom