Improving gear -> bigger expectations

Dogman said:
I was attracted to the X-Pro1 because it has an optical viewfinder. I never use the EVF.
Click to expand...
I kind of think of it like a digital version of my old Contax G2: window finder and autofocus.

(I just checked on my G2 - it hasn’t been touched in years, but is sitting there 14 frames into a 24-roll of Tri-X. Who knows what’s on those frames? Or whether they’re properly recoverable? 🤷‍♂️)

…Mike
 
Archiver said:
An offtopic aside: if you enjoy the feeling of mechanical switches and buttons, you might be interested in the plethora of machined metal fidget toys that now exist. You can rub together two or three machined pieces of metal held together with small neodymium magnets in a strangely satisfying way. There are haptic coins, clickers, spinners and the like. Expensive limited models are made by companies like Lautie, and there is a huge range of handmade and factory made ones on Etsy.
Click to expand...

Yes, hours of entertainment from these finely crafted mechanical things.

IMG_0050.jpegIMG_0063.jpeg

Dogman said:
I was attracted to the X-Pro1 because it has an optical viewfinder. I never use the EVF.
Click to expand...

Shab said:
Yes, me too! And when I use it with the xf 1.4/23 I use the OVF, but with the Zuikos it isn't a good idea, so I use the EVF with them.
Click to expand...

So, aside from the discrete external controls on the X-Pro1, the hybrid viewfinder was another attraction.

The best use of the EVF is with close-up subjects. When you have such a situation there are three choices:

1. Use the OVF exclusively and rely on the camera to adjust its projected framelines. Rely on the focus-square to confirm focus. The very big problem here is that at about three feet or closer, when you see that square light up green to confirm focus, it may be focused on something else: something close to your subject angularly, but at a much different distance. Example: focus on a flower bud, get the confirmation, but due to parallax the point of focus is on something three feet further away. Using the EVF will show you where the focus really is.

2. Use the OVF, but enable the parallax-corrected focus point. This presents you with two squares: your normal focus square and a second one that shifts to show where the real focus is. At infinity they overlap; close-up they are quite separate. A good idea, however in use I found it too cluttered.

3. Use the OVF for most subjects, but use the EVF for subjects within three feet when you're doing careful and precise framing or focusing.

I've chosen the third option, and that allows for other options as well. Not many realize this, but you actually have four viewing options on the X-Pro1. You use the DISP button to toggle between Default and Custom and you use the front lever to toggle between OVF and EVF. This gives four combinations, listed below. The wonderful thing is: once you've chosen a preference, for example, Default OVF and Custom EVF, then toggling the front lever preserves the choices even across power cycles.

The choices:

1. Default OVF. You cannot add or remove viewfinder information. This view presents a very clean minimalist viewfinder. I use this most of the time.

Default EVF. Again, you cannot add or remove viewfinder information. This view presents a very clean minimalist EVF viewfinder.

Custom OVF. Here you can add whatever you like to the display: focus scale, exposure compensation, gridlines, dozens of things. Everything is customizable.

Custom EVF. Again, everything is customizable.

The way mine is set up, when I select the OVF with the front lever, I get the Default OVF display - minimalist and uncluttered. When I select the EVF with the front lever, I get my Custom EVF display which shows me the actual focus point, distance scale, full exposure information, ISO, battery level, and maybe a few more things. It's got what I need but still isn't too cluttered.

Fuji did an amazingly good job with these cameras.
 
Last edited:
I think all of our expectations change as technology changes. But I also think that the pace of change has introduced new problems in terms of mastery of the craft. For instance, from the mid-1980's until the early 2000's, I was a reasonably competent b&w printer. But I have been using Photoshop since around 2003 and I still haven't mastered it. In fact, they change it so often, that I have to re-learn even the modest subset of skills that I have developed. For instance, PS has recently taken what was a "heal" function and assumed that I want to use it to make objects in my photographs disappear. Jumpin' Jehoshaphat on an Asphalt Pogo Stick! They could have left that alone.

Same is true for the cameras. They now have so many whiz-bang features that it takes a manual the size of a phone book to explain what the thing does. Except for Leicas, I defy anyone to truthfully claim that they have mastered any DSLR made and sold in the last five years. Oh, we can push the buttons. . . and menu walk. And curse the malign influence that resulted in the current crop of group-think products. But while I'd easily believe that one or more of you is more competent than I am, I doubt that anyone needs (or has needed to master) the full range of available features.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Same is true for the cameras. They now have so many whiz-bang features that it takes a manual the size of a phone book to explain what the thing does. Except for Leicas, I defy anyone to truthfully claim that they have mastered any DSLR made and sold in the last five years.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to master settings which I do not need? I set up my cameras once with the things I do want and then use shutter speed, aperture and exposure comp dials to do photography as I always have.
 
jsrockit said:
Why do I need to master settings which I do not need? I set up my cameras once with the things I do want and then use shutter speed, aperture and exposure comp dials to do photography as I always have.
Click to expand...
You don't, of course. You are right about that. And thank heavens you are right, or we'd all be standing out with our cameras in one hand and the instruction manuals in the other trying to make the durn things go.I just wanted to point out that the goal line for mastery of a piece of equipment has moved with all of the upgraded capabilities.
 
I'm monitoring digital cameras since 2009 after getting Canon 500D.

I came for conclusion what for most of photography I'm into, latest gear has nothing to offer.
Main challenge is to find the object and time.

Another personal issue is to find cameras which are nice to use.
Sony is so unappealing in this regard. PanaCanicon aren't much different. Fuji .... Here is something cheap in them which turns me off.

I'm holding to old Canon DSLRs because here is no point of selling them for nothing, while they are true made in Japan build.
Pentax K-3 for wet conditions.
I like build and awesomeness of GR and GRD cameras I have.
And Leica M-E 220, X2 are caméras with such please to use and get some fine results.

I look at Leica current offering and real users reports and it makes me holding to gear I have.
But original Q is something nice to have for collection without battery ripoff for nothing.
 
For me, I can pick up just about any Canon or Nikon DSLR and go out and take pictures with pretty fair confidence I will get a reasonably decent image that's in focus and properly exposed. I'm familiar with their controls and, while they change a bit from model to model, they are fairly consistent in function. Fujis (being mirrorless) are different and take some getting used to. I've owned five different ILC from Fuji and they were kind of a far distant world from Canon and Nikon as far as consistency in controls were concerned. Eventually I sold off the ones I liked the least. Took some time but I'm comfortable with the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 today even though they have more "stuff" on them than I need or want. I wanted an M7 that was digital and had autofocus and the X-Pros fill those requirements for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom