Bas
Dough!
Hello everyone,
It's been awhile since my last time here, since I have been a little away from photography, not because of a lack of interest but because of a lack of time. However, in the last year I've decided to make some time to get back to the hobby, which of course, as in every hobby, has a strong component of passion.
Having decided to get away from DSLRs (and my beloved Pentax K100D with the 30/1.4), I started to look around (internet) what could I get similar to a rangefinder, having made most of my street photography (and most of my photography all in all) with my Zorki-4, Oly 35 SP, Leica IIIc, etc. I say "similar" because any digital Leica RF is completely out of my budget.
Of course, being old school and wanting something that at least had the handling and feel of a classic rangefinder, as soon as I saw the X100 series cameras I was hooked. However, something did surprise me: every blog and site and forum (well, of course not every, but I'd say 90% of the resources I visited) compared the X100 (any version) to a digital Leica rangefinder.
I find this very surprising, because all my common sense tells me it is not a correct comparative. The camera to which I'd compare the X100 is the Konica Hexar AF, and for me they are very, very similar in every way: equal focal length, equal aperture, equal characteristic fixed lens, equal silent operation, equal silent shutter, equal quirks.
Every comparative also referred to the difference in focusing between X100 and Leica RFs, and of course, they're different focusing systems. Just as in the Hexar AF manual focus was awkward, in the X100 MF is a little awkward compared to the MF in a Leica (or in any real rangefinder), which are basically MF only cameras and that's the reason why we love them (among other reasons of course, I have plenty of nonsense reasons like "heck it's a Leica", and that alone is enough for me
).
I have found this comparatives very curious, and I certainly don't understand if this comparatives happen for lack of knowledge of the reviewer in question, or for any other reason, so I wanted to know if anyone has a thought about it.
In my humble opinion, I think this comparatives mainly confuse the new photographer who in the end doesn't understand the conceptual differences between tools and how they translate in real world use of them (just as we understood the differences between Leicas and Hexar AF, or between Hexar AF and Hexar RF).
I have an X100 FW 2.1 and I'm really happy with it, but I don't intend to use it as a Leica RF, I use it as a Konica Hexar AF. I've never complained to the Hexar AF for not behaving like the Hexar RF, hence I don't understand which is the point in making a comparative and statements like "X100 focusing system is inferior since it has no real rangefinder like a Leica" when they're different tools which translate in differents ways to use them.
By the way, please pardon my english, it's not my mother tongue (I'm from Buenos Aires, Argentina).
Best regards to everyone, it's nice to be here
Bas
It's been awhile since my last time here, since I have been a little away from photography, not because of a lack of interest but because of a lack of time. However, in the last year I've decided to make some time to get back to the hobby, which of course, as in every hobby, has a strong component of passion.
Having decided to get away from DSLRs (and my beloved Pentax K100D with the 30/1.4), I started to look around (internet) what could I get similar to a rangefinder, having made most of my street photography (and most of my photography all in all) with my Zorki-4, Oly 35 SP, Leica IIIc, etc. I say "similar" because any digital Leica RF is completely out of my budget.
Of course, being old school and wanting something that at least had the handling and feel of a classic rangefinder, as soon as I saw the X100 series cameras I was hooked. However, something did surprise me: every blog and site and forum (well, of course not every, but I'd say 90% of the resources I visited) compared the X100 (any version) to a digital Leica rangefinder.
I find this very surprising, because all my common sense tells me it is not a correct comparative. The camera to which I'd compare the X100 is the Konica Hexar AF, and for me they are very, very similar in every way: equal focal length, equal aperture, equal characteristic fixed lens, equal silent operation, equal silent shutter, equal quirks.
Every comparative also referred to the difference in focusing between X100 and Leica RFs, and of course, they're different focusing systems. Just as in the Hexar AF manual focus was awkward, in the X100 MF is a little awkward compared to the MF in a Leica (or in any real rangefinder), which are basically MF only cameras and that's the reason why we love them (among other reasons of course, I have plenty of nonsense reasons like "heck it's a Leica", and that alone is enough for me
).I have found this comparatives very curious, and I certainly don't understand if this comparatives happen for lack of knowledge of the reviewer in question, or for any other reason, so I wanted to know if anyone has a thought about it.
In my humble opinion, I think this comparatives mainly confuse the new photographer who in the end doesn't understand the conceptual differences between tools and how they translate in real world use of them (just as we understood the differences between Leicas and Hexar AF, or between Hexar AF and Hexar RF).
I have an X100 FW 2.1 and I'm really happy with it, but I don't intend to use it as a Leica RF, I use it as a Konica Hexar AF. I've never complained to the Hexar AF for not behaving like the Hexar RF, hence I don't understand which is the point in making a comparative and statements like "X100 focusing system is inferior since it has no real rangefinder like a Leica" when they're different tools which translate in differents ways to use them.
By the way, please pardon my english, it's not my mother tongue (I'm from Buenos Aires, Argentina).
Best regards to everyone, it's nice to be here
Bas
willie_901
Veteran
Welcome back Bas.
Having used the Cannot QL-17 III, a Zeiss Ikon M, the X100 and X-Pro 1 I also found some comparisons to be misguided.
The Fujifilm cameras with OVFs enable me to enjoy the advantages of a being able to see outside of the frame lines, and maintain a direct spontaneous visual link with the subject. With the analog rangefinder cameras I would focus and recompose almost all of the time. With the Fujifilm cameras I would do the same thing using the AF manually. Of course DSLR optical finders permit a similar approach except one can not see outside of the frame.
It is possible to eliminate shutter delay with judicious use of menu parameters. While the Fujifilms' focus system is nothing like the analog RF cameras', both are able to take advantage of an OVF.
I also use The X-T1. The EVF performs rather well. But it is not as immediate as the using the OVF bodies or an optical RF camera. I prefer the X-Pro 1 for candid work.
The problem is: most photographers rely on a high degree of automation. The automation increases shutter delays and affects a sense of immediacy. It takes some time, patience and practice to get the camera to work as you want it to work. If you don't invest the time, then it is easy to assume the digital platforms are inferior for some purposes.
In any case I find my in-focus rate for the Fujifilm bodies is essentially the same rate I enjoyed with analog rangefinder bodies. Of course this could just mean I was not very good with an analog RF body.
Having used the Cannot QL-17 III, a Zeiss Ikon M, the X100 and X-Pro 1 I also found some comparisons to be misguided.
The Fujifilm cameras with OVFs enable me to enjoy the advantages of a being able to see outside of the frame lines, and maintain a direct spontaneous visual link with the subject. With the analog rangefinder cameras I would focus and recompose almost all of the time. With the Fujifilm cameras I would do the same thing using the AF manually. Of course DSLR optical finders permit a similar approach except one can not see outside of the frame.
It is possible to eliminate shutter delay with judicious use of menu parameters. While the Fujifilms' focus system is nothing like the analog RF cameras', both are able to take advantage of an OVF.
I also use The X-T1. The EVF performs rather well. But it is not as immediate as the using the OVF bodies or an optical RF camera. I prefer the X-Pro 1 for candid work.
The problem is: most photographers rely on a high degree of automation. The automation increases shutter delays and affects a sense of immediacy. It takes some time, patience and practice to get the camera to work as you want it to work. If you don't invest the time, then it is easy to assume the digital platforms are inferior for some purposes.
In any case I find my in-focus rate for the Fujifilm bodies is essentially the same rate I enjoyed with analog rangefinder bodies. Of course this could just mean I was not very good with an analog RF body.