Roger Hicks
Veteran
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
As it happens, it's the "trick viewfinder" that attracts me. I like optical viewfinders. I've never (yet) met an EVF I didn't hate - and I seriously dislike composing with a rear LCD (except in some circumstances with a tripod and/or a tilt/swivel LCD).
Also: the viewfinder is in the right place, the "manual overrides" are where they're d*mned well supposed to be (not in some stinking menu or on a multi-use button) and the lens looks pretty decent (from the samples I've seen, though I've seen few enough to really tell).
And yet... I'm being asked to pay $1200 (++ extras such as "filter ring" and lens hood) for something that in many ways gives me the rough digital equivalent of something (kinda, sorta) like my Olympus mjuII (Stylus Epic) or autofocus Hexar or Contax T2.
With no form of image stabilisation I imagine it's video mode would be seasickness-inducing (not that I shoot video). Without IS it is in some ways inferior to other compact digitals (or SLRs) for low light shooting.
It costs a lot of money by the only criterion that counts right now (the value I expect to get versus alternative uses for the funds).
So I can see the attraction but I don't think it tips over the edge for me at present. Still, I reserve the right to change my mind.
...Mike
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,
I wouldn't argue with a word you've written - and as I implied a couple of posts back, 'trick' was intended as a compliment.
Cheers,
R.
Spyro
Well-known
It is what Roger said basically. In the digital world an RF is the only camera that is designed for manual focusing, period. All DSLRs have autofocus, which is destructive by design. The AF sensor is behind the mirror and it needs light to operate, which means the mirror needs to be half-silvered, which means it only sends half the (already limited by the lens) light to the VF, which means that if you want to focus manually you'll be permanently squinting through a half-dark viewfinder. In mirrorless cameras you need to MF through the EVF or LCD, which means squinting at a what is basically a tiny television with limited detail and very limited dynamic range that turns white once you point it to a bright source of light and black once you take a photo.
Ok maybe it's not so dramatic but the experience is definitely lacking compared to a nice, bright optical VF.
So basically in the digital world proper manual focus = rangefinder. Which sort of sucks a little if RF focusing is not your cup of tea.
Ok maybe it's not so dramatic but the experience is definitely lacking compared to a nice, bright optical VF.
So basically in the digital world proper manual focus = rangefinder. Which sort of sucks a little if RF focusing is not your cup of tea.
Last edited:
bigeye
Well-known
...and, the advantages of an EVF over an optical VF focus are the ability to focus and frame through different lenses (like an SLR). The best reason for an EVF is lost on the fixed X100. (As someone mentioned, there were only 1 or 2 fixed SLRs. One, a Fuji as it turns out - the Fujicarex...)
On the other hand, carrying a fake Leica will make me look and feel better. (There's nothing quite like a 48 year old in black skinny jeans, swinging the latest hip camera, a beer gut, metal and some bad ink.)
- C
On the other hand, carrying a fake Leica will make me look and feel better. (There's nothing quite like a 48 year old in black skinny jeans, swinging the latest hip camera, a beer gut, metal and some bad ink.)
- C
Last edited:
Jeff Charles
Member
Thanks for the clarification.
Jeff Charles
Member
The experience is one side of the story, and an important one. The other side is getting accurate focus, and it pretty much does not matter how that happens, either manually or with AF. Contrast detection AF, which is used in the X100, is generally considered to be more accurate, although slower, than the phase detection AF used in DSLRs. Initial reports are that the X100's AF is relatively quick.
It is also possible to manually focus very accurately using an LCD (and I assume, an EVF) by magnifying the center of the screen. However, that method is not quick.
We do not know yet how well the X100 will focus in very low light. That's a situation in which MF could be an alternative, but it is also a situation in which LCDs and EVFs do not do as well.
MF also has the advantage of enabling multiple shots of an off-center subject without having to focus and recompose for each shot, assuming sufficient DOF. With the X100, one alternative using AF is to use an off-center focus point. Another is to lock focus with the rear AF button, rather than by half pressing the shutter button.
It is pretty clear that the MF options with the X100 are not ideal. The degree to which that will matter in actual use remains to be seen.
Jeff
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I've had people being offended because I've added "please" in a request. It really is all regional.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You neglected to add "by means of triangulation" etc etc etc.
"What are the advantages of triangulation vs. brute-force measurement?" comes to mind.
Pinky to Lip, "LASER Rangefinder".
LASER Rangefinder set to maximum. Charging to 4Gigajoules.
LASER Rangefinder set to maximum. Charging to 4Gigajoules.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah! very Star Trek ... still most of these x100 have been reduced to impulse-power anyway