Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
There's a lot of technical speculation going on about the X100. To be honest, I'm not even trying to follow it all. So, why am I excited about the X100?
Simple. It's likely to be the first affordable digital body that can be seamlessly used by a committed direct view camera user.
Note I say "direct view", not "rangefinder" - I don't particularly care how focus is technically performed so long as I have a good (Leica quality) viewfinder. I see a lot of people bemoaning the fact that it doesn't have a traditional rangefinder. Why would this matter? It's an evolution, just like when RFs were first added internally to Barnacks replacing shoe-mount RF accessories.
Many, many of us haven't been able to buy into the M8/M9 - for me, the M8 isn't appealing because of the crop and an M9 is financially impossible. This is a camera for us, a Canon G-III 17 or a Yashica Electro for the new era.
As I see it, our traditional RF technique will overlay right on top of this new hardware. Isn't that what it's all about?
Simple. It's likely to be the first affordable digital body that can be seamlessly used by a committed direct view camera user.
Note I say "direct view", not "rangefinder" - I don't particularly care how focus is technically performed so long as I have a good (Leica quality) viewfinder. I see a lot of people bemoaning the fact that it doesn't have a traditional rangefinder. Why would this matter? It's an evolution, just like when RFs were first added internally to Barnacks replacing shoe-mount RF accessories.
Many, many of us haven't been able to buy into the M8/M9 - for me, the M8 isn't appealing because of the crop and an M9 is financially impossible. This is a camera for us, a Canon G-III 17 or a Yashica Electro for the new era.
As I see it, our traditional RF technique will overlay right on top of this new hardware. Isn't that what it's all about?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I have always been saying that EVF is modern ground glass [at image plane], just like a view-camera...but without the grain.
The EVF sees exactly what the sensor sees, can be use as a focusing device and with data display. Unlike many, I have never pined for the parallax-wedge found in RF.
I do hope a few focusing aid would be made available for the OVF...for example, by projecting a patch, just like other datasets. No more alignment issues.
The EVF sees exactly what the sensor sees, can be use as a focusing device and with data display. Unlike many, I have never pined for the parallax-wedge found in RF.
I do hope a few focusing aid would be made available for the OVF...for example, by projecting a patch, just like other datasets. No more alignment issues.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or the sharpness, or truly continuous (non-jerky) viewing. They'll probably be very good in a year or two. Right at the moment, the best are just about barely acceptable.
Cheers,
R.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Amen, brother! If there were a split image focusing patch, my shots could all be as perfectly focused as my Leica M2 shots.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I personally find the current generation of EVF to be an unacceptable substitute for a good OVF - as a matter of fact, they give me a headache. Having one as a switchable option as is proposed in the X100 is a good compromise IMO, it allows you to have the strengths of each technology.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
You've been outed as an optimist! I knew it.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the X100 for the same reasons as Ken: this, in my opinion, is the first truly usable compact digital camera. It has the features I need; it ignores the features I don't; and it puts everything at my fingertips. Or my eyeball. I hope it lives up to its potential.
I agree with everything you wrote, but just found it weird that you don't like the crop on the M8, but are ok with the crop on the X100.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
You've been outed as an optimist! I knew it.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the X100 for the same reasons as Ken: this, in my opinion, is the first truly usable compact digital camera. It has the features I need; it ignores the features I don't; and it puts everything at my fingertips. Or my eyeball. I hope it lives up to its potential.
I am worse than an optimist. Professionally I have been accused of being a visionary but has an annoying track record of being right...because I made it happen.
I had no issue with APSC size censors. Hack, at one time Oscar was merely playing with 35mm leftover movies stock.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
I feel the exact same way about the M8. I don't see what the X100 provides as a "crop": both sensor and lens were designed in tandem to act as a single imaging unit. I don't have pre-existing expectations about its lens.
The M8, however, is a very expensive camera that operates with the understanding that you can use your half-century of Leica glass on it. That's part of the value of the M8. Due to the crop factor, though, this is not strictly true. This expensive camera is not giving you the true image as seen by your expensive lenses. For a system so expensive, this feel a bit cheap.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
This. I want my 35 Cron to be a 35 Cron, so the M8 is annoying to me. The X100 is built around the 35mm FOV, so...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I'm not answering for Ken, but to me this is easy to reconcile.
The X100 is supposed to have a fixed lens, therefore as long as that lens fits my preference in terms of focal length and max. aperture, for me, that's 35mm (full-frame equivalent), there is a good chance that I will like the camera. I read that some people are disappointed with X100 because it doesn't have 50mm lens.
M8 on the other hand *forces* me to buy alternative lenses like Elmarit 28mm or CV Ultron to get something that is like 35mm. That is not acceptable, especially if I'm that guy who just coughed up $2000 for a 35mm Summilux.
I am perpetually perplexed at how many people will put up with this even if their focal length of choice is 50mm, in which there are more choices.
M9 to me is a real solution, M8 is a wedge, a stop-gap measure.
Yeah, in theory you are probably right... but there are plenty of M8 images that show this not to be the case. Seriously, I think crop factors are just mental hurdles for those of us who are used to things being one way for so long. I'm not big on the crop factor either, but my M8.2 is a hell of camera and I'm glad I get to use it. That said, it'll be nice to have the X100 as well.
Last edited:
In all fairness, anything with a "crop" sensor is a stop-gap measure then... since full frame is apparently the be-all-end-all.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
...only if the glass was designed specifically for FF, I would think.
With a mFT lens on a mFT sensor, the word "crop" doesn't even get mentioned.I'd take it even further: I want a MF sensor to use my FF glass on—vignette and all—so that I can do the cropping myself and scrape every inch of goodness out of my glass. But I'm a nutter.
ederek
Well-known
"Direct View" sounds good Ken. I also like the clarity of an optical solution.
An Augmented Optical Finder is just great - looking forward to the developments in coming years.
tapesonthefloor - agreed, FF isn't enough, let's use all that glass! Would be nice to hold camera in same position for final landscape or portrait crops, versus this wonky 90 degree prestidigitization (I like the digital twist on the word!)..
An Augmented Optical Finder is just great - looking forward to the developments in coming years.
tapesonthefloor - agreed, FF isn't enough, let's use all that glass! Would be nice to hold camera in same position for final landscape or portrait crops, versus this wonky 90 degree prestidigitization (I like the digital twist on the word!)..
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I agree with your "direct view" assessment.
Had a great time with my Hexar AF night before last. Shooting very loose and without worries in a way I could not have done with my R3A.
The X100 could be the camera that essentially gets me out of 35mm film. In the end though, it will depend on how the experience makes me feel. I like results, but I don't really shoot for results, I shoot for the experience.
Had a great time with my Hexar AF night before last. Shooting very loose and without worries in a way I could not have done with my R3A.
The X100 could be the camera that essentially gets me out of 35mm film. In the end though, it will depend on how the experience makes me feel. I like results, but I don't really shoot for results, I shoot for the experience.
Have fun, I'll just keep using my handicapped, cheap, stop-gap measure ...
The only thing that bothers me about crop sensors vs. lens length is that the wider the lens, the more distortion it has.
morgan
Well-known
...only if the glass was designed specifically for FF, I would think.
I think this is key. If I buy a GF1 with the 14, 20, and cv 25 .95, designed for that crop factor, it doesn't have any practical limitations as long as the lenses are quality.
kzphoto
Well-known
I agree with this, but it's hard to achieve critical focus with poor EVF displays. If you've used a 4x5 with a really nice glass loupe, there is no comparison.
Once the EVF progresses a bit more, I'll use them.
While the GF1 is an ok camera and the 20mm lens is actually really good... the IQ just wasn't there compared to an APS-C sensor even (compared to the X1 I use). To me, "crop" (less than full frame) sensors aren't only about lens compatibility, but also IQ for me.
Now I'm not saying the GF1 is a bad camera at all and this is not about high ISO noise. Comparing my GF1 to my X1 photos made me rethink u4/3 in general... the photos just didn't look as good. The only way I'd be happy with u4/3 is in a DL5 type of point and shoot at this point.