celluloidprop
Well-known
What makes them 'point and shoots'? The person behind the camera has every bit as much control as a person shooting a M3 or a F100 or a 1DX.
Why isn't the Fuji X series in the Rangefinder section
- Thread starter Jurat
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 6K
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
A rangefinder is an optical instrument used to estimate the distance between two points. In the case of the newer Leica cameras it is mechanically coupled to the lens to aid in determining proper focus. None of the Fuji X series cameras achieve proper focus using this method. Soooo, it is not a rangefinder and not in the rangefinder section on RFF.
Bob
Bob
Richard G
Veteran
I like Spyro's perspective on this. I too made the golfing analogy when everyone was so upset about the Fuji X-Pro 1 being called a rangefinder camera. Last year in the context of the X100 we saw the wonderful expedient: "rangefinder-like" camera. To stick with the U-boat era but to paraphrase the leader of the other side, the new Fujis and some Rangefinders are smaller cameras united by different focus mechanisms.
bensyverson
Well-known
I agree 100%. I don't want to get into a big argument with other people here, but saying the Contax G is an "autofocus rangefinder" is actually redundant. All autofocus systems are by definition "rangefinders," period. They measure distance. But we all agree there must be some distinction made between the Olympus Epic and a Leica M. My proposed definition makes that distinction utterly unambiguous.
The Contax G1's autofocus system works the same way as the Olympus Epic: active infrared. Would you argue that the Epic is a "rangefinder camera?" The G2 uses an active and passive (phase detect) hybrid. Phase detect is what DSLRs use. So the G2 focuses like an Epic that mated with a Canon Rebel. Neither the G1 nor G2 have anything to do with what we call rangefinder cameras. I think the Contaxes are very cool cameras, and they're certainly "rangefinder style" in terms of the body design, but that's a marketing term.
If someone can explain to me how the Contax G1 is materially different from an interchangeable lens Epic, I'm all ears.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
So rangefinder only means optical rangefinder, because there are laser and infared rangefinders.
Spyro
Well-known
LOL no, rangefinder apparently means leica, bessa, stuff like that.
and P'n'S means a religious thing, it is every camera that is not included in a list of cameras that a prophet carved on stone sometime, someplace 😀
maggieo
More Deadly
My friend [name redacted for privacy reasons] is probably going to die tonight from lung cancer. This thread is a stupid, pedantic waste of human energy. Jesus, people. Really? Go hug the people you love. Time is wasting.
bensyverson
Well-known
As someone who has lost people, I agree. However, the above statements could be applied to 99% of the Internet, and about 90% of the rest of life.
umcelinho
Marcelo
lovely weather today, isn't it?
CVickery
Established
OK, on researching further, I can live with your and Stephen's (he is the head honcho after all) definition. That being said, I think you are missing a bit on the details of the Contax G system. My understanding is that the G1 was passive system (2 CCD's for phase detection) and the G2 added the active IR for the hybrid...so I think the G1 would be different from the Epic which used active IR.
CVickery
Established
Sorry, about your friend, really. Yeah, hugs are always at the top of the list.
willie_901
Veteran
The XP1 and X100 are not rangefinders because they do not have an analog rangefinder mechanism. This seems like a reasonable taxonomy to me.
Both cameras can be used as if they are classical rangefinders. You can operate the AF system manually (this is not turning the fly-by-wire lens barrel) using several different methods. You can display the focus distance in the finder and watch it move as focus changes. You can define a focus region in the center of the frame and then focus and recompose. You can see what's happening outside the frame lines. I focus the X100 as I focused my Zeiss Ikon M. While the technique is very different, my speed and sucess rate is similar. The same goes for exposure. Both cameras are as discreet and as convenient to carry as many real RF cameras. The X100 is much quieter than most RF cameras though.
I have no problem with people calling the Fuji X cameras P&S. A $8,000 D3X body using the $1,800 35/1.4 G lens with the AF set to the factory default and in P exposure mode is also just a P&S camera. The term is not derogatory to anyone who understands cameras.
Both cameras can be used as if they are classical rangefinders. You can operate the AF system manually (this is not turning the fly-by-wire lens barrel) using several different methods. You can display the focus distance in the finder and watch it move as focus changes. You can define a focus region in the center of the frame and then focus and recompose. You can see what's happening outside the frame lines. I focus the X100 as I focused my Zeiss Ikon M. While the technique is very different, my speed and sucess rate is similar. The same goes for exposure. Both cameras are as discreet and as convenient to carry as many real RF cameras. The X100 is much quieter than most RF cameras though.
I have no problem with people calling the Fuji X cameras P&S. A $8,000 D3X body using the $1,800 35/1.4 G lens with the AF set to the factory default and in P exposure mode is also just a P&S camera. The term is not derogatory to anyone who understands cameras.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Point taken, but optical was the first system and traditionally used on RF coupled Leicas. I am guessing the newer types of ranging methods are more closely related to AF in modern cameras. If so then that is another can of worms as in AF cameras can be considered just a different type of rangefinder camera. Aw well, no sense trying to keep things simple.
Bob
maggieo
More Deadly
Thanks, guys. Hard night.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I hear what you are saying. But I do think some people use the term "point and shoot" to marginalize or deride certain cameras.
The term suggests the user simply points and shoots - with little or no control over the camera.
In your own example, you aren't saying a D3X is a point-and-shoot. You are saying it can be used that way. In fact, any camera with an A mode CAN be used as a point-and-shoot. Some are just better at it than others.
And that doesn't mean the phrase is a good/fair/accurate description for every camera with an A mode.
grandi abbracci, Maggie
Lax Jought
Well-known
Point-n-shoots - I would use that term for cameras that can only basically point-n-shoot as its main feature as a feature of its main target market.
A D3X has that basic function also, but it's only one part of its total functionality and the target market is very, very different.
So although the D3X has the A function, I wouldn't call it a point-n-shoot camera.
roundg
Well-known
They have optic finder. But not with a rangefinder.
zvos1
Well-known
What?? Is everyone trying to tell me that my new x100 is not a rangefinder, damn I am returning it immediately.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The debate about P&S is mostly concerned with social caste and the defense of professional privilege.
The debate about the definition of an RF is mostly concerned with the symbolic capital of historical legacy.
These questions probably make a difference to the value-added worth of products and services, but for the non-commercial amateur as well as the end-viewer, it's a moot point.
I submit the X-Pro1 is defined by its 21st century viewfinder, which Fuji call a "Hybrid Multi Viewfinder." It is way ahead of the VFs found in any RF camera to date, the titanium M9 included. No doubt the focusing system used in conjunction with the HVF will evolve, but the implementation of a brightline VF with live histogram and tons of other information and view outside the framelines that enables toggling between OVF/EVF is brilliant.
The debate about the definition of an RF is mostly concerned with the symbolic capital of historical legacy.
These questions probably make a difference to the value-added worth of products and services, but for the non-commercial amateur as well as the end-viewer, it's a moot point.
I submit the X-Pro1 is defined by its 21st century viewfinder, which Fuji call a "Hybrid Multi Viewfinder." It is way ahead of the VFs found in any RF camera to date, the titanium M9 included. No doubt the focusing system used in conjunction with the HVF will evolve, but the implementation of a brightline VF with live histogram and tons of other information and view outside the framelines that enables toggling between OVF/EVF is brilliant.
