Why isn't the Fuji X series in the Rangefinder section

I just wonder why people are afraid to call new distinctive cameras in their own names and want to classify them to something which existed before. Come on, there are more camera types than only P&S, RF and SLR.

Some people consider RF being something special and distinctive. I'm sure people who used RF's in their youth now think about m4/3 cameras as something special and distinctive. It's all in our heads. Words and concepts do not make photographs even if they are catchy and innovative.

Remember movie where boss used to hipnotize listeners by asking "Sinergy....tell me what is sinergy?" and then continuing with corporate BS? Do not let concept of sinergy take over you. It's all BS.
 
Lax Jought said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has always been my definition that a P&S camera can't be used any other way than an automatic mode. There are a lot of cameras that do not provide exposure- or shutter-priority modes, much less fully manual modes, and those are P&S cameras.

Cameras that have full-auto modes but provide control to the photographer should they so choose are not Point & Shoot cameras.

It's no insult to the Fuji X cameras to say they're not rangefinders. They're not rangefinders, because they don't possess a manual, optical rangefinder.
 
btgc said:
I just wonder why people are afraid to call new distinctive cameras in their own names and want to classify them to something which existed before.
Click to expand...

And, of course, you have to wonder why they want to call an autofocus camera a rangefinder, purely on grounds that there is somehow more status associated with RFs than with autofocus or (perish the thought) P+S.

As far as I am aware, coincidence or split image optical rangefinders date from the late 19th century, and coupled rangefinders were first used in cameras on the Kodak Autographic 3a in 1916.

As soon as you call an autofocus camera a 'rangefinder', you might as well apply the same term to TLRs, SLRs, and even the Minox with its measuring chain, because they all enable you to find the distance to the subject, aka the range.

Cheers,

R.
 
Honey, I shrank the screen on the back.

Honey, I shrank the screen on the back.

There are 2 quickly blurring/diminishing distinctions. They are:

1 Mirrorless cameras (in a Leica-style case).
2 Don't support manual focus RF lenses.

Mirrorless cams 'view' off the sensor (yes, they have optical VF, too...).

Mirrorless cameras don't yet work quickly with manual focus RF lenses, a problem to those own them.

(Mirrorless is a poor term, as it describes the anti-SLR, which it will someday replace. Everything will be 'mirrorless')

Flip this definition and the Leica M9 is the only mirrorless camera with a RF system for manual focusing lenses. :)

- Charlie
 
Wow, three pages on a subject completely devoid of any substance. Isn't there some new 400% crops from the X-1 Pro shot in a cave at ISO 6 million that we can pick apart for chroma noise in the shadows?

Next up: Why isn't a bar of soap in the liquid soap section...
 
i'd thought by now it may have been in the tranny section, looks like a woman but really it aint one......but still give you the thrill:D
 
So this has been educational for me. When I bought my x100 I was sold it had a hybrid rangefinder but it's obvious to me now that it isn't. So I appreciate all the info. On the other hand I don't appreciate the private message from a member here saying I have either no knowledge of rangefinders or that I'm a troll.
 
Jurat said:
So this has been educational for me. When I bought my x100 I was sold it had a hybrid rangefinder but it's obvious to me now that it isn't. So I appreciate all the info. On the other hand I don't appreciate the private message from a member here saying I have either no knowledge of rangefinders or that I'm a troll.
Click to expand...

Quite. But one of the penalties if being on the internet is that there is always a small percentage of arseholes whose sole interest in life appears to be trying to insult others. As the old mock-Latin tag runs, Nil illegitimis carborundum: don't let the bar stewards wear you down.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Quite. But one of the penalties if being on the internet is that there is always a small percentage of arseholes whose sole interest in life appears to be trying to insult others. As the old mock-Latin tag runs, Nil illegitimis carborundum: don't let the bar stewards wear you down.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

So true. If only the spectacle of victimhood could be realized for the golden opportunity that it is: a chance to see that other people besides myself suffer in analogous (but never quite the same) ways, and that there is thus a chance for new forms of social solidarity to emerge.
 
Jurat said:
On the other hand I don't appreciate the private message from a member here saying I have either no knowledge of rangefinders or that I'm a troll.
Click to expand...

Someone seriously PM'd you? Wow, some take this stuff way too seriously. :eek:
 
In my book, anything that uses a window not routed thru the optics to compose your subject is a rangefinder. With the exception of TLRS, of course. And probably a few more exceptions I can't think of at the moment.
 
Teuthida said:
In my book, anything that uses a window not routed thru the optics to compose your subject is a rangefinder.
Click to expand...

That's a viewfinder camera technically. All I know is that the X-Pro1 has made me realize I don't necessarily need a RF... just a camera shaped like one with a VF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom