It's very easy to learn how to approximate what the OVF will show if you use it for awhile.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Actually, that kinda works for me. I tend to use the Hexar for quick, opportunistic shots rather than carefully planned compositions. Capturing a bit more than I see in the rangefinder gives me room for error and if I have to crop down to a measly 12MP and get the shot as a result, I can live with that.
Hexar shot examples... http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevemphoto/sets/72157603845261332/
Highway 61
Revisited
Good to hear - yet not acceptable on a fixed lens $1000 camera. And the tests shots I took with the X100s were enough, for me, to make me think that I would never use the OVF because I hated getting 25% more than what I had framed on each shot.
Even the Rollei 35 finder is more accurate. Not speaking of my Nikon rangefinders which frames are exceptionally accurate.
People don't seem to be totally unconcerned with frames accuracy - look at the large amount of Leica users mounting a C-Summicron 40/2 of their M9 instead of a 35mm, because doing so at least they get what the framelines display.
I myself used an M9 with a 40mm (modified to display the camera "35mm framelines", of course) and this was just perfect.
Having used this combo, I can certainly say it is not accurate close-up. Framelines are optimized for one distance and using a 40mm will just push that accuracy back from 1 meter to 2 meters or something. Perhaps you make most photos at that range and that is why it works. I'm not sure what the Fujis are optimized for.
Highway 61
Revisited
Well this combo is way, way, way more accurate than using a 35mm lens, and this, at all distances... and this applies to any Leica from the M4-P onwards.
The Fuji isn't optmized for anything, the framelines are just inaccurate at all distances. Probably to make room to display those many distracting things you don't really need to see in the OVF and which any experienced user will hide through the menu when possible.
It's not difficult to see how inaccurate it really is.
OVF :
EVF :
And this is worse at short distances.
Why they made the projected OVF framelines so inaccurate is beyond me. Making it 100% accurate at infinity would have been very easy to do and would have worked with no problem at short distances, especially for us long-run RF cameras users.
Given the price of the camera, this is enough for me as a no-buying bug.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
The real question is "Why Not?" If the option is available, why not? It's customizable so different folks can have it their way. Why Not? There is more than one person out there.....
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Clearly people like it. Fuji made the decision that it was worth doing.
For my money, I would have chosen not to include it for reasons of cost and complexity.
Of course, I'm no marketing genius. It could be that people would not have bought the camera in enough numbers without this feature.
furcafe
Veteran
I doubt the Leica framelines, even on the pre-M4-P "classics," were optimized for infinity, & they certainly haven't been on the more recent models. Not sure about Nikon RFs, but I haven't found the SP framelines to be any more accurate than an M3, M2, or M4. All of which is fine for me because I don't customarily shoot landscape, etc. Like jsrockit, I've found using the M9 & 240 35mm framelines w/40mm to be inaccurate for a lot of my work (closer than 10-15 feet). I can adjust, of course, just like a landscape shooter w/a 35 or 50 w/the "official" framelines, but horses for courses, etc.
This is not to say that Fuji's framelines couldn't be more accurate. Unlike old & current Leicas, however, they at least are capable of changing size as focus distance changes & can be updated via firmware. And to get back to the OP's question, the EVF is available to quickly check TTL framing.
This is not to say that Fuji's framelines couldn't be more accurate. Unlike old & current Leicas, however, they at least are capable of changing size as focus distance changes & can be updated via firmware. And to get back to the OP's question, the EVF is available to quickly check TTL framing.
Optimized at infinity would be wildly inaccurate closeup wouldn't it be. The M9 is optimized for 1 meter and the M8.2 for 2 meters IIRC. That means at infinity, these framelines aren't that accurate either. When I use the X100s with the OVF, I just frame a little tighter than usual.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That ~90-95% coverage at infinity is about the same as most Leica M (film or digital) frame lines, actually.
You don't, for the most part, see people getting super grumpy about the M frame lines.
Window VFs in general are not about super accurate framing. If that's what you're worried about use an SLR or EVIL camera.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Highway 61
Revisited
The problem with the X100s OVF is that it's very inaccurate at infinity, very inaccurate at medium distances, and very inaccurate close-up. And this, on a $1000 modern camera.
The framelines of, say, a Minox 35 are way more accurate. So the X100s OVF doesn't work out for me.
Fuji stated it would 90% from day one though... it was in the specs.
Highway 61
Revisited
Of course, and with no concerns re. that in particular, I never implied that Fuji didn't tell it clearly. So it remains an additional finder when you don't want to use the EVF or the screen, and are ready to live with some approx. framing, just like with the old Canon G cameras. That clearly makes the X100s less attractive, because you will use the EVF and/or the screen all the time if you want to benefit from some accurate framing on your $1000 camera.
doolittle
Well-known
Interesting. I would have thought the electronically controlled projected frame lines would be continuously adjusted with regard to focus distance to provide optimum coverage.
Highway 61
Revisited
They could be ; but they aren't.
That's parallax correction tom.w.bn.
As far as the OVF/EVF option in a $1000 camera and complaining, should the $1000 only have an LCD like the $2800 RX1? I'm not sure what you are getting at here...is the issue is that it provided 3 VFs but the one you like is not perfect?
As far as the OVF/EVF option in a $1000 camera and complaining, should the $1000 only have an LCD like the $2800 RX1? I'm not sure what you are getting at here...is the issue is that it provided 3 VFs but the one you like is not perfect?
Highway 61
Revisited
Apples vs. oranges, and the RX1 is kinda prototype FF camera which its brand won't support nor make evolve.
The issue is that it would have been very easy for Fuji to make the OVF framelines way better (around, say, 97% of what's captured by the sensor), at no additional cost, and that, as it is now the case for most of the appealing cameras produced, there is an unexplainable bug in an otherwise very tasteful soup.
As if there were no real photographers testing the prototypes in the R&D teams before the light was switched to green for mass production.
The X100s is aimed towards a certain crowd of experienced amateurs and Fuji should have known from the beginning that their OVF would be prone to make people not so happy.
For me the X100s' OVF, as it is, is just pretty useless, and I dislike the EVFs, so I'd rather get a fixed lens APS-C toy without any finder at all, like the Coolpix A, and continue to shoot by using the screen, as I've been used to with my Canon G9.
Of course, the X100s has that terrific f:2 lens on it, and the X-Trans sensor...
Not apples to oranges at all... You stated that a $1000 should have an accurate OVF. I'm stating that we are lucky to have any type of EVF in this type of camera.
How do you know it would be easy?
I've been fine with it over the last 3 years... it's not so hard to compensate for by framing tighter than usual.
So it is all just personal bias then really? Fuji gives you three options for framing and you'd rather have the camera with one option? That makes no sense at all.