Xpro3 observations

[Huss]

I went to the store and tried out the Xpro3. First off I was surprised how light the camera is - guess that's from building it out of titanium. Interestingly my Fuji TX2 (Xpan) is also made from Ti but is much heavier.
I have to be honest, I found the mf using the optical finder very disappointing. Nothing happens to the main view when you focus, not even the focus patch square (which you can move around). All focus tools are in the little evf box in the bottom right corner, so you are staring at that instead of looking at the scene.
If I'm going to use evf to manual focus, then actually I would use this camera in the EVF mode for manual focus where it is great. Just like any other EVF camera really. I would only use the optical vf with an AF lens, where you are not concentrating on a little patch in the bottom right corner.
However the optical vf is disappointing in the fact the frame lines are so small. There is so much open unused space around it, not sure why they can't be (much) bigger?
So, for my use, this is a nice EVF camera. And in no way an RF camera like a Leica M. Unless I missed something which maybe I did as I played with it for about 15 mins..

 

[shawn]

The way to focus in erf mode without watching the patch is to turn on focus peaking and set it to red. Shoot raw and put the camera in monochrome mode. Zoom in the erf patch by pressing the rear command dial. Now when you are manually focusing watch the ovf and use peripheral vision to look for red in the bottom corner. When that happens you are in focus.

Shawn

 

[ranger9]

Manual focusing with the optical viewfinder is a bit odd, although conceptually it's not much different from using a Leica II through IIIg with the separate rangefinder and viewfinder windows. Personally (on the X-Pro 2) I find it easier to switch briefly to the EVF for focusing -- it takes only a quick push on the front lever -- and then back to the OVF.

In my opinion the frameline issue is a bigger one, and it's directly caused by the fact that Fujifilm chose to dumb down the finder's optical system. On the X-Pro 1 and 2, the finder has dual magnifications (0.2x and 0.6x, if I remember correctly) and switches automatically between them based on the lens mounted (although you can also override this if you want.) The 0.2x magnification makes it possible to show a finder frame for the 16mm lenses, and the 0.6x magnification gives a (barely) large enough image size to use the 56mm and 90mm lenses somewhat confidently.

On the X-Pro 3, Fuji has taken the retrograde step of switching to a single viewfinder magnification (0.52x.) This gives the worst of both worlds: lenses wider than the 23mm can't be used with the optical finder at all, and the 56 and 90 get a dinkier, harder-to-compose image.

Thom Hogan has speculated that Fuji believes most X-Pro users like having the optical finder, but actually use the electronic finder almost all the time; if that's your profile, it makes sense to compromise the optical finder to help hold down costs, while amping up the electronic finder. However, I use my optical finder a lot, and that's the main reason I'm going to be sticking with the X-Pro 2 instead of up/downgrading to the X-Pro 3.

 

[Huss]

The way to focus in erf mode without watching the patch is to turn on focus peaking and set it to red. Shoot raw and put the camera in monochrome mode. Zoom in the erf patch by pressing the rear command dial. Now when you are manually focusing watch the ovf and use peripheral vision to look for red in the bottom corner. When that happens you are in focus.

Shawn

Wow, that's even worse than I thought!

Yep, people are definitely kidding themselves if they think this is a substitute to a real RF kamera.

 

[Huss]

I think the optical finder is ok when using AF, but let down by the tiny frame lines.
This camera is a hard pass for me as it could be so much better, and it is strange that it isn't.

 

[shawn]

Wow, that's even worse than I thought!

Yep, people are definitely kidding themselves if they think this is a substitute to a real RF kamera.

Not much different than looking for a focus confirm light on a DSLR except that you are also seeing a zoomed in focus point too. Try it, you might be surprised how well it works. I used to shoot my Nikon 105mm 2.5 with the OVF that way.

Shawn

 

[Huss]

Not much different than looking for a focus confirm light on a DSLR except that you are also seeing a zoomed in focus point too. Try it, you might be surprised how well it works. I used to shoot my Nikon 105mm 2.5 with the OVF that way.

Shawn

Not really. With a DSLR you can use the entire focus screen to get focus, and use the focus confirm light to pin point. With my D850, the manual focus screen was really accurate so I often did not even need to use the confirm dot.

 

[Canyongazer]

A few years ago I decided to give the X Pro 2 a try.
Now I own two of 'em. 🙂
Happy and done.

 

[Ccoppola82]

When they announced the Frameline disaster I knew I wouldn’t even think about this camera. The Xpro2 is nice and fun to shoot. I can shoot down to 16mm with the ovf with minor guesswork and the 18mm works very well on it. I cannot understand why you would want to kill the OVF in a camera who’s main feature is in fact....the OVF. Just some very bizarre choices made on this one. Perhaps a result of the xpro2 being so nearly perfect that they needed to really reach, so ended up being different for the sake of difference rather than common sense.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I handled it as well. Little bit big camera for its small sensor and no IBIS. OVF has economy glass feel in it, just like in x100 series.

 

[benlees]

Wow, that's even worse than I thought!

Yep, people are definitely kidding themselves if they think this is a substitute to a real RF kamera.

They definitely are, but they would have been misinformed to get to that idea.

 

[gavinlg]

However the optical vf is disappointing in the fact the frame lines are so small. There is so much open unused space around it, not sure why they can't be (much) bigger?

Which lens did you try it with? With a 23mm or 35mm lens the framelines should be big (in the case of 23 it should fill the finder). The removal of the dual magnification setup is somewhat counteracted by the fact that they made the actual optical viewfinder quite a bit bigger than the X-pro2 - so with 23 and 35mm lenses it's noticeably bigger.

I'm pretty much exclusively a 35mm equivalent shooter, so for me it's an ideal OVF setup, however I'm a bit mad I can't use OVF with wider lenses. The x-pro line has never been an MF specific camera OR a leica replacement. I kind of see it as a modernised Contax G and if you use it like that it's superb.

Manual focus on non-leica digital bodies sucks in general. I've gone through several cameras trying to adapt them to be MF friendly and they've all been awful. The EVF with fuji's split screen or peaking assist is the best I've found but it still sucks compared to an optical rangefinder.

 

[jjcha]

Thom Hogan has speculated that Fuji believes most X-Pro users like having the optical finder, but actually use the electronic finder almost all the time

Everyone I know who has a X-Pro or X100 tells me they really mainly use the EVF. So there is something to this theory. Which sucks for guys like us who actually use the OVF a lot.

I think if you shoot 28mm equivalent (i.e., 18mm in crop terms), you could go ahead and fudge the whole viewfinder thing with 35mm framelines.

But with 24mm equivalent (i.e., the 16mm crop lenses, which is the focal length that Fujifilm seems to advance over 18mm in its X-series lenses) trying to use the whole viewfinder as a proxy on a X-Pro 3 seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[jjcha]

Manual focus on non-leica digital bodies sucks in general. I've gone through several cameras trying to adapt them to be MF friendly and they've all been awful. The EVF with fuji's split screen or peaking assist is the best I've found but it still sucks compared to an optical rangefinder.

Totally agree. To Fuji's credit, the digital distance scale they provide, as well as manual clutch lenses, are better than nothing. But man, they don't make the experience actually good, for a street shooter.

For zone focusing street shooters like me, I just don't understand why they don't allow you to map the manual focus ring to one of the gazillion dials they have on their X cameras.

Having precise clicks I can have confidence in (e.g., each click equals, I dunno, moving focus by 0.5 meters) instead of that mushy ring on my X100F would be so much better. I get it, there's an issue due to the need to accommodate macro focusing, but that can also be solved in the software!

 

[gavinlg]

Everyone I know who has a X-Pro or X100 tells me they really mainly use the EVF. So there is something to this theory. Which sucks for guys like us who actually use the OVF a lot.

Count me as one of the predominantly OVF users, almost strictly, even for paid work if possible. Strongly prefer optical finder with framelines over EVF.

 

[Huss]

Which lens did you try it with? With a 23mm or 35mm lens the framelines should be big (in the case of 23 it should fill the finder). The removal of the dual magnification setup is somewhat counteracted by the fact that they made the actual optical viewfinder quite a bit bigger than the X-pro2 - so with 23 and 35mm lenses it's noticeably bigger.

35 and it is not big. Surprisingly small actually.

 

[jarski]

Manual focus on non-leica digital bodies sucks in general. ...

I have same experience adapting MF lenses on Sony mirrorless bodies. sometimes focusing aid wont pick up obvious contrast borders in scene, leaving me focusing back and forth and unsure do I have focus or not. this is time consuming and frustrating, so decided not to fiddle with them anymore.

 

[gavinlg]

35 and it is not big. Surprisingly small actually.

ahh true, just the 23mm frame that's bigger -

23mm frame comparison

35mm frame comparison

 

[Dogman]

A few years ago I decided to give the X Pro 2 a try.
Now I own two of 'em. 🙂
Happy and done.

I have three.

And three XPro1's as well.

The new XP3 does not appeal to me at all.

The previous models were great cameras and the Fujinon lenses are so good I see no reason to adapt and try to use anything else. I cannot imagine fiddling with a manual focus lens on those cameras. The ERF is useless to me. They're not rangefinders although some people call them that because of the design.

And I almost always use the OVF. EVFs kinda suck, really. Try shooting in bright high contrast daylight.

 

[JohnBeeching]

Hi,
Some interesting comments. I came to Fuji from having used Leica film Ms for many years and now have an X-Pro2 and X100T. While there were a few things that I initially found frustrating, like not being able to glance down at the lens and see what distance the camera was focussed on, I am now very happy with them and use them intuitively. I use the OVF most of the time and only resort to the EVF when necessary. The cameras are set to manual and I use back-button focusing exclusively if I want precision, or zone focusing with wide lenses on the street. I am happy with the cameras that I have and would not consider the X-Pro3 because I could no longer use the lovely 28mm with its OVF.

A couple of examples:
X100T
Touchingly blue by John Beeching, on Flickr

X-Pro with 18mm
Tired eyes? by John Beeching, on Flickr