Jump to content

X100s


trarmstrong

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RF like focusing would be cool, if its possible.

Feb/March sound too soon if it is announced in jan, there was a 6-8 month lag between the x100 announcement and availability Im sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An RF on the X100 would be cool, as would be info display in the VF of the X10, but if they can't get accurate framing then they've made a huge effort and blown it again - that 80%-coverage design philosophy is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An RF on the X100 would be cool, as would be info display in the VF of the X10, but if they can't get accurate framing then they've made a huge effort and blown it again - that 80%-coverage design philosophy is ridiculous.

The X10 has 85% coverage. The X100 has 100% and more (you can see outside the framing area).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then let me be specific - X10, a window that cuts off a significant portion of the image; X100, framelines that cut into the actual image captured at something like 80%.

Jesus but you can ride a high horse as a word parser.

The fact is, Fuji has in these two camera espoused a design philosophy that allows for serious inaccuracy in composing a shot. I seem to remember your saying that you found the inaccurate framelines of the X100 so bad that it caused you never to use anything other than it's EVF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then let me be specific - X10, a window that cuts off a significant portion of the image; X100, framelines that cut into the actual image captured at something like 80%.

Jesus but you can ride a high horse as a word parser.

The fact is, Fuji has in these two camera espoused a design philosophy that allows for serious inaccuracy in composing a shot. I seem to remember your saying that you found the inaccurate framelines of the X100 so bad that it caused you never to use anything other than it's EVF.

You are incorrect. I dont believe for a second that my X100 has such a high degree of error. I only use the EVF when I have the 28mm converter on the lens because the blockage is so high.

I use the OVF almost exclusively and never notice any errors in my framing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The

Fuji Guys FAQ video

says the OVF frame lines cover about 80% of the frame, I was really expecting something closer to 95%.

as seen in this thread

80% is roughly what I'm seeing (I haven't taken micrometer measurements and done the math) but just from holding the camera in a locked position and switching back and forth between EVF and OVF it's pretty obvious the OVF Framelines lop off a sizable chunk of real estate and that the EVF-view/LCD/actual-image-captured is substantially larger. This discrepancy has been noticed and commented on, negatively, by too many people for it to be something Fuji can avoid needing to correct in future models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sheesh.... just learn how to use an indirect viewing, mechanically coupled optical finder, instead of whining about how the camera won't hand hold you thru the entire process.

85-87% coverage has been almost a standard for camera viewfinders until only very recently (reasoning being that negative slide film holders obscured about 15% of the emulsion but that never seemed to bother users of positive print films)and rangefinder cameras in particular have never been all that accurate in framing regardless of camera quality or cost. it's very difficult to mass produce a mechanically coupled viewfinder mechanism (particularly so for designs that accomodate variable focal lengths) with perfect framing and near 100% field of view, esp one that isn't TTL design as in an SLR. it used to be common to have your local camera repair whiz calibrate the viewfinder with every tuneup/cleaning. sadly those guys (and those skills) have all but completely dissappeared.

anywhoo... keep both eyes open(unless you're left-eyed) when framing and take the time to master & instinctively compose for what's within and outside the viewfinders field.unlike in the days of film, you can get almost immediate comfirmation so it's not like having to wait several days or weeks for processing to learn how an mechanically coupled finder behaves.

ps-if i sound like a crotchety old fart, it's because i am.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to belive thats the 80-85% is such an issue. I use the OVF most of the time on my X100 atm, if I want more accuracy then I go to OVF.

If it really is such a problem then maybe the X100/X10 is not for you.

I generally feel photography is an art and its 'close enough for rock n roll' so to speak. I cant imagine its a problem in everyday shots unless youre doing something like product shots or paid photography where you need to be accurate, in which case get a more appropriate camera or learn to use the one you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sheesh.... just learn how to use an indirect viewing, mechanically coupled optical finder, instead of whining about how the camera won't hand hold you thru the entire process.

85-87% coverage has been almost a standard for camera viewfinders until only very recently (reasoning being that negative slide film holders obscured about 15% of the emulsion but that never seemed to bother users of positive print films)and rangefinder cameras in particular have never been all that accurate in framing regardless of camera quality or cost. it's very difficult to mass produce a mechanically coupled viewfinder mechanism (particularly so for designs that accomodate variable focal lengths) with perfect framing and near 100% field of view, esp one that isn't TTL design as in an SLR. it used to be common to have your local camera repair whiz calibrate the viewfinder with every tuneup/cleaning. sadly those guys (and those skills) have all but completely dissappeared.

anywhoo... keep both eyes open(unless you're left-eyed) when framing and take the time to master & instinctively compose for what's within and outside the viewfinders field.unlike in the days of film, you can get almost immediate comfirmation so it's not like having to wait several days or weeks for processing to learn how an mechanically coupled finder behaves.

ps-if i sound like a crotchety old fart, it's because i am.

;)

+1

Should see how bad the old RF cameras can be.

When seen from the perspective of SLRs anything other than SLRs are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sheesh.... just learn how to use an indirect viewing, mechanically coupled optical finder, instead of whining about how the camera won't hand hold you thru the entire process.

85-87% coverage has been almost a standard for camera viewfinders until only very recently (reasoning being that negative slide film holders obscured about 15% of the emulsion but that never seemed to bother users of positive print films)and rangefinder cameras in particular have never been all that accurate in framing regardless of camera quality or cost. it's very difficult to mass produce a mechanically coupled viewfinder mechanism (particularly so for designs that accomodate variable focal lengths) with perfect framing and near 100% field of view, esp one that isn't TTL design as in an SLR. it used to be common to have your local camera repair whiz calibrate the viewfinder with every tuneup/cleaning. sadly those guys (and those skills) have all but completely dissappeared.

anywhoo... keep both eyes open(unless you're left-eyed) when framing and take the time to master & instinctively compose for what's within and outside the viewfinders field.unlike in the days of film, you can get almost immediate comfirmation so it's not like having to wait several days or weeks for processing to learn how an mechanically coupled finder behaves.

ps-if i sound like a crotchety old fart, it's because i am.

;)

+1

Should see how bad the old RF cameras can be.

When seen from the perspective of SLRs anything other than SLRs are bad.

+11!

There's a reason rangefinders virtually disappeared once the SLR arrived on the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a whole raft of reasons why SLRs displaced rangefinder cameras, but I'm pretty sure that frame area accuracy wasn't one of them. I've done quite enough shooting with both RF and SLR film cameras, neg/pos as well as slide, to know that with a couple of honourable (and expensive) exceptions the SLRs are no better for finding the exact boundaries of the film frame. Add in the tolerances for the image aperture in different makes of slide frame or enlarger neg holder and you can see why the VF usually showed about 5-10% les in both directions than you got on the film image.

I had exactly the same type of problems with electronic viewfinders and video cameras. Nowadays there is no reason to make allowances in a DSLR but I'd be interested to know how many show the exact same framing as the sensor image.

Does anyone know of any published info about the framing accuracy of different makes/models?

On my little Canon compact I always assume that the optical finder is more of an aiming guide than a means of accurate framing. And all this is one of the reasons why I went for the X-E1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that you guys are OK with a VF that only delivers an 80% view of the shot being taken, especially as there are none of the traditional reasons for designing it this way (slide mount/neg holder masking) and since the Fuji software engineers have shown that they can easily make a correction - look at how the firmware update that corresponded to the release of the WCL provided a set of framelines that weren't there before. Why can't they just decide, what the hell, let's make our framelines as accurate as possible?

Given that the VF is the most immediate interface the shooter has with his subject, I'd think this would be vitally important to most, but since you're satisfied with something that delivers 20% less, let's explore this approach to camera design a little bit and see how it plays out across the board.

Lets' say the shutter speeds are planned to be 20% under what's posted on the dial; same with aperture settings. Well, OK, that's not too bad, we're not shooting slide film, and since 50% less is a whole stop, 20% is something between a third and a half a stop - easy enough to fix in PP, just budge a slider.

Same with the ISO settings, 800 displays as 1000, no need to whinge about that, but if the exp. comp. dial is that much off, 20% under all the time, that gets a little messy because then we have to remember that we need to add it in going one way and subtract it going the other. Damn.

How about lens focal length? Hell, that 50 is now a 40; that 35 is a 28. And that 200mm F1.8 I shelled out for is really a 160/2.0? I've been rooked!

And focusing distance. hmmm. Instead of 20 feet we're actually centered at 16; when set at 10 we're focused at 8. Well, it ain't going to be easy doing portrait work, and macro flower shots aren't gonna happen at all. On the matter of being 20% off on the DOF scale *ahem* shall we go back to square one?

Now as far as taking "the time to master & instinctively compose for what's within and outside the viewfinders field" I've been shooting nothing but a 28mm (or it's equivalent) since 2005 and have racked up something in the neighborhood of 200K shots. In that time I think I've done a pretty good job of internalizing the 28mm field of view and the corresponding distances. In fact, when I'm shooting in a rush and not really paying attention to the framelimes, just using the VF to find my compositional center, I'm pretty consistent with my comps.

It's when I actually stop to look at the framelines that I get screwed up, because they are so far off from what I think I should be seeing.

If I'm shooting in a situation where I have the time to work it, and need to carefully frame a tight composition, I almost always have to back up to get things into the displayed rectangle.

But what's really F*@ked up is that if I do use the OVF and it's framelines I have to accept the fact that, when I go into editing, I'm going to have to crop out one-fifth of my pixels!. That seems like a real waste to me (using the EVF is not an option as what I'm doing calls for a real-time no-lag view).

And Caterham, thanks for your rather patronizing advice but I'll pass. I began with a camera & darkroom work 48 years ago this coming spring, and in the intervening years have earned an MFA, shown on four different continents, gotten photo-based work into a half-dozen museums, and knocked down three artist's fellowships. Before you throw down the crotchety-old-fart playing card you should know more about who else is in the game.

Matt, if your view of art is that 'close enough' serves, let me ask you to stay away from architecture and furniture design - someone could get hurt!

Lastly, since I know a lot of people are going to want to chime in with 'maybe the X100 isn't the right camera for you', please refer back to the original subject of this discussion - the upcoming X100s. With a more accurate OVF and (less important) believable DOF scale, I'd find it to be damn-near perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, if your view of art is that 'close enough' serves, let me ask you to stay away from architecture and furniture design - someone could get hurt!

no one will get hurt if a photo isnt quite the same crop as you expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the frustration, but it is what it is and the X100s is nothing until it actually comes out, pure speculation. Youll have to either get on with the X100 or get rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaa, at last something!

Let me paste the points given and discuss it at libidum:

X-100 replacement (according to Fan Fuji)

1. the name of X100 replacement will be X100s (we know that the name won’t be X-200, so here everything is possible)

2. sensor: 2nd generation X-Trans CMOS (we know that it will have an X-Trans sensor. I’m doubtful if it really will be a second generation X-Trans)

3. new hybrid viewfinder (yes, the HVF will be improved)

4. rangefinder-like focusing gimmick (I would have expected such a feature on future interchangeable lenses cameras…)

5. on sale in February or March (other trusted sources told me it will be March)

6. the price of X100s is as much as X100. (I don’t have infos from trusted sources about the price yet)

1. The name: X100s. Ok, so it seems the body will not be very different from the X100. We can maybe expect a 50mm equivalent. That would be great, complementing the X100 35mm equivalent. Let's hope s is for 'standard lens'.

2. A second gen X-Trans sensor. That will give us a better in camera JPG image, and maybe that will boost the response for X-Trans derawtizer for Adobe and the likes. Let's hope they stick to the APS-C, let's not dream about a FF sensor here, the lens would become too bulging and somehow misbalance the body.

3. a new HVF. That's a very good news. I was fearing the Xe-1 sounded the end of the OVF.

I don't know how they can enhance the HVF without discussing the next point. Maybe they will have a more accurate framing, maybe a VF less prone to dust, maybe other stuff here, see the next point.

4. Let's hope now the frame and point patterns are moving in real time with the focusing ring. The word I fear is gimmick here. The X100 HVF was a gimmick. Now what I wait for is something more accurate, realtime following focus action, and maybe we'll have some kind of superimposed central focusing patterns ala Leica M telemeter.

5. Nothing to discuss, I'll wait anyway the first reviews, and the first firmware update, and I'll wait to handle one in my usual shop. So the date of delivery is nothing I'm interested in, my X100 is perfect at the mo for me, and the longer to wait, the more I can earn for it.

6. Price will be more or less the same as for the X100. Good news if true, that's it. If it was less, I would expect less or the same amount of stuff as the X100 offers, the same price is a good indication the hole stuff will simply be on par with the X100, but updated with more appealing quality and features.

All the best,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a whole raft of reasons why SLRs displaced rangefinder cameras, but I'm pretty sure that frame area accuracy wasn't one of them.

You've had some miserable SLR experience then. Even cheapo SLR's give you 95% accuracy and mid priced ones get close to 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having lived through that time it was always my impression the general consumer demand for SLR's was largely driven by the fact they just, well, looked cooler; that and the fact that huge marketing dollars were getting poured into it. Remember the Andre Agassi/'Image is everything' campaign for Canon (although by then the contest was over)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue with the x10 s point of view out of it's OVF. I take several test shots if it really is so important and then recompose. Or I make a mental note how its going to look anyway bearing in mind its 80 percent or what ever.

Or I just crop on my computer . I love the fact it zooms . But my problem is now it is broken .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having lived through that time it was always my impression the general consumer demand for SLR's was largely driven by the fact they just, well,

looked

cooler; that and the fact that huge marketing dollars were getting poured into it. Remember the Andre Agassi/'Image is everything' campaign for Canon (although by then the contest was over)?

Rangefinders disappeared loooong before Andre Aggasi's commercials. Rangefinders disappeared from the mainstream around 1970, Leica excepted. Canon's FD system sold tens of millions of SLR's and Nikon did the same as well. SLR's beat rangefinders in an almost unlimited number of ways. Want a zoom lens? Get an SLR. Want an ultra wide angle lens? An SLR is the best solution. Want more than 90mm of focal length? Goodbye rangefinder, hello SLR.

As I said, there were MANY reasons why rangefinders disappeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having lived through that time it was always my impression the general consumer demand for SLR's was largely driven by the fact they just, well,

looked

cooler; that and the fact that huge marketing dollars were getting poured into it. Remember the Andre Agassi/'Image is everything' campaign for Canon (although by then the contest was over)?

Rangefinders disappeared loooong before Andre Aggasi's commercials. Rangefinders disappeared from the mainstream around 1970, Leica excepted. Canon's FD system sold tens of millions of SLR's and Nikon did the same as well. SLR's beat rangefinders in an almost unlimited number of ways. Want a zoom lens? Get an SLR. Want an ultra wide angle lens? An SLR is the best solution. Want more than 90mm of focal length? Goodbye rangefinder, hello SLR.

As I said, there were MANY reasons why rangefinders disappeared.

don't forget macro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...