Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-100 Series

Fuji X-100 Series This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-17-2011   #121
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
I don't know anything about old rangefinders and I'm not comparing it to them. I wanted the question answered based on what Fuji has announced, and it's not obvious without extra rangefinder knowledge which I did not have as a dslr user. I was commenting on your insinuation that I haven't read their specs, else I'd understand, because I have read, and it's not till I asked here that it was made clearer.

Let's play a thought experiment, since you're sure the example is accurate. Do you really think they took all the equipment necessary out into that field with the tree, in order to take a snap of the EVF feed AND put a camera up to the viewfinder to show what it can see, to ensure total accuracy, for a website illustration? It's possible, but unlikely. It's far more likely it's an image from a camera not even the X100, with the graphics overlayed in illustrator, and a rough estimation made for FOV changes. It might still be accurate even done that way, I'm just saying I'm not going to trust it implicitly since it's unlikely it's accurate. Not because of dishonesty on the part of Fuji, but just because it's not something important enough for them to go to all the trouble of doing correctly at this point. I don't think it's vapourware at all, and I am definitely buying one, having already pre-ordered. I just wanted clarification.
It is not about you.

I had a very early involvement in posting on the X100, especially in the mega thread. I have read too many silly or ignorant comments to count.

In attending school, there are pre-requisites for higher courses. In everyday photography, the same applies. Even in this thread, I read hesitations about basic RF facts of life. Sometimes, my 40 years' experience in all kinds of cameras leaked out.

As to the Fuji illustrations, I long know it was not an actual capture [through the X100 VF] because the f-stop chosen did not correlate to the distance-DoF scale. I had actually pointed that out in the mega thread.

As to the EVF view being larger than the OVF view, Fuji illustrated it correctly...matching the 90% v. 100% relationship.

In the final analysis, my bottom line for the X100 are:
  • It has all necessary manual control if and when I want it, auto if I don't.
  • It has an OVF with decent magnification and tight enough framelines than most. I would likely use it with AF-C. [And, I have long worked out how to do zone focusing if I need it, or AFL and recomposed.]
  • It has an EVF if I need super tight composition or critical focusing, etc., etc.
No cameras is exactly what I want, but the X100 comes closest to be the best walkabout camera...for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #122
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
As to the EVF view being larger than the OVF view, Fuji illustrated it correctly...matching the 90% v. 100% relationship.
It's not just about scaling the frame down 90%, else you could scale it up 10% and have a 100% accurate frameline. there must be some reason the outer area isn't useable, and it most likely is related to the OVF distortion not matching the fov of the lens. If you just take a photo and make a selection bracket 90% of the image, it's not giving you a good example of how it works. In fact this might be the kind of thing that can only be seen in person to fully understand, as I'm sure having a close subject will make the outside-the-90% frameline area even less accurate than far landscapes.

But the way you phrased it has possibly confused me again. Do you mean that the 90% is referring to the OVF only filling 90% of the viewfinder? or does it mean that the frameline is only showing 90% of what will be projected onto the sensor. Because the latter is how I understand it, but if it's the former, then everything is hunky-dory, the OVF size is just 90% of the viewfinder, that's much better, as that means the frameline is as accurate to 100% as is possible, it's just a bit smaller than the EVF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #123
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
......But the way you phrased it has possibly confused me again. Do you mean that the 90% is referring to the OVF only filling 90% of the viewfinder? or does it mean that the frameline is only showing 90% of what will be projected onto the sensor.......
See: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=95835 Post #4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #124
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
All clear now, thanks for the information. I read that thread but for some reason the info didn't click then.

Why is the area outside the frameline unusable? What makes them unable to make the framelines larger so they are 100%? I'm not doubting it's some kind of technical limitation, I'm just curious what that is. Is it too distorted or what?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #125
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
All clear now, thanks for the information. I read that thread but for some reason the info didn't click then.

Why is the area outside the frameline unusable? What makes them unable to make the framelines larger so they are 100%? I'm not doubting it's some kind of technical limitation, I'm just curious what that is. Is it too distorted or what?
Almost all RF OVF is of sufficient quality to make the margins usable. Switching framelines from 35 to 50mm in a Leica M or ZI is a similar situation.

However, there are advantages in being able to see outside of the frame...one example is anticipating actions moving toward your intended scene background.

Also, [instead of fixed corner mark offset] frameline auto-parallax compensation in better RF cameras moves the whole frame toward the taking lens [right/lower] and some room must be allowed.

Fuji could have ignored all that except in auto-parallax compensation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #126
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
Almost all RF OVF is of sufficient quality to make the margins usable. Switching framelines from 35 to 50mm in a Leica M or ZI is a similar situation.

However, there are advantages in being able to see outside of the frame...one example is anticipating actions moving toward your intended scene background.

Also, [instead of fixed corner mark offset] frameline auto-parallax compensation in better RF cameras moves the whole frame toward the taking lens [right/lower] and some room must be allowed.

Fuji could have ignored all that except in auto-parallax compensation.
But if you're only seeing outside of an arbitrary and artificially constructed frameline, it's kind of pointless. You could do that with a dslr and just use a slightly wider lens than you want (40 vs 50, 28 vs 35) and pretend only the middle area is useable.

Are you saying there is no technical reason the frameline can't be scaled up for a full 100%, and that it's only brought in so people can use it as a composition framing element?

Ooooh, I just thought of something, is it because it needs room to move for parallax correction that it needs breathing room? *edit* never mind you already said exactly that, and it didn't sink in.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #127
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post

Ooooh, I just thought of something, is it because it needs room to move for parallax correction that it needs breathing room? *edit* never mind you already said exactly that, and it didn't sink in.
THink about it. The VF is in a different place from the lens. Hence the framelines CANNOT be 100 per cent accurate. Therefore the framelines have to be slightly smaller - otherwise, not everything inside the frameline is guaranteed to be on the sensor. This is pretty much what every separate VF camera does.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2011   #128
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
THink about it. The VF is in a different place from the lens. Hence the framelines CANNOT be 100 per cent accurate. Therefore the framelines have to be slightly smaller - otherwise, not everything inside the frameline is guaranteed to be on the sensor. This is pretty much what every separate VF camera does.
Thank you both for walking me through this. As someone who's never used an offset viewfinder like this, there were just aspects I couldn't understand till now. I appreciate the hand-holding.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2011   #129
X-100
-
 
X-100 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
In the final analysis, my bottom line for the X100 are:
  • It has all necessary manual control if and when I want it, auto if I don't.
  • It has an OVF with decent magnification and tight enough framelines than most. I would likely use it with AF-C. [And, I have long worked out how to do zone focusing if I need it, or AFL and recomposed.]
  • It has an EVF if I need super tight composition or critical focusing, etc., etc.
No cameras is exactly what I want, but the X100 comes closest to be the best walkabout camera...for me.
And for me too!
You make all good points.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2011   #130
jky
Registered User
 
jky is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Flamescity Canada
Posts: 1,436
...nice video... glad I have the $ put aside already...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2011   #131
shashinka-ichiban
写真家 一番
 
shashinka-ichiban's Avatar
 
shashinka-ichiban is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
The comments on engadget website is quite interesting. Almost all of the say its expensive at $1000 -- sadly they don't know that is 1000 Euro and the price is actually $1200.

But this was the best comment that i came across:
That is pretty good seeing how even Fuji states on its website that it is not a rangefinder.

Personally, I'm chomping at the bit for this camera. It offers me several things I want, the retro styling not really being one of them. It offers aperture on the lens, a shutter dial, a viewfinder, and it weights a 1/50th what my Nikon D2Hs with the 24-70, and 70-200 weigh. Yeah it's fixed focal length, but compared to how my back feels at the end of the day, I can care less.
__________________
Bessa R, Yashica GSN, X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #132
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,734
I hope this camera lives up to its billing and they make a 28mm model too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #133
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I hope this camera lives up to its billing and they make a 28mm model too.
I want a 2x converter. :-(
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #134
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,734
Yuck...converters suck.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #135
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
I thought he meant BOGOF
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #136
videogamemaker
icelandic_photographer
 
videogamemaker is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Yuck...converters suck.
Maybe, but has there ever been a fixed lens camera over 60mm?

I've seen some samples from teleconverters that I could live with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #137
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
Maybe, but has there ever been a fixed lens camera over 60mm?

I've seen some samples from teleconverters that I could live with.
I don't use lenses longer than 50mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #138
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by videogamemaker View Post
Maybe, but has there ever been a fixed lens camera over 60mm?

I've seen some samples from teleconverters that I could live with.
135 Tele-Rolleiflex
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #139
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
135 Tele-Rolleiflex
Even the normal Rolleiflex has more than 60mm focal length.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2011   #140
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I don't use lenses longer than 50mm.
I believe jsrockit meant within the 135 format...this is RFF and Leica dominates. Leica is 135 format.

Whether Rollei uses 75 or 80mm focal length for the 120 format...and really a 50mm eqv. is just pedantic. Showing off that one knows a little tidbit is......
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #141
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
Whether Rollei uses 75 or 80mm focal length for the 120 format...and really a 50mm eqv. is just pedantic. Showing off that one knows a little tidbit is......
Don't get so worked up - just look at the pretty smileys
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #142
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
I believe jsrockit meant within the 135 format...this is RFF and Leica dominates. Leica is 135 format.

Whether Rollei uses 75 or 80mm focal length for the 120 format...and really a 50mm eqv. is just pedantic. Showing off that one knows a little tidbit is......
I was talking FOV (greater than the equivalent of a 135 lens), he asked ... I answered, sorry you didn't like the answer
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #143
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
I was talking FOV (greater than the equivalent of a 135 lens), he asked ... I answered, sorry you didn't like the answer
I neither liked nor disliked the answers...they are all facts as read.

In my 40+ year experience using cameras, and many types few had ever heard of, I too have an arcane collection of trivia.

RFF has not proclaimed to be a peer-reviewed, authoritative, be-all-and-end-all alter of higher learning. We all have neglicted things...I know I have.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #144
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
I don't use lenses longer than 1m.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #145
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
I don't use lenses longer than 1m.
Ha, ha, Brian. I used one that has a focal length of 42"...1.0668m.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #146
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
I don't use lenses longer than 1m.
On your 8 x 10 foot camera?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2011   #147
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
 
Frankie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie View Post
Ha, ha, Brian. I used one that has a focal length of 42"...1.0668m.
For a 32" x 42" format camera...and with interchangeable 32" and 24" FL lenses.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.