For me, the hybrid finder in *this* camera (I liked it in the X100) doesn't help me buy the camera but quite the opposite, makes me want to avoid it because I don't want to pay for an intricate feature I won't be using.
I thought the same but then found that the EVF was great for momentarily checking your exact framing, whenever exact framing is critical and parallax correction just doesnt cut it. With RFs and RF type cameras I've missed photos because of that.
Spyro P. wrote:
I thought the same but then found that the EVF was great for momentarily checking your exact framing, whenever exact framing is critical and parallax correction just doesnt cut it. With RFs and RF type cameras I've missed photos because of that.
I think you may be missing his point. I believe that he meant he'd rather it be EVF only, without and the expensive OVF option, which isn't too helpful for manual focus lenses. At least that's how I'm starting to feel about it.
michaelwatkins wrote:
In the EVF you get a 100% view plus magnification if desired a la X100 - there is no complaint there.
I believe what Tariq is commenting on and I share his view is how small the compose area within the frame for longer lenses is due to the two fixed magnifications in the OVF. To me this design - in 2012 - screams "what's the point?".
Yes. If I'm buying the camera for it's OVF, then I don't want to have to be forced to use the laggy and average EVF when I'm using the 60 Macro to photograph people. That's probably about the worst situation I can think of to be stuck using a so so EVF. They incorporated a magnifier into the OVF but it appears to have been optimized for the 35, leaving the 60 with a very small framing area. I guess I would have preferred that the OVF magnifier be more optimized for the 60 or perhaps they could have even added a second magnification lens for it. If the EVF is going to really be required to fully use a number of lenses - long lenses, some zooms and so forth - it really should be state of the art (for a $1700 body, they should have included Sony's EVF).
Tariq: one assumes the EVF has improved. Certainly the Sony EVF has raised the bar.
Douglas has it right - it's the OVF I don't want to pay for. If I can't focus manual focus lenses using the OVF, then for a MF primary photographer like me, that half of the hybrid finder is of no use to me.
The EVF however is hugely useful to a MF lens user. Huge.
I've missed shots with rangefinders and zone focused cameras too; I've missed shots using the X100's OVF as well.
Overall I find the 100% view of an EVF is pretty compelling much of the time and on the X100 used the EVF more often than the OVF as I'd prefer to frame more precisely in-camera than crop later. For timing / awareness outside the frame, sure the OVF on the X100 came in handy, but my feeling is that not using the EVF but live view rear display is a very workable alternative to the rangefinder benefit of seeing outside the frame lines.
Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape did a poll / invited conversation on the topic of why Leica rangefinders? Are you in it for the rangefinder experience, or access to the glass. His query returned more discussion than votes but of the 20 that deigned to vote, just over half said it was access to the glass that drew them.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think aps-c may be the sweetspot for mirrorless, in general, but not so much for the M9-sized X-Pro1.
no, aps-c is the...sniff....sniff...i gotta whif of full frame spot.
EVIL is merely a means to the original end: a SMALL camera, easy to carry, like the leica 1
(photo by Jim Simon)
As far as the footprint is concerned, it's been downhill ever since. OK there's the rolleis--that's all we want: a digital rollei with M mount and sony EVF.
the rest is like that great song from the big bands: "till the real thing cones along"
I've been following this thread from the beginning. A lot of good points made and I tend to agree with most of them. Especially the ones that say that nobody makes a camera that will meet the needs of everybody.
I'm an amateur. I like taking portraits mostly and some travel stuff. I've got a Sony A700 which I love and a bunch of Zeiss glass.
I've also developed tendonitis and it is actually painful to hoist the Sony and say an 85 or 135 lens to take a picture. The tendonitis comes and goes, but my understanding is that I will always have to be careful not to do things that will aggravate it.
This camera won't be perfect, but I think it will allow me to continue taking pictures.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Tariq: one assumes the EVF has improved.
The EVF on the XP1 has the exact same specs as that of the X100. It's serviceable for part time use but I would not want to use it full time personally. Not given in the spec is any indication of lag time so hopefully at least that is better. It's certainly not going to be anywhere close to what Sony has. Here is the spec for both the XP1 and X100:
Electronic viewfinder
0.47-in., approx.1,440,000-dot color LCD viewfinder
That's a shame Tariq. I had ass u me'd that "second generation" EVF meant more than a hybrid EVF/OVF with autozoom and movable framelines. The lag in the X100 is actually worse than lag in the GXR although at least with the X100 when you half-press the shutter, lag is reduced.
Stretching here, perhaps the reduction in lag has a power impact which is why the improvement is tied to the half-press. Maybe, just maybe, the different power arrangement in the XPro 1 also results in the less-laggy view being active all the time (or when power save is turned off).
michaelwatkins wrote:
Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape did a poll / invited conversation on the topic of why Leica rangefinders? Are you in it for the rangefinder experience, or access to the glass. His query returned more discussion than votes but of the 20 that deigned to vote, just over half said it was access to the glass that drew them.
I can believe that.
well that describes me exactly. Loving RF lenses, OVF and overall system size, but hating rangefinder focusing. Hence my whole excitement when an ambitious AF mirrorless camera comes along.
However there is a fact about RF focusing that cannot be ignored: it might give me a headache, it might delay me at times, but it bloody works. Night and day, hail or storm, it just works. With the Fuji X series it's different, you have various focusing options that can cover all circumstances but you dont have one option that covers everything. You cant just zone focus, or just AF, or just MF through the EVF, you have to develop the reflexes to switch between options according to the circumstances to make sure you're never stuck in the lurch. It's a bit confusing and it does my head in at times, but I still think that it can be done with practice. Which, at the end of the day, is the same with rangefinders, it takes practice to make them really work for you. I'm still optimistic.
For me there is new "inconvenience" with LCD cameras, my eyes are aging so I am more dependent on OVF/EVF than before. LCD alone won't make it for me. At least not in the long run. I am at risk of having to rely on AF for the future, keeping a MF lens, or two, for deliberate and slow shooting.
This is part of the reason why the X Pro 1 is still appealing to me. Holding the camera out at arm's length to be able to see the LCD peaking properly is not something I'd recommend for stability...
Come April I'll be 40. I know that ain't old, really. I bet you we have a few REAL dinosaurs here... But, last two years are the first that I have started "feeling" old. I had LASIK eye surgery eleven years ago and my vision is slowly fading again, not too bad, but looking at things at less than an arm's length has become strenuous, a first for me. And very annoying.
Considering other injuries I have had over the years I am not really whining that much over it, but I think I am entitled to whine just a little. I think most on this forum are whinos anyway.
Jan 16, 2012 at 08:44 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
For me the attraction of the hybrid viewfinder is that I can compose with the OVF, which is my preference because for composition I prefer to see what I see with my eyes or "what I see is what I see," but then I can switch to the EVF to check exposure, focus, depth of field, exact framing, etc., and for these function it would be very nice to have "what I see is what I get." Sure a better EVF would be great, but as long as it has reasonable magnification to check focus and I can generally see exposure I will be happy. Currently with my DSLR this is how I shoot on a tripod. I still compose do my general composition with the viewfinder, but tweak the exact focus, framing, and exposure using live view. I am hoping this works well on Xpro 1, but we will have to see once it becomes available.
If I did my general composition with the EVF, I would want it to be a lot higher quality, but just to check that I have the parameters of the shot right, I think I can deal with a bit lower quality EVF.
Steve, by the looks of it the OVF will provide quite small frame lines for longer glass, with only a little help with magnification. Not quite cricket if you ask me.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Haha, you need glasses too Spyro.
Come April I'll be 40. I know that ain't old, really. I bet you we have a few REAL dinosaurs here... But, last two years are the first that I have started "feeling" old. I had LASIK eye surgery eleven years ago and my vision is slowly fading again, not too bad, but looking at things at less than an arm's length has become strenuous, a first for me. And very annoying.
Considering other injuries I have had over the years I am not really whining that much over it, but I think I am entitled to whine just a little. I think most on this forum are whinos anyway. ...Show more →
have some cheese with your whine mate, you're in good company
I'm 38 and suffering from aura migraines and I know that sticking my eye against tiny laggy televisions to squint on grainy pixels doesnt help, so full time EVF is out for me.
We all have our little malfunctions
Jan 16, 2012 at 09:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
kosmoskatten wrote:
Steve, by the looks of it the OVF will provide quite small frame lines for longer glass, with only a little help with magnification. Not quite cricket if you ask me.
I have heard the same thing though about the M9. In fact without giving too much away from his paid sight, Lloyd Chambers argued that 90 just didn't work with the M9. I am sure people disagree with that, but I am willing to take some weaknesses at 90 with this camera. Particularly if it does decent macro, where I would use it on a tripod with live view. That it has live view is great and would be a nice bonus for me. For portraits I don't care so much about exact framing and in my case unless I were traveling I would use a DSLR for portraits. I can certainly see how this would be a problem for others, however.
Henrik, I have thought about LASIK a few times, and was always worried about either driving at night or the resolution of my eyes w.r.t. photography. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
Re aging eyes, I can say that reading these forums does not help! Each time I spend a significant time away from a computer screen, my eyes miraculously feel fresher, and I swear my eye sight gets better. I'm in my mid 40's and only in the past few months did I discover the huge improvement made by just using a pair of cheap reading glasses while at the computer screen. For most folks, around 40 is when your eyes start having issues focusing at closer distances.
Anything to do with eyes and surgical procedures is a scary proposition for a photographer/ visual artist.
