Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell


  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14189856 « Did Fuji mess up the most important feature on the X-E3? »


Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Did Fuji mess up the most important feature on the X-E3?

lisy78 wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
It seems to me that reducing the size of the tiny monitor in the viewfinder would only be a step backwards if that resulted in a smaller view in the eyepiece. I don't know since I haven't used the camera, but before we jump to conclusions ("Smaller? Bad!") we should look at it, since the shorter eye point and/or greater magnification of the monitor image could make it look the same size or ever larger than there monitor in the earlier cameras. It has the same pixel dimensions and could easily have equal or even better image quality.

help me learn this...

isn't the magnification what answers the question above?

Doesn't magnification mean "When we put a standard lens (usually 50mm) on it and you look through the viewfinder and you also look at the real life thing with your other eye, the view in the finder will be smaller by a factor of MAGNIFICATION than what you see with your other eye?"

if that is the case then with magnification of 0.62x that means that putting a 35mm lens on (rough 50mm equivalent) the view through the finder will look like it's 62% of the size of what you see in your other eye.

So the size of the screen will be irrelevant with your eye at the eyepiece, Is that correct?

In the meantime I have convinced myself that a smaller screen and smaller eyepoint means that things are for sure SIGNIFICANTLY worse for eyeglass wearers.

The formal definition of eye point seems to have to do with "how far can your eye be and still see the whole viewfinder" which sounds innocent enough. And at first I thought it had something to do with how big the final opening is, with the idea that in theory a completely removed eyecup would result in an infinite eyepoint.

The way I convinced myself that a smaller screen is simply worse PERIOD is by doing this experiment: I took my iphone and held it out in front of my face until the screen appeared to be the same size as the monitor I'm typing this on. I would estimate that the monitor was about 2 feet from my face and the iphone was about 5 inches away. I then scooted my head back by about an inch, leaving the iphone and the monitor where they were. the relative size of the iphone screen instantly became SUBSTANTIALLY smaller by a VERY noticeable margin.

Now the degree of difference will likely be LESS than what I experienced with my iphone vs monitor experiment but I am pretty confident that the perceived magnification will be noticeably less when you move your eye back from the eyepiece (as you do with glasses) even if you DO continue to see the whole viewfinder.

I find it extremely unlikely that I'm wrong here.

I suspect that you may be somewhat overthinking this.

Let's try a hypothetical experiment. Let's get two 4k television screens. Both are of excellent quality, with good color and all the rest, and they have exactly the same pixel dimensions... but one is 20" wide and the other is 30" wide.

If you sit at some distance X from the 30" wide screen it looks great. Now let's say you sit as some closer distance Y such that the area of your visual field covered by the 20" monitor is the same as that covered by the 30" monitor at distance X.

Do you think that the image on the 20" monitor is now worse than that on the 30" monitor at the original distance?

It isn't.

When you look at a smaller internal viewfinder monitor with a shorter eye point, all else being equal, the image on that tiny monitor appears larger since you are closer to it. In addition, the manufacturer can place a lens between your eye and the monitor that magnifies its apparent size.

The bottom line has two parts.

1. Presuming that the result of the smaller viewfinder electronic monitor makes the image poorer is premature, and other parameters need to be considered.

2. In the end, you really need to look into the camera's viewfinder and see what it really looks like. We can theorize about what we imagine it might look like until we are blue in the face... or we can go pick up a copy of the camera an look into in.

(I had concerns about the short eye point dimension when I got my XPro2, especially since I was aware of the reputation of the XT2 for having a really excellent EVF. Having used the XPro2 for more than a year now, I can report that it is fine. I also had concerns about the eye point on the XPro2 as an eyeglasses wearer. Also turned out to not be an issue.)

Good luck,


Sep 21, 2017 at 05:04 PM

  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14189856 « Did Fuji mess up the most important feature on the X-E3? »