Blah, I say. The X100 is a groundbreaking camera, but this is just another overpriced "premium compact". No doubt it will have lots of people buying it expecting it to be something new and different, but once reality sets in they will be sitting there with, well, just another small-sensor compact. Whee.
Makten wrote:
Yeah, like all of the Leica M cameras that works the same.
85% coverage means you only seeing 85% of the image thats being captured, in other words you don't know where the edges of your frame actually are
Leica RF's on the other hand show about 130% coverage, depending on frame lines, meaning they show you MORE than the total area your shooting so you can see whats outside the area your capturing.
They are two total opposites and don't work at all the same way
I'm content with my X100. (Though I occasionally have trouble with the AF in extremely low light scenarios... I'm probably asking too much of the camera)
(Side Note: My 17 year old EOS 1N has NO trouble locking focus in extremely low light. Go figure.)
The sensor is 2.35 times the size of the ones in most compacts. It's 2/3" while many compacts have a 1/2.3" sensor. It's only 1.3x bigger than 1/1.7" sensor cameras such as the Panny LX5/Oly XZ1.
all this photography stuff aside, i'm just glad that people are using the word 'whee' again. i'm going to try to work that word into my next presentation as many times as i can.
AhamB wrote:
The sensor is 2.35 times the size of the ones in most compacts. It's 2/3" while many compacts have a 1/2.3" sensor. It's only 1.3x bigger than 1/1.7" sensor cameras such as the Panny LX5/Oly XZ1.
Yeah I think thats a little misleading of Fuji to compare it to the ultra small p&s type of compact rather than its obvious competition of the LX5, G12 etc size of compact sensor.
millsart wrote: 85% coverage means you only seeing 85% of the image thats being captured, in other words you don't know where the edges of your frame actually are
Leica RF's on the other hand show about 130% coverage, depending on frame lines, meaning they show you MORE than the total area your shooting so you can see whats outside the area your capturing.
They are two total opposites and don't work at all the same way
How do you know that? I'd suppose it has framelines, like any other optical viewfinder that doesn't see through the lens.
Makten wrote:
How do you know that? I'd suppose it has framelines, like any other optical viewfinder that doesn't see through the lens.
I guess I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but when I read that it has 85% coverage I'm assuming its not seeing the full scene but the projected framelines give you an approximate of where the edges lie? Here's a link to the X10 specs...
bluetsunami wrote:
I guess I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but when I read that it has 85% coverage I'm assuming its not seeing the full scene but the projected framelines give you an approximate of where the edges lie? Here's a link to the X10 specs...
millsart wrote:
Yeah I think thats a little misleading of Fuji to compare it to the ultra small p&s type of compact rather than its obvious competition of the LX5, G12 etc size of compact sensor.
I agree; the fast lens hints XZ1 competition, but at 28 it's just too long; the LX's 24mm is still the most desirable FL for me.
Are we sure the VF has framelines ? that seems pretty difficult to do give its a zoom lens unless it has several sets, but I can't see this as likely given that the framelines for 112mm would have to be so very very small to be next to impossible to compose with. I mean even the 90mm lines on a Leica are a bit tough.
Rather I'm guessing this is the same zooming view finder style we see on cameras like the G10, G12 etc, where as you zoom, the FOV through the finder zooms with it. Which works best IMHO overall.
Downside is that like the G10, G12 etc your not getting 100% view, rather only 85%, but at least thats more than the G series gives.
Hopefully its a little bigger as well because the G series aren't very useable due to being so small, but still better than nothing.
I'm just thinking its not going to be anything like looking through a X100, or even an entry level DSLR, but could hope to be wrong
If they made 85% frame lines but then having the total VF area larger, that would be pretty annoying.
Its bad enough shooting a RF where the frame lines aren't precise because they are set at a given focal distance, say 1 meter, such as the M8, but man, having only 85% really waste a lot.
I do love being able to see whats outside the frame, but if they wanted to use framelines such of made the VF 115% total view and then gave 100% framelines at 2meters
Certainly you can mentally try to think whats outside the framelines and compose but with a zoom thats going to be more challenging and still not exact.
I've had some 95% midlevel DSLR's which I could live with, but 85% is pushing things, at least if you like to carefully compose what you leave in and out of your frame at the time of shooting
louis fusco wrote:
judging by the video on the web, it looks like the frame lines are 85% the vf has a greater feild of view.
also anyone notice the bayer pattern is rotated 45 degrees, which is nice. i think it'll be a great little camera.
One of the reasons for me to upgrade from the lovely 40D to the awesome 7D it's the jump from 95% frame coverage and 0.95 magnification to 100% frame coverage and 1.00 magnification. Boy, what a big difference these few percentages make.
Yakim Peled wrote:
One of the reasons for me to upgrade from the lovely 40D to the awesome 7D it's the jump from 95% frame coverage and 0.95 magnification to 100% frame coverage and 1.00 magnification. Boy, what a big difference these few percentages make.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
really? i barely noticed. i need to spend less time looking through film cameras, it just depresses me when i look through a dslr viewfinder.
(Though I occasionally have trouble with the AF in extremely low light scenarios... I'm probably asking too much of the camera)