ricardovaste wrote:
I didn't think the x100 viewfinder was an issue? I see a lot are getting hung up on the "hybrid" thing, but does the x100 not function well as an EVF?
I primarily used the X100's EVF rather than the OVF because if I can, I prefer to frame accurately in camera rather than crop. Where the EVF had problems was with lag and resolution. For faster moving subjects, especially in lower light, EVF lag was an issue. You could reduce EVF lag with a half-shutter press. Resolution of the EVF was a problem especially evident when using the magnified focus aide or when reviewing images magnified.
The Sony implementation is just that much better and makes it possible to sell a camera that only has an EVF even if some won't buy it because it doesn't offer an optical finder.
Within the X100 community, at least the vocal ones who participate in forms, I'd have to say as a primarily EVF user I was in a minority. There always seemed to be a lot of "give me my OVF or die" sentiment. Some of those folks would not buy another Fujifilm EVF only product unless the finder really was killer and then maybe not even so. It is nice to use the OVF at times - getting a heads up when subjects are about to enter the frame is very useful. You don't get that with a 100% coverage EVF.
Gunzorro wrote:
I agree -- if it is an 18/2, it is probably smaller than APS-C. More like M4/3 or smaller.
+1
If you compare the body size to that of the X100 and assume that its dimensions play in the same ballpark, the lens mount seems to be too tiny to allow for M lenses to be adapted.
However, it is no match for the large E-mount diameter. I hope I'm wrong! Otherwise I'll be waiting for the Canon counterpart...
theophilus wrote:
wonder why they didn't turn the 23 f/2 from the X100 into a stand-alone design?
Wasn't that lens only a few mm's away from the sensor at most? I think half the lens was actually built into the body of the camera (hence why so small), so I imagine it would have been difficult to do a straight copy of it would a bayonet.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Well... the E-Mount system for the NEX is open source now, it would be very cool if Fuji started making NEX lenses, they would clean up.
The positioning of the bayonet relative to the pins is different than the E-mount version.
ricardovaste wrote:
Wasn't that lens only a few mm's away from the sensor at most? I think half the lens was actually built into the body of the camera (hence why so small), so I imagine it would have been difficult to do a straight copy of it would a bayonet.
Yep, the X100 lens is right up against the sensor, and many of the lens elements are actually in the camera body. The lens extension on the camera is kind of a faux lens frame, in that it only houses part of the lens. Making an interchangeable lens camera makes things much more difficult and seemingly larger.
ricardovaste wrote:
Wasn't that lens only a few mm's away from the sensor at most? I think half the lens was actually built into the body of the camera (hence why so small), so I imagine it would have been difficult to do a straight copy of it would a bayonet.
Not being a lens designer and thus unconstrained by physics and reality, I have wondered whether Fujifilm (or any maker) could bury within the body one or more lens element that remains fixed regardless of which lens is up front. Is that feasible? Other than trying to create single vendor lock-in (which ultimately wouldn't work) could a maker go with such a design with a view to improving the matching between exit lens element(s) and sensor, as well as overall lens/camera length, or both?
Also, could a handful of pixie dust be inside each camera?
michaelwatkins wrote:
Not being a lens designer and thus unconstrained by physics and reality, I have wondered whether Fujifilm (or any maker) could bury within the body one or more lens element that remains fixed regardless of which lens is up front. Is that feasible? Other than trying to create single vendor lock-in (which ultimately wouldn't work) could a maker go with such a design with a view to improving the matching between exit lens element(s) and sensor, as well as overall lens/camera length, or both?
Also, could a handful of pixie dust be inside each camera?
Doesn't really work that way, the rear set of elements for a wide angle, normal and telephoto lens are very very different.
The 35mm f1.4 mentioned would be very nice, first time we've seen a lens designed for these cameras and with AF which gives us a normal FOV (assuming 1.5X crop)and that fast an aperture. That lens would be the tail that wagged the dog, or in other words, that and the other lenses mentioned may significantly sell the camera even if it is inferior to the Nex 7.
Well, I can't wait to see what magic Fuji has conjured up with regard to the sensor and lenses given their claims - better than any current FF. I'm mighty impressed with my x100 so perhaps they can meet expectations. Give me image quality at least matching that of my Sony a900 in a compact body, interchangeable lenses and OVF/ EVF hybrid and I'm sold. Leaf shutter lenses would be a bonus.
Looks very promising, but a new (?) lens mount requires new lenses to become interesting. At least it looks like Fuji is giving us prime lenses to begin with, kudos! Anything larger (or smaller) than APS-C would be surprising, but makes me ask where the 35 mm eqv. lens is?
But the major question for us posting in this section - does it take alt lenses and how will they work with the hybrid viewfinder? If it does, and it has some kind of focus assist (read: focus peaking), then it will offer NEX-7 some serious competition.
