I find on my X100 that the AF point seems too big, if that makes sense. I find I'm hunting for a high enough contrast area in lower light in order to get it to hit focus. From say 6 feet away it has a hard time hitting focus on someones face even if they have dark eyes. I definitely miss some candid shots because of it.
I really want the X-P1, but if I'm going to miss shots the way I have with the X100 it will be difficult to keep. But I am definitely pre-ordering and will keep my X100 until I get it.
With all the criticisms of the X-100 AF I am a little surprised they have not included a focus peaking feature in this camera. Maybe it could be implemented in a firmware update.
Thing is, to shoot a 35mm f1.4 lens you want reliable AF, I know the Canon 5D is borderline for that fast a lens, on my 50mm f1.4 only one of my 5Dc's can focus it wide open accurately but at least it's fast including in low light. Unless the focus is good, not just quirky but good, there's going to be a significant amount of fustration.
markd61 wrote:
With all the criticisms of the X-100 AF I am a little surprised they have not included a focus peaking feature in this camera. Maybe it could be implemented in a firmware update.
Agreed. Is this something that Sony has patented in some way though?
Is the gearing of MF on the X100 still extremely slow?
The X100 AF box can be adjusted to pretty small or pretty big.
It wasn't low light that was the biggest problem, it was the frequent failures. However, enough other people seem to report no problems so it could have just been the three X100s I tried, maybe a bad batch sent to the Northeast.
douglasf13 wrote:
Tons of video cameras have had peaking for a long time.
From vendors other than Sony? It could be that there is a patent or two there, which doesn't factor much in the high prices of movie cameras, but which would hit the prices of our cameras much harder. For this theory to make sense I guess Sony would have to hold the patents. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Lotusm50 wrote:
The sensor is already dirty, as well. Spots all over the sky. I guess it's no better than anything else in that regard. Drat! I was hoping that the sensor would have active dust repelling properties.
;-)
With no AA filter in front, if you clean the sensor, are you actually cleaning the sensor now?
carstenw wrote:
From vendors other than Sony? It could be that there is a patent or two there, which doesn't factor much in the high prices of movie cameras, but which would hit the prices of our cameras much harder. For this theory to make sense I guess Sony would have to hold the patents. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Yep, pro video cameras from Canon, Panasonic, etc. have focus peaking, and the Ricoh GXR still camera also has it. Even some external monitors have it built-in. There shouldn't be any patent issues, I wouldn't think.
ontime wrote:
With no AA filter in front, if you clean the sensor, are you actually cleaning the sensor now?
First of all, an IR-cut filter is necessary because silicon photodiodes are sensitive to IR, and I think a cover glass will be necessary in any case, because the photodiodes get charged during exposure and it would probably be a problem if there's dust and other gunk (not to mention cleaning fluids) touching them directly.
AhamB wrote:
First of all, an IR-cut filter is necessary because silicon photodiodes are sensitive to IR, and I think a cover glass will be necessary in any case, because the photodiodes get charged during exposure and it would probably be a problem if there's dust and other gunk (not to mention cleaning fluids) touching them directly.
Agreed, based on my experience in the semiconductor industry there is no way that it is bare silicon with top metal exposed (it would corrode with air contact quickly). There will either be clear glass or some proprietary clear protection applied at the fab.
Beni wrote:
Thing is, to shoot a 35mm f1.4 lens you want reliable AF, I know the Canon 5D is borderline for that fast a lens, on my 50mm f1.4 only one of my 5Dc's can focus it wide open accurately but at least it's fast including in low light. Unless the focus is good, not just quirky but good, there's going to be a significant amount of fustration.
Is there a perfect solution for accurately focusing fast lenses?
A well calibrated optical rangefinder can be excellent, but I don't think Fuji wanted to be dragged into the hassle of having high percentages of cameras and lenses submitted for fine tuning. And it's a major hassle for users, especially if service facilities are located in only a few locations worldwide (a definite problem with Leica). Then there are the phase detect AF issues you described, which I've definitely experienced with my Canon gear, but so far this seems to be the best solution for moving subjects.... The unknown here is whether Fuji's contrast detect AF will be able to manage, let alone deal with moving subjects at wide apertures. Which leaves a live view/EVF solution for manual focusing. If this can be implemented to allow fast and accurate focus evaluation, whether it's image magnification or peaking with a 'rangefinder-like' overlay in the OVF or magnified in the EVF, it may be good enough for many situations and I'd probably be happy with it except for use in high paced situations.
What we need is plenoptic/light-field implementation coupled with zone focusing to allow focus tweaks in post! Maybe another 10 years away?
Makten wrote:
The one thing that will keep me from buying this camera (the IQ is probably good enough for anything) is the combo of AF and optical viewfinder. I found it completely useless on the X100, because you have no idea of where focus ends up, except for close to what you're aiming at. And if the EVF isn't much better than the one in the X100... Well. FAIL.
Now I have a good reason to stick with my M8.
This is also what I would worry about if i used an X10 at the longer end of the zoom. With wide lenses at least, I agree that it's difficult to beat rangefinder manual focus speed and accuracy.
