In a month or so, I will be in the second half of my forties, and I have noticed a rapid change in my eyesight the last year or two. I should definitely get new glasses soon. I also need to wear them more often. When I walk around with a camera, I typically don't wear them, and I am not sure if that is good or bad. I can read closely without glasses, a monitor being about as far away as that works well. I program for a living, so I unfortunately spend an inordinate amount of time in front of computers.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
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.
Not a miracle at all, of course. Focusing at the same distance for hours is strenous for your eyes, esp. when looking at a bright screen in a dimly lit environment. Fatigue impairs your eyesight, very noticeably when you take it to extremes (such as skipping a night's sleep and working on the comp. all night).
It's also healthy for your eyes to focus them at varied distances (for instance, look at the moon sometimes to excercise your infinity focus). It probably slows down the hardening of your eyes' lenses.
When I first had to get glasses for working full time on the computer I was in my mid-forties; five years later I'm on my second prescription. Far sighted, I'm good without for everything but reading and extended periods in front of a computer. If reading a lot on my smart phone, I need glasses... so I don't do that as a rule except when travelling.
I'd been in the computer industry since my early 20's and fatigue was worse, in my opinion, on CRTs as opposed to LCDs. For sure mixing it up can reduce fatigue but whether it can reduce hardening or not... well, not using a computer isn't an option in my life so it doesn't really matter. My ophthalmologist says hardening is a fact of life - deal with it.
On holiday when I rarely look at a monitor, certainly my eyes feel fresher. Instead of reading here in between work I should take a walk and relax my eyes.
See you.
I am almost tempted to have surgery as losing close focus is most annoying. I can't wear glasses to walk about, ride, ski, hike, drive etc, but if I want to photograph life as I live it and don't have an EVF or optical finder (either with a diopter), I can't focus very well on a rear live view LCD without a lot of fatigue, sometimes quickly brought on. Very annoying. And I don't want to start carrying glasses with me... that defeats the purpose of a compact camera and of the two I'm far more likely to lose my glasses than the camera but both are costly.
michaelwatkins wrote:
When I first had to get glasses for working full time on the computer I was in my mid-forties; five years later I'm on my second prescription. Far sighted, I'm good without for everything but reading and extended periods in front of a computer. If reading a lot on my smart phone, I need glasses... so I don't do that as a rule except when travelling.
I'd been in the computer industry since my early 20's and fatigue was worse, in my opinion, on CRTs as opposed to LCDs. For sure mixing it up can reduce fatigue but whether it can reduce hardening or not... well, not using a computer isn't an option in my life so it doesn't really matter. My ophthalmologist says hardening is a fact of life - deal with it.
On holiday when I rarely look at a monitor, certainly my eyes feel fresher. Instead of reading here in between work I should take a walk and relax my eyes.
See you.
I am almost tempted to have surgery as losing close focus is most annoying. I can't wear glasses to walk about, ride, ski, hike, drive etc, but if I want to photograph life as I live it and don't have an EVF or optical finder (either with a diopter), I can't focus very well on a rear live view LCD without a lot of fatigue, sometimes quickly brought on. Very annoying. And I don't want to start carrying glasses with me... that defeats the purpose of a compact camera and of the two I'm far more likely to lose my glasses than the camera but both are costly....Show more →
+100...which brings us back to that lack of a built in diopter on the X Pro 1. I would guess a large part of the market for this camera is 40+.
Unfortunately if you do LASIK to correct for myopia/nearsightedness the ability to see really well at close range (something nearsighted people are naturally better at) is not bettered, quite the opposite. The correction shifts the close focus point to a longer distance.
I can do without glasses, I barely need them when light levels are good, but my close focus abilities are starting to become worse. Doing a renewed LASIK would restore my "normal range focus" yet again, but not improve my near focus, unfortunately.
At that price, I would get something else. Either a MFT body of some kind, or maybe even just a D7000. This still saves me a bunch of money and weight over my D3, for everyday use.
I liked the clarity of the night shots (although it seems that some of that came from agressive in-camera processing, probably killing microdetails as well - can't tell from such small pics), but wasn't impressed by the pics in daylight. I have a feeling that it will turn out to be like X100 - retro looking camera that people love to own, but few weeks later a lot of those emotional purchases end up on the B&S forum.
It is confirmed that the Fuji X Pro 1 will not have focus peaking at all at launch. That is too bad. Also, rangefinder frame lines will have limited magnification options on longer glass, starting with the 60mm already so OVF is out of the question for anything but really wide glass. The ZM18 would work fine on it I am sure though.
I have been using RF long-ish glass back in the manual days on medium format (Mamiya 7II) where you had an external finder for extra magnification which was crude, but worked for landscape shots and landscape shots only. The internal finder window was a joke on these lenses.
Same with the 90mm patch on Leica M cameras, you could purchase a relatively expensive magnification/loupe diopter for it and make sure you don't lose it. (You could not leave it on since it would interfere with shooting shorter focal lengths.)
On the Contax G2 there was a clever zoom in feature on the body when the 90m was attached. The Fujii X pro 1 doesn't work exactly like it though.
so basically, to put it in a nutshell, it's just an x100 with interchangeable lenses.
Maybe some very minor improvements like a bigger battery, bigger buttons and a slightly faster AF (?). Personally I dont really see any improvement on the sensor or the lenses TBH but that remains to be scrutinised.
kosmoskatten wrote:
It is confirmed that the Fuji X Pro 1 will not have focus peaking at all at launch. That is too bad. Also, rangefinder frame lines will have limited magnification options on longer glass, starting with the 60mm already so OVF is out of the question for anything but really wide glass. The ZM18 would work fine on it I am sure though.
I have been using RF long-ish glass back in the manual days on medium format (Mamiya 7II) where you had an external finder for extra magnification which was crude, but worked for landscape shots and landscape shots only. The internal finder window was a joke on these lenses.
Same with the 90mm patch on Leica M cameras, you could purchase a relatively expensive magnification/loupe diopter for it and make sure you don't lose it. (You could not leave it on since it would interfere with shooting shorter focal lengths.)
On the Contax G2 there was a clever zoom in feature on the body when the 90m was attached. The Fujii X pro 1 doesn't work exactly like it though. ...Show more →
All too bad. Basically, the OVF is fine with the Fuji AF 18 and the normal AF 35, and anything in between that Fuji releases, but not much else without using the likely crude EVF. That's a lot to compromise on for the asking price. Ultimately, it still comes down to image quality with those lenses and the XP1 sensor but I have yet to see anything in that regard that strikes me as truly amazing just yet...and the 18mm image quality in particular looks rather weak.
