Sometimes with my RF cameras I found it was easier to focus the patch if your eye was ever so slightly off center. I haven't had an RF camera that I didn't like, yet.
I don't think RF is _the best_ option as a whole but I enjoy it and I don't find it too limiting. I find you don't really need to rotate the RF, just tilt it a little. Or, with the M9; walk up to the person being photographed, draw a horizontal line with a felt pen on their forehead. Line up the RF patch, take the picture and remove the line in post pro. Done. I don't see what the problem is?
If the person being photographed has a moustache the above procedure is not necessary.
Or, if you are a veteran RF shooter (like me) you can line up the eyes in the patch. Whatever floats your boat.
kosmoskatten wrote:
... Or, with the M9; walk up to the person being photographed, draw a horizontal line with a felt pen on their forehead. Line up the RF patch, take the picture and remove the line in post pro. Done. I don't see what the problem is?
Spyro P. wrote:
Tomser I agreee. Ι think I said it somewhere else: of the 10 things that people say they like about rangefinders, you can have 9 of them today with this fuji x1pro:
seeing outside the frame, big bright OVF with parallax correction, no mirror black out or mirror slap, small non retrofocus lenses that sit near the sensor, no mirrorbox or pentaprism and the shape and size that come with them, ability to mount M lenses, dials and rings instead of buttons, VF in the corner not the middle.
If I can get all that plus better ISO performance than an M9, well, screw rangefinders....Show more →
Good points, and I understand why many of those things might be important to people .
Personally, all I want is a fully articulated display with live view, of the quality the Nex and Samsung TL500 offer .
For me, that's the modern approach to framing a shot, and a step forward from the LF and waist-level finder MF cameras I use for work .
I never liked VFs you have to hold to your eye, but that's just me .
RF view finders and focussing is just some ancient technology that made perfect sense 50 years ago , for a certain kind of photography , imho .
With modern tech in large-sensor mirrorless cameras, which come with live view and the ever evolving electronic shutters , there is a much more advanced alternative to SLR .
Focussing aids aren't quite there yet for manual lenses, but what can one expect ?
As for the RF lenses - juding by the discussions here and elsewhere, at least WA lenses don't seem to be working too well with digital cameras .
kosmoskatten wrote:
Sometimes with my RF cameras I found it was easier to focus the patch if your eye was ever so slightly off center. I haven't had an RF camera that I didn't like, yet.
I don't think RF is _the best_ option as a whole but I enjoy it and I don't find it too limiting. I find you don't really need to rotate the RF, just tilt it a little. Or, with the M9; walk up to the person being photographed, draw a horizontal line with a felt pen on their forehead. Line up the RF patch, take the picture and remove the line in post pro. Done. I don't see what the problem is?
If the person being photographed has a moustache the above procedure is not necessary.
Or, if you are a veteran RF shooter (like me) you can line up the eyes in the patch. Whatever floats your boat.
As a _veteran_RF shooter the first thing I do is throw all lens caps in a drawer and forget they came with the lens. For most RF lenses I have had UV-filters instead of lens caps. Lens caps are for amateurs. As are the (N)ever ready cases.
Worst case scenario is having a lens cap on, in a (N)ever ready case and having to flip down the case, turn on the camera (remember to) remove lens cap, focus and shoot.
As a _veteran_ RF shooter I don't leave my camera exposed to the sun when lens is mounted with the risk of burning a hole in the cloth shutter on the older cameras. I gently rotate them as dictated by the environment.
kosmoskatten wrote:
As a _veteran_ RF shooter I don't leave my camera exposed to the sun when lens is mounted with the risk of burning a hole in the cloth shutter on the older cameras. I gently rotate them as dictated by the environment.
Same here, except I also set minimum focus distance so that even IF the sun happens to hit it at the wrong angle, damage is unlikely.
The big Fuji rangefinders gave you at least half a chance of noticing that the stinking lens cap was still on, as you had to set both aperture and shutter speed on the lens barrel. The X100 is different, but I've been lucky most of the time, so far...
I guess the contemporary habit of using auto-display to briefly show your recent shot helps, too.
jcolwell wrote:
The big Fuji rangefinders gave you at least half a chance of noticing that the stinking lens cap was still on, as you had to set both aperture and shutter speed on the lens barrel. The X100 is different, but I've been lucky most of the time, so far...
I guess the contemporary habit of using auto-display to briefly show your recent shot helps, too.
The X100 will show no information nor frame-lines in the OVF if the lens cap is on so no issue there. I'm guessing the XP1 will be the same.
The problem with rangefinders is that if they are out of calibration, you might have no idea until reviewing the image. Not an issue with TTL systems. Whenever the M series finally gets liveview, I'm sure a lot of users will be very happy.
Spyro P. wrote:
Personally I find it a pain in the butt. I suspect most people are in the RF game mainly for the lenses and the size of the system, not because of the RF focusing method which they would probably drop given a half-decent alternative. But I dont know that for a fact, we'll see how RFs go in the future as more half decent RF-like cameras become available
I looked up ebay prices for a couple of my film rangefinders on ebay and they've nearly doubled since I bought them a couple of years ago. I think so far you are right, the "real" RF crowd looks unimpressed by current RF-like offerings. Good, more buyers for my junk ...Show more →
I can only speak for myself, but the reasons I entered the RF market at the end of 2010 included the two points you mentioned: smaller size (and lower weight) of the system and for the lenses (quality). My other major point was that I was looking for a system that would allow me accurate, consistent focus with wide angle lenses. I was growing frustrated with the AF in my various Canon 1D cameras frequently focusing behind or in front of the intended subject with wides. And the optical viewfinders in modern SLRs are difficult for eyeballing accurate focus, so I would often quickly go to live view in my newer cameras to confirm, which slowed down the whole process. And I was frustrated with my 16-35 after several service visits to Canon (poor edge performance). So, instead of spending the money on a set of better quality huge L wide primes, or huge ZE wide primes, I decided to buy a reasonably priced (at the time) used M9 and some Zeiss wides for it...
Having used SLRs for a couple decades, the RF for a year, and EVF style cameras for a few months, my conclusion so far is each has its advantages. For this reason I don't shoot much paid event work with RF lenses longer than 50mm. Instead I work with a combo of RF with wides and a 70-200 on a DSLR. AF is fast with the DSLR and the zoom offers versatility. The RF offers me consistent focus when working with near subjects, a less intimidating camera and it's much easier on my neck after a few hours at an event.
Modern camera systems and technologies are excellent, but still are a layer of automation that isn't always perfect. RF, while an 'ancient' technology, is extremely effective if used to its strengths. Its simplicity is also a refreshing change.
jcolwell wrote:
RF focusing is extremely fast and easy for many subjects, but not all. It works great when there are areas of strong contrast in the area you want to focus, especially sharp edges, but it's not very easy at all when there's only smooth tonal transitions, without much structure.
This is definitely true. At least with RF lenses, one can fall back on the very accurate distance scale to guesstimate focus distance, which depending on depth of field can be sufficient. Or it will get you close enough to find enough detail in the RF patch for good focus.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The X100 will show no information nor frame-lines in the OVF if the lens cap is on so no issue there.
Good point, but you can still see the subject through the OVF, even with the lens cap on. I'd still have a 50/50 chance of pushing the shutter button anyway.
Well, I'm not that bad, but I'm pretty sure I've brought home at least a few black hole photos with my X100.
rscheffler wrote:
This is definitely true. At least with RF lenses, one can fall back on the very accurate distance scale to guesstimate focus distance, which depending on depth of field can be sufficient. Or it will get you close enough to find enough detail in the RF patch for good focus.
My contact at Fujifilm Canada says he expects the first X-Pro 1 shipment in late February. He doesn't yet know how many will arrive, and I don't know how long the waiting list is. FWIW.
