I’m looking forward to faster operation, hopefully better lens at wide open at up close, and better AF. Weather sealing would be nice but for me not that essential. When the weather gets to the point of needing weather sealing I’m seeking shelter. Dual cards would be great but probably wouldn’t fit unless they went micro SD. A standard 2 direction flip screen would be great as would a touch screen.
rattymouse wrote:
You have zero understanding on why people like rangefinder viewfinders.
Thanks for a polite answer
There seems to some gaps in your knowledge, though. Let me tell you a secret that only experts know: there has never been a rangefinder viewfinder in a Fuji digital camera.
There seems to some gaps in your knowledge, though. Let me tell you a secret that only experts know: there has never been a rangefinder viewfinder in a Fuji digital camera.
You continue to display ignorance and are even brazen (proud?) of it. Very odd.
rattymouse wrote:
You continue to display ignorance and are even brazen (proud?) of it. Very odd.
Firstly, X100 cameras are not rangefinders. This is something you must discuss in Leica forum Secondly,I honestly think that hybrid viewfinder has more marketing appeal than real life use. Every X100 shooter I meet uses evf almost all the time.
My honest wish is that Fuji would take a rational route when improving X100 series. I like X100F as it is, but to the me the next step is speed and pure functionalism.
The rational line of Fujifilm cameras is the X-T one. Every other camera from them is more specialized. The X100 line specifically is great at silent operation and for flash. Because of its OVF, I wouldnt really call in an especially rational concept. Even less so a minimalistic one.
The current lens is awesome and always has been. The only people who complain are those who (a) focus close and (b) dont stop the lens down. Very few wide angle lenses can manage that without getting soft. In all other circumstances the lens of the X100 line is very sharp and thats why Fujifilm didnt changed it for such a long time.
Wikipedia isnt a reliable source. The X100 and X-Pro lines arent classic rangefinders, but such classic, all mechanical, expensive to make and elaborate to adjust rangefinders dont offer autofocus. The X100 and X-Pro offer autofocus and the typical rangefinder style OVF. They are thus modern rangefinders. With the EVF they also both offer very good support for manual focus, just like any other Fujifilm camera.
I like the X-Pro3 screen. The only other screen I could consider as good or better would be a fully articulated one, like on a Canon Powershot G11 or on a Nikon D5100. Thats because the X-Pro3 monitor can actually be protected from any damage, a feature that otherwise only a fully articulated screen offers. A twoway tilting screen makes sense because one of the things the X100 line is good at is being stealthy.
Monochrome cameras would rock very hard, yes. Though personally I would only be interested in GFX ones, but X ones are of interest to others as well.
The GFX line offers 66% of the area of the 645 cameras. Calling them "mini-MF" is quite hard to justify. For comparison, APS-C offers 45% of the area of 35mm film format, and 4x5 inch large format only offers 25% of the area of 8x10 inch large format. Thus 44x33mm is really quite close to 54x40.5mm.
anselwannab wrote:
Great, something we didn’t need that will make the camera bigger, more prone to break, and expensive.
Come on dude, it's a hinge. Hinges are cheap. Ribbon cables are cheap. The screen on my X-T3 is super solid and it's more complex than what we're likely to see with a 2-way screen on the X100V. Don't drop the camera while the screen is extended (or at all), and be religious about blowing it out if you are shooting in a sandstorm or getting sprayed with saltwater, and you should not have any issues at all.
As well, moving the display from being integrated into the housing into a small flat plastic bit attached with a cable probably adds almost no depth to the camera, 2-3mm at most for the housing if I had to guess. It is possible that Fuji slightly increased the size of the body to accommodate WR and possibly the new battery (unlikely IMO), so they may not have needed to "make space" for a slightly thicker screen. I'm not concerned about a couple extra millimeters of thickness. It will still be smaller and lighter than any 23mmF2 equivalent in the Fuji ecosystem.
And one last thing - we don't "need" the OVF, either. The EVF is excellent (if a bit small). You don't "need" to see the scene outside of your lens' perspective (granted by the OVF). It's there because some people like it and find it useful. I don't, and I haven't used it a single time on my X100F. A tilt screen, on the other hand, is very useful for shooting low without getting on your stomach/knees and shooting high. These perspective changes offer more artistic freedom and something that enables that is very useful. No, I don't "need" it. I can just eyeball it, hope my camera is level, hope I'm not tilting it too far up or too far down, hope I get the shot. Or I can use a flip screen and see exactly what my frame is going to look like. I don't "need" the tilt screen to get the shot, but it seriously helps. What you "need" is very different from what I "need".
tuomkok wrote:
Firstly, X100 cameras are not rangefinders. This is something you must discuss in Leica forum Secondly,I honestly think that hybrid viewfinder has more marketing appeal than real life use. Every X100 shooter I meet uses evf almost all the time.
My honest wish is that Fuji would take a rational route when improving X100 series. I like X100F as it is, but to the me the next step is speed and pure functionalism.
I didnt say the X100 was a rangefinder. Reread my post and try again.
In order to escape the "rangefinder police," I use the term "rangefinder style." The X100v (et al) are, in fact, "rangefinder style" cameras modeled on the experience of using the older film cameras that actually did use an optical "range finding" system to manually focus.
Now, technically, all cameras are "range finder" cameras if they have any sort of focus assist system, be in analog or digital, since these systems do "find the range" of the subject. But I digress...
One other thing. The X100v (and predecessors) are not the only "silent" Fujifilm cameras. It is true that the old school shutter of these cameras is quieter than the old-school curtain shutter of most digital cameras. However, the quietest system of all uses the electronic shutter option that is available on many Fujifilm cameras. On my XPro2 the electronic shutter is literally completely silent. This is really useful in certain situations when silence is necessary – for example classical concert photography. (There are some downsides to consider, most importantly some issues with cycling light sources.)
Well, the photographic advantage of a rangefinder is that you can see the environment of the photo itself, i.e. you can plan ahead and have an easier time catching HCB's famous "decisive moment".
And that can be done with the X100 and X-Pro's OVF, too, not just with Leica M. Even if they dont have the rangefinder mechanics. They have other advantages though. Like, drastically lower price, and a hybrid viewfinder.
I'm sure that real rangefinder mechanics are very fun to work.
If somebody would offer a wellmade digital full frame mechanical rangefinder for 2000-3000€, I'd be very tempted. And I certainly enjoy the feel of my Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses on my Nikon DSLR, and I love how I can focus my Nikon DSLRs with the camera switched to OFF, because even AF-S lenses are still mechanical instead of focus by wire, though manual focus with AF and AF-S lenses has play (with the AF lenses initially, with AF-S lenses if you change directions) and doesnt always have the best focus throw and is thus less fun than with real manual focus lenses. But yeah, thats unlikely to happen.
However the premium that Leica demands for the priviledge of a mechanical rangefinder is simply not financially manageable for me, plus the Leica M system has its problems, i.e. low reliability of the software, especially in the M9 generation. So I'd much rather save for a Fujifilm GFX system instead. Btw, as I said before -- I'd love to have the equivalent of an X-Pro in the GFX system. Exactly so I can have this rangefinder style OVF.
I'm quite surprised that Cosina has not made a Digital Ikon at this point. I cannot imagine they woudn't sell a lot of them. But I cannot claim to be privy to the costs and benefits and market size. I can only assume they've discussed and it doesn't make sense for some reason I"m naive to.
AndrewNYC wrote:
I'm quite surprised that Cosina has not made a Digital Ikon at this point. I cannot imagine they woudn't sell a lot of them. But I cannot claim to be privy to the costs and benefits and market size. I can only assume they've discussed and it doesn't make sense for some reason I"m naive to.
That has been a head scratcher for me too. They make the lenses. I think the issue is the old Yugo car model issue versus Honda Civivs. Now, the Zeiss/Cosina would not be a Yugo quality camera, but it would be cheaper than a Leica to be relevant. Now a Yugo was cheaper than a new Honda, but it really didn't compete with a new Honda, it competed with USED Hondas- too which it was a closer in price point. People preferred USED Hondas over NEW Yugos.
I think a new Cosina/Ikon would have to compete with M8(meh), M9, M240 and slightly used M10s- at all those price points. Leica has filled those niches pretty well.
Fuji needs to be careful with its X100 series because as the Q cameras go on, the used versions will start to hit the price points of the new Fujis.
But to look at it from a cost-up, full frame cameras are about $1k, but those are mass produced bodies. Zeiss Ikon RFs were about $1500. It would seem that you could mash both together and $2500 would work. I would think that knowledge to get it all to work is fairly known. The RD1 was a decade ago?
What I don't know is why there hasn't been a real Kickstarter program to get over the inertia and get some capital moving. People always say that they want it, let them actually put some money up.
I think the microlenses problem is the big issue, right? If they came out with a Zeiss Ikon with 24-36 mps, pretend it's the exact same as the prior Ikon but with standard LCD and whatnot, would you pay $4K for it? I might.
I'm guessing that most camera companies are sticking to the idea that photography is a highly logical pursuit. Thus the push for measurable technical advances/features goes on--sometimes at the detriment of things like usability.
From my view on the mid to lower end enthusiast market--it's getting to be more about fun and experience than pure image taking ability. I think it's kind of weird we don't have more cameras for this. About the only camera casual people I know have (besides their phone) is an instax.
tuomkok wrote:
Normal flip up screen would improve usability. I think it can be done without giving up X100F form factor - take a look at what Sony is doing in RX100 series.
I know many Fuji shooter disagree, but to me the hybrid viewfinder is a gimmick. Useless retro-spec feature. I use evf in my X100 all the time, and see other doing the same. Why not admit this and honestly go all evf?
Otherwise it is important to keep in X100 tradition while improving speed and responsiveness of the camera.
Not sure if it's a retro-spec feature since a hybrid viewfinder is relatively new. As a Leica shooter who just got an XP3, I don't think it's useless. I like seeing outside the frame lines. I've spent most of my time shooting with the OVF during the day and switching to the EVF at night.
AndrewNYC wrote:
I'm quite surprised that Cosina has not made a Digital Ikon at this point.
The patents needed to construct a mirrorless that can handle original film time glas are held by Leica. Cosina has no access to those.
Without them you have to make sure the angle of incidence of the light doesnt get too steep or a regular digital sensor wont be able to handle them. So you need to construct new lenses that dont show this behavior. Otherwise you are limited to APS-C, like in the Epson R-D1 rangefinder, for then the problem doesnt get too harsh yet, even with wide angle lenses.
Thats IMHO one of the reasons why Zeiss clearly would love to get their hands on Leica, if Kaufmann would be selling.
Nick Dakota wrote:
Not sure if it's a retro-spec feature since a hybrid viewfinder is relatively new. As a Leica shooter who just got an XP3, I don't think it's useless. I like seeing outside the frame lines. I've spent most of my time shooting with the OVF during the day and switching to the EVF at night.
That's (almost) exactly how I use my XPro2. Daytime street photography (typically with a 23mm, 27mm, or 35mm prime) is usually done with the OVF for the reason you describe (seeing outside the frame lines) can because the OVF is more responsive. But I do a lot of night street photography, too, and there the EVF is a much better option.
After using this camera a lot, I switch back and forth between the two hybrid modes as needed.
