gyoung143 wrote:
Only with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.
I think that the centered viewfinder position can be attributed to several things. One is just tradition, coming from SLR/DSLR cameras where the pentaprism pretty much had to be vertically aligned with the mirror/shutter/lens. One suggested advantage of this over-the-lens position was that the photographer’s view is not offset from the lens/film/sensor position.
I always figured that the retention of the center hump in digital cameras that don’t have a pentaprism was in part a sort of marketing decision — there’s an association between the notion of “good camera” and that large central hump. You make a good point though, that by retaining that hump it is possible to have more room for the EVF system, which could give us a better viewfinder quality.
Another argument for the center position is that it is neutral as to right- or left-eye-dominant photographers. (Not that the rest of the camera design does not typically favor right-hand-dominance.)
gdanmitchell wrote: gyoung143 wroteOnly with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.I think that the centered viewfinder position can be attributed to several things. One is just tradition, coming from SLR/DSLR cameras where the pentaprism pretty much had to be vertically aligned with the mirror/shutter/lens. One suggested advantage of this over-the-lens position was that the photographer’s view is not offset from the lens/film/sensor position.
I always figured that the retention of the center hump in digital cameras that don’t have a pentaprism was in part a sort of marketing decision — there’s an association between the notion of “good camera” and that large central hump. You make a good point though, that by retaining that hump it is possible to have more room for the EVF system, which could give us a better viewfinder quality.
Another argument for the center position is that it is neutral as to right- or left-eye-dominant photographers. (Not that the rest of the camera design does not typically favor right-hand-dominance.)...Show more →
One camera had left hand dominance, Exakta Varex had a left hand film wind lever. Unfortunately the rest of it is an ergonomic disaster!
gyoung143 wrote: gdanmitchell wrotegyoung143 wroteOnly with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.I think that the centered viewfinder position can be attributed to several things. One is just tradition, coming from SLR/DSLR cameras where the pentaprism pretty much had to be vertically aligned with the mirror/shutter/lens. One suggested advantage of this over-the-lens position was that the photographer’s view is not offset from the lens/film/sensor position.
I always figured that the retention of the center hump in digital cameras that don’t have a pentaprism was in part a sort of marketing decision — there’s an association between the notion of “good camera” and that large central hump. You make a good point though, that by retaining that hump it is possible to have more room for the EVF system, which could give us a better viewfinder quality.
Another argument for the center position is that it is neutral as to right- or left-eye-dominant photographers. (Not that the rest of the camera design does not typically favor right-hand-dominance.)One camera had left hand dominance, Exakta Varex had a left hand film wind lever. Unfortunately the rest of it is an ergonomic disaster!
Gerry
Boy, that would sure have messed me up! Even though it is a bit more than two decades since I shot a 35mm film camera, I’m 100% sure that I’d still instinctively reach for the winder on the right… unless I was using my old Rollei 35. :-)
gdanmitchell wrote: gyoung143 wrotegdanmitchell wrotegyoung143 wroteOnly with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.I think that the centered viewfinder position can be attributed to several things. One is just tradition, coming from SLR/DSLR cameras where the pentaprism pretty much had to be vertically aligned with the mirror/shutter/lens. One suggested advantage of this over-the-lens position was that the photographer’s view is not offset from the lens/film/sensor position.
I always figured that the retention of the center hump in digital cameras that don’t have a pentaprism was in part a sort of marketing decision — there’s an association between the notion of “good camera” and that large central hump. You make a good point though, that by retaining that hump it is possible to have more room for the EVF system, which could give us a better viewfinder quality.
Another argument for the center position is that it is neutral as to right- or left-eye-dominant photographers. (Not that the rest of the camera design does not typically favor right-hand-dominance.)One camera had left hand dominance, Exakta Varex had a left hand film wind lever. Unfortunately the rest of it is an ergonomic disaster!
GerryBoy, that would sure have messed me up! Even though it is a bit more than two decades since I shot a 35mm film camera, I’m 100% sure that I’d still instinctively reach for the winder on the right… unless I was using my old Rollei 35. :-)
Mainly intended for scientific and medical use I think, on top of a microscope it worked ok. Seen off by Nikon F really, with its accessories a better designed camera all round.
The X-E5 is a worthy successor to the X-Pro line - but I just sold mine. Why? It is a very good camera. But after quite some deliberation, I decided that Fuji for my use and photographic intentions is the third generation of cameras: The X-Pro3, X-T3 and X-E3. Those I keep with the Fujicrons, the two pancakes and the 90mm. The 5th generation has 40MP and IBIS. Nice, but not essential to what I do with my Fujis. When I need state of the art high MP, there are the RX1RMII and the a7cR. But the Fujis are for inspiration and slow work. Fun. The third generation cameras are terrific tools and it will take quite some new and ground braking tech from Fuji to make me think about updating.