gyoung143 wrote:
Tri Elmar was forced on Leica by the way its OVF works. The Fuji one is totally different, presumably electronically generated, and has the advantage of working with adapted lenses of focal lengths not suplied by Fuji, I have 21, 24 and 40 all work, and also with the focal lengths achieved by my focal reducer. I doubt a Tri focal length lens would be better than a good zoom, principles and limitations much the same, a pointless exercise for Fuji.
What would be good is a zoom OVF constant size frame lines but the magnification zooms. Canon r/f cameras had a zoom finder, although no bright line frames, and I have at least two zoom external multifinders from film days.
Don't disagree with what you are saying. But an X100VII OVF only would be a photo-centric camera. No video. Zooms are for video. A Tri-Fujicron would force the photographer to select a focal length, not just zoom in to fit the frame.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Don't disagree with what you are saying. But an X100VII OVF only would be a photo-centric camera. No video. Zooms are for video. A Tri-Fujicron would force the photographer to select a focal length, not just zoom in to fit the frame.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to use a zoom in the same way as you are forced to do with a Tri Elmar.
A zoom is great for coping with fast moving subjects matter, but it's also my way of coping with bad weather etc, when changing lenses is at best inadvisable. .I have been going to the West Coast of Wales at all times of the year for a long time, there is often time to choose viewpoint and FoV, but howling gales and wind borne 'moisture' make changing lenses unnecessary distraction.
I don't believe that tools that artificially restrict possibilities are an aid to creativity, they frustrate and annoy me, and distract from concentrating on the composition. That's one reason why I couldn't see the point of tge Xpro3 hidden rear screen.
Gerry
Nielk Mike wrote:
Don't disagree with what you are saying. But an X100VII OVF only would be a photo-centric camera. No video. Zooms are for video. A Tri-Fujicron would force the photographer to select a focal length, not just zoom in to fit the frame.
X100 is photo-centric for a reason: X100 differentiates from other cameras by being photo-centric. Recent iterations have technically improved video specs, but does anyone buy X100 to be used as a video camera?? The charm of X100 is in its photo-centric nature.
Difficult to think how Fuji can better X100VI. V is already excellent with its improved lens and body design. IS in VI was extremely worthy improvement. Better AF would be nice but it does not matter much in this style camera. Tri-elmar style zoom variation of X100 would be interesting. I would surely buy it
Tri-elmar variation of X100 would give Fuji a good excuse not to continue X-Pro series. I predict that camera would become extremely popular. I understand discontinuing X-Pro would hurt some loyal Fuji fans but let's face it, after X-Pro2 Fuji has kind of lost its way of how to improve that camera line.
gyoung143 wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the only one to use a zoom in the same way as you are forced to do with a Tri Elmar.
A zoom is great for coping with fast moving subjects matter, but it's also my way of coping with bad weather etc, when changing lenses is at best inadvisable. .I have been going to the West Coast of Wales at all times of the year for a long time, there is often time to choose viewpoint and FoV, but howling gales and wind borne 'moisture' make changing lenses unnecessary distraction.
I don't believe that tools that artificially restrict possibilities are an aid to creativity, they frustrate and annoy me, and distract from concentrating on the composition. That's one reason why I couldn't see the point of tge Xpro3 hidden rear screen.
Gerry ...Show more →
Zoom lenses are valuable tools. But an OVF only camera would not be for action photography and quick pics of running dogs or kids. It would be for deliberate, slow photography. Though I must admit that I am not out and about often with my cameras when it is raining, I do change lenses on the street in moist weather with no bad side effects (so far). Deliberately changing focal lengths, deciding whether a wide angle, a normal or short tele is called for, is part of that "retro" feeling an OVF camera would offer. My father had three lenses: 35mm, 50mm, 180mm. And he captured my whole early life with them.
As regards the X-Pro3: I got used to the hidden screen quickly. Almost never open it. It is a shame the little screen isn't backlit, though. In fact, I could do without an LCD if that would create more room for an excellent OVF or EVF.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Zoom lenses are valuable tools. But an OVF only camera would not be for action photography and quick pics of running dogs or kids. It would be for deliberate, slow photography. Though I must admit that I am not out and about often with my cameras when it is raining, I do change lenses on the street in moist weather with no bad side effects (so far). Deliberately changing focal lengths, deciding whether a wide angle, a normal or short tele is called for, is part of that "retro" feeling an OVF camera would offer. My father had three lenses: 35mm, 50mm, 180mm. And he captured my whole early life with them.
As regards the X-Pro3: I got used to the hidden screen quickly. Almost never open it. It is a shame the little screen isn't backlit, though. In fact, I could do without an LCD if that would create more room for an excellent OVF or EVF....Show more →
No reason whatever why you can't do sports etc with an OVF camera, did it for years with Leica. The M3 with the 135/2.8 is excellent. But admittedly you aren't going to get that sort of magnification with the Fuji finder.
gyoung143 wrote:
No reason whatever why you can't do sports etc with an OVF camera, did it for years with Leica. The M3 with the 135/2.8 is excellent. But admittedly you aren't going to get that sort of magnification with the Fuji finder.
You can do sports, of course. But it would certainly not be the intended use of such a camera as there are many alternatives better suited for that today.
I had an X-Pro3 briefly a couple of years ago and liked it a lot. I liked its type (rangefinder configuration), its handling, its weight, but the OVF was for me meh. I also used the camera almost exclusively for still images. Part of the problem with OVF is the lens, as many have mentioned. I used zooms and sometimes wanted longer than 75 or 90. Also in this day and age EVF's are not your father's EVF's. When I recently returned to Fuji after a foray in Sony FF I wanted the latest in Fuji technology, which is why I have an X-E5 and am waiting for the X-Pro4. Continue with the hybrid VF for those that want it, but to limit it to an OVF would seriously limit sales of the X-Pro, and it would be working against the future which I'm sure will mean better and better EVF's. At what point will EVF's completely obselete OVF's? I remember when AF just wasn't on any professional camera.
Michael Everet wrote:
I had an X-Pro3 briefly a couple of years ago and liked it a lot. I liked its type (rangefinder configuration), its handling, its weight, but the OVF was for me meh. I also used the camera almost exclusively for still images. Part of the problem with OVF is the lens, as many have mentioned. I used zooms and sometimes wanted longer than 75 or 90. Also in this day and age EVF's are not your father's EVF's. When I recently returned to Fuji after a foray in Sony FF I wanted the latest in Fuji technology, which is why I have an X-E5 and am waiting for the X-Pro4. Continue with the hybrid VF for those that want it, but to limit it to an OVF would seriously limit sales of the X-Pro, and it would be working against the future which I'm sure will mean better and better EVF's. At what point will EVF's completely obsolete OVF's? I remember when AF just wasn't on any professional camera....Show more →
When you are waiting for the next X-Pro - will that be one with an EVF only? Or still hybrid VF which you rightfully called "meh"?
Much like monochrome only cameras, an OVF only body would be a statement by Fuji. Niche, but the X-Pro was niche anyway. The biggest issue with OVF only is the limitation in focal length. Can that be overcome? Add-on EVF? Or an OVF with multiple magnification levels? Or would that camera be more like the x100 and less like the X-Pro with on fixed focal length.
Nielk Mike wrote:
When you are waiting for the next X-Pro - will that be one with an EVF only? Or still hybrid VF which you rightfully called "meh"?
Much like monochrome only cameras, an OVF only body would be a statement by Fuji. Niche, but the X-Pro was niche anyway. The biggest issue with OVF only is the limitation in focal length. Can that be overcome? Add-on EVF? Or an OVF with multiple magnification levels? Or would that camera be more like the x100 and less like the X-Pro with on fixed focal length.
Surely much can be done with electronic overlay of AF points and frame lines, but then we approach the OVF in Leica M. Does Fujifilm have a need to imitate Leica down to the OVF?
GFX100RF is an implication of what folks are thinking in Fujifilm. Theoretically GFX100RF could have (and should have) come with hybrid viewfinder. However, I have more than 25 000 shots on my RF, and the EVF only solution has never bothered me. The GFX100RF EVF is slightly less resolution than in best Sony cameras but the optics are so good that the shooting experience is really first class.
X100 cameras, including VI, have lower quality EVF. Still I have used EVF mostly even in the classic first generation X100. EVF works well with AF, has no parallax problem and goes hand in hand with film simulations - if you consider them important. I believe hybrid viewfinder takes also space within the camera. That space could be used to really good quality EVF.
I have never had reliability problems with hybrid viewfinder, although problems are not so uncommon among older X100 versions. Still I like the mechanical robustness of EVF. Pure OVF is obviously somewhen in between here.
The only time when OVF is really superior is when one is shooting in bright light with sunglasses
tuomkok wrote:
Surely much can be done with electronic overlay of AF points and frame lines, but then we approach the OVF in Leica M. Does Fujifilm have a need to imitate Leica down to the OVF?
GFX100RF is an implication of what folks are thinking in Fujifilm. Theoretically GFX100RF could have (and should have) come with hybrid viewfinder. However, I have more than 25 000 shots on my RF, and the EVF only solution has never bothered me. The GFX100RF EVF is slightly less resolution than in best Sony cameras but the optics are so good that the shooting experience is really first class.
X100 cameras, including VI, have lower quality EVF. Still I have used EVF mostly even in the classic first generation X100. EVF works well with AF, has no parallax problem and goes hand in hand with film simulations - if you consider them important. I believe hybrid viewfinder takes also space within the camera. That space could be used to really good quality EVF.
I have never had reliability problems with hybrid viewfinder, although problems are not so uncommon among older X100 versions. Still I like the mechanical robustness of EVF. Pure OVF is obviously somewhen in between here.
The only time when OVF is really superior is when one is shooting in bright light with sunglasses ...Show more →
Interesting thoughts which I agree with. Was very close to getting into Fuji MF - but then the rational part of my brain stepped in :-) When some years back in another forum I suggested that the future of the X-Pro line may be X-EPro, i.e. w/o OVF, I was almost eaten alive by folks for whom the OVF was overly important. But when you watch the fora, and talk to users, many almost never use the OVF! Why? Likely because, as you say, with the EVF it is "what you see is what you get". And the limitation the OVF has in terms of focal lengths. Can that be changed in an OVF only model?
I did enjoy the Leica Q3 Mono for a while but then felt limited and forced to carry two bodies. A €6.000 camera I felt was too expensive as a second just for fun body.
But could an OVF only be like a second body for days when you feel like it? There's not much new coming our way in terms of technology and older bodies like the 3rd generation Fujis are still delivering great results. So if there is not much, if anything, new it takes something odd to make me buy another camera. Like the RF the Mono. Not as an everyday camera. But for fun. I could see myself buying an OVF only camera.
Having shot mirrorless cameras since Olympus came out with the E-P1, and having used EVFs in various models of Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic, I can first see why in the early days of EVFs, OVFs seemed so desirable. I have also witnessed the EVF evolve and improve, and I don't think its evolutionary days are over. The better the EVF gets the less need for an OVF. IMO there are many reasons for an X-Pro camera other than OVF, and to limit it to OVF only would I believe result in the end of the line, as sales would plummet.
Michael Everet wrote:
Having shot mirrorless cameras since Olympus came out with the E-P1, and having used EVFs in various models of Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic, I can first see why in the early days of EVFs, OVFs seemed so desirable. I have also witnessed the EVF evolve and improve, and I don't think its evolutionary days are over. The better the EVF gets the less need for an OVF. IMO there are many reasons for an X-Pro camera other than OVF, and to limit it to OVF only would I believe result in the end of the line, as sales would plummet....Show more →
Michael, I hear you. If you take away the hybrid viewfinder - what makes the X-Pro desirable? It is large and heavy, more than it needed to be. The X-E5 is smaller and does it all, doesn't it? Second card slot, larger battery, better EVF - and the new X-EPro is born. But: There are countless very good cameras out there already. So what makes the difference? What makes people buy a new camera? More MP? My phone (Pixel 11 Pro) takes excellent images, too. So it must be something else beyond and above IQ. Something unique. That marketing can sell as the ultimate photography experience. OVF only. At an affordable price.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Michael, I hear you. If you take away the hybrid viewfinder - what makes the X-Pro desirable? It is large and heavy, more than it needed to be. The X-E5 is smaller and does it all, doesn't it? Second card slot, larger battery, better EVF - and the new X-EPro is born. But: There are countless very good cameras out there already. So what makes the difference? What makes people buy a new camera? More MP? My phone (Pixel 11 Pro) takes excellent images, too. So it must be something else beyond and above IQ. Something unique. That marketing can sell as the ultimate photography experience. OVF only. At an affordable price. ...Show more →
For me it is first of all a rangefinder style. The x-pro3 does weigh more than the x-e5 but about half way between it and the X-t5. Part of the x-pro3's appeal is the ergonomics, it simply felt better in my hand without having to add ergonomic accessories. I also liked the balance with various lenses. And of course right now there is the unknown. What else will it have? Maybe the purported specs of the x-t6. Maybe something entirely new. Maybe a better EVF than the x-e5. For all of us right now it is wait and see.
Michael Everet wrote:
For me it is first of all a rangefinder style. The x-pro3 does weigh more than the x-e5 but about half way between it and the X-t5. Part of the x-pro3's appeal is the ergonomics, it simply felt better in my hand without having to add ergonomic accessories. I also liked the balance with various lenses. And of course right now there is the unknown. What else will it have? Maybe the purported specs of the x-t6. Maybe something entirely new. Maybe a better EVF than the x-e5. For all of us right now it is wait and see.
The Fujicrons are the lenses made for the X-Pro and the X-E. But even the 90mm is a lens that I rather use on an X-T body.
When Fuji made that one statement about the future of the X-Pro line, I think they said that it needs to have significant new features - and MP count and IBIS was not among it. So what could it be? A state of the art OVF with all kind of functions that help to make one forget about an EVF? And there is still that add-on EVF option. Could make additional money for Fuiji. And it could be really good, too.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The Fujicrons are the lenses made for the X-Pro and the X-E. But even the 90mm is a lens that I rather use on an X-T body.
When Fuji made that one statement about the future of the X-Pro line, I think they said that it needs to have significant new features - and MP count and IBIS was not among it. So what could it be? A state of the art OVF with all kind of functions that help to make one forget about an EVF? And there is still that add-on EVF option. Could make additional money for Fuiji. And it could be really good, too....Show more →
I still think that if Fujifilm continues the X-Pro line it is as much about brand as it is economics. Take this as a positive statement. In a larger perspective, I see X-Pro is sort of a cropped sensor ILC Texas Leica.
What I want to say is that X-Pro is in the core of the brand even though purely rational reasons to continue the line are few.
I sometimes take a look at the Flickr camera finder. It is not perfect and there is certainly a bias to enthusioast users but X-Pre series is about 1:10 as popular as XT-series or any of the X100 cameras. Anybody wanting that "rangefinder style" with ILC can go with XE-cameras.
No reason to take this too seriously. My favourite Fuji - GFX100RF - is not even listed in Flickr camera finder
