What is the point of the HYBRID OVF?

Anyone who uses non-X lenses knows this: there is no way to focus a lens using the X-Pro via the OVF. You can do hyper focal guesses, but never be 100% sure of focus because the 'HYBRID' OVF employs no focus aids.

Why is this?

Horizon, white/black levels, ISO, etc., great, but what about focusing?

Why is there a camera that looks like a rangefinder with a glass eye that doesn't allow focusing of a lens manually through that bit of glass? The information about the split image in the new 100s was fun until it seemed it only works in the EVF or the LCD.

They HYBRID portion of the OVF should bear out like this: overlay the split image onto the glass. Keep it in the centre, fine. But make it possible to look into real light, not bloody pixels, to focus.

Fuji's lenses are 100% SLR style lenses with coupled/automatic aperture, but the camera looks like a rangefinder. The problem is that the niceties of a rangefinder are completely absent unless you pretend your fuji lenses are rangefinder lenses and you use AF. If not, you are out of luck and have to resort to the EVF.

The look of the X-Pro is the only advance I can see for users of non-Fuji glass. Otherwise, X-E seems the obvious choice. It shouldn't be. Some of us want the metal body and would love to use the (okay so it's small and chintzy and looks like looking through a tunnel) OVF in some meaningful way other than a reason to keep a glass cleaning cloth handy.

Will this functionality ever come? If not, what is the bloody point of the OVF other than looks.

--
flickr
O image - audio photography

I would also enjoy a focusing indicator on the OVF,

but OVF is still great for street shooting where usually the lens is prefocused anyway.

Also, live histogram is very usefull.

Maybe in the future.

For users of non-Fuji glass there is absolutely no point to the OVF. I doubt when Fuji was designing the system that users of non Fuji glass was a primary consideration since Fuji hoped to sell lots of Fuji glass. They included functionality for non-Fuji glass through the EVF, like m43 does, like Nex does, like perhaps some others do. I don't believe ANYone provides this type of function in an OVF.

So, the OVF is hugely functional for many of us who do use the X-Pro with Fuji lenses. For you, it sounds like its not.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

got both xpro1 and xe1, and i agree what you are saying. the "O"VF in the xpro1 is useful for framing with the fuji 18 35 60 primes, but thats about it. The definition of a OVF is looking throught hte lens or OPTICS, hence OVF, the xpro1 doesnt work this way, its more like a hole on the side of the camera with a white framing film layered in. Im sort of hoping in the xpro2 we will have a real OVF, but then it would have to be positioned in the center like a dslr.

No it isn't. That's what a reflex viewfinder provides.

The point is that for X lens users, too, there are NO aids at all for manual focusing. All they have to do is overlay the OVF with information as they can do, but they don't. It's not just non-fuji lens people. I should have been clearer in my first post.

EVFs can be overlayed with horizon, exposure, histograms, so I still fail to see the point other than kind-of-useful framing. Framing alone would be better, too, with a nicer viewfinder. The X-Pro finder is tiny and dark, much like a D5000 or slightly worse. The OVF on the X100 is very nice, I wish it made its way to the XPro.

--
flickr
O image - audio photography

Wow. I had assumed that the X-Pro1 OVF was the same as the X-100, so I went & looked at a review. No mention of the size comparison, but I did learn that it is not a zooming OVF! The OVF in my Contax G1 changes magnification with the lens & I again assumed that the X-P1 did the same. Am I missreading that the only thing that changes with the lens is the framelines? I understand there are 2 levels of mag., but the OFV doesn't actually zoom to the field of view? The G1 OVF is small & dim, but looks to have been a functionally superior design.

kev

I just think that things should work the way I expect them to.

You might want to tell Leica - they've obviously had it terribly, terribly wrong for a century or so.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

You're right - it's not for manual focus, regardless of lens. It's not an actual rangefinder. It's for auto-focus, not manual.

The OVF in the X-Pro is identical to the OVF in the X100 except it isn't as bright because it has a more complex job to do with multiple focal lengths and a couple levels of magnification. I don't find it tiny or dark, but the X100's is larger and brighter. But the X-Pro OVF IS overlaid with horizon, exposure, histogram, focus box and confirmation, as the EVF can be too. The advantage for some of us is that you can see beyond the frame lines while composing, as with a classic rangefinder, and there's no lag in the image with movement, panning, etc. The X-Pro and XE1 and X100 have quite a bit of tearing and lag in the EVFs, to a really serious degree in low light. If these OVF advantages aren't enough for you and you don't find them useful, the XE1 is obviously a better choice for you.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

It is basically the same as the OVF in the X100, except its not quite as large or bright because it has a tougher job to do with multiple lenses and two levels of magnification.  But the function and options of the X-Pro OVF are identical to that on the X100.

How many different lenses did the G1 a have to cope with? Just one, built in zoom lens right? A little easier to design for than interchangeable lenses. Sounds like the X20 might be more along the lines you're looking for, with a fixed zoom lens.

Well, then you're probably gonna have to design 'em and bring them to market yourself.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

I guess maybe statements like that above contributed to my confusion about the X-Pro1 viewfinder. "The OVF in the X-Pro1 is identical to OVF in the X100 except it isn't as bright", "but the x100s is larger & brighter."

Clear as mud!,

kev

--
I just think that things should work the way I expect them to.

FWIW, The Contax G1 had 3 fixed focal length lenses & the G2 accepted a zoom.

kev

--
I just think that things should work the way I expect them to.

It is functionally identical, but the X100's is slightly larger and brighter because, having a simpler job by virtue of only having to accommodate a single fixed lens, there is less glass for the light to pass through. When you look through them back to back, they are slightly different visually, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you use them and the information they convey.

Capice?

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

I had not spent much time reading up on the details of the X-pro1 & what I read led me to believe that the OVF was identical to the X-100. My assumption. It just surprised that it is not, & BTW, I know about the limitations of a variable magnification OVF. The G1 OVF is tiny & dim, but it appears to be a bit more mechanically complex than the Fuji, apart from the overlay. I have dreamed of a digital equivalent of the G1/G2 & until the X-Pro1, nothing had came close. I was excited when I first read of the X-Pro1, but ended up finding an X-100 at the right price & am happy to use it for the foreseeable future. A future X-ProX may be in the cards when it can make better use of my G mount Zeiss lenses. Specifically, better manual focus.

Cheers,

kev

--
I just think that things should work the way I expect them to.

Marketing gimmick.

--
A solution looking for a problem !

actually, there were 5 primes in the contax G system- 21,28, 35,45 & 90(the 21 biogon used an external finder). green sticker G1's would also accomodate the 35/2 and 35-70 zoom

Oh yeah, forgot about the 35mm lense & there was a 16mm too. I have the 28, 45 & 90, & actually the 35-70 zoom was only for the G2. I believe the green sticker mod was to accommodate the 21mm. & the 35mm.

Cheers,

kev

--
I just think that things should work the way I expect them to.

In order for the OVF to focus like a real RF the lens would have to be mechanically coupled to the camera's focusing mechanism and it would require the addition of the rotating prism/semi transparent mirror window (that second window on a RF camera).

Only the Leicas do.

My Gear:
http://www.dpreview.com/members/19460279/gearlist#gearList
My flickr flicks:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/titus13/

The point is to enjoy the benefits of a rangefinder-like viewfinder :

- brightest optical viewfinder available now (no lag, yet not as dim as DSLRs VF in the dark).

- ability to see beyond the framelines.

- no viewfinder blackout.

These are all points you can't have with other types of viewfinders, so it still has a number competitive advantages that make it relevant even today.

Most of these advantages become useful, IMHO, mostly for street photography or associated genres.

I'm not interested in mechanical coupling, merely the ability to show focus in the OVF. It is a HYBRID viewfinder with overlay information from the EVF possible. The EVF can focus. A portion of the EVF just for focusing could be overlaid onto the OVF so that the OVF could still be used as a focusing mechanism.

That is why I don't understand what the use of the HYBRID portion is if all it does is show horizon, exposure, and a few other things. They could be done below or above with a little squinting. Fuji have squandered what should be the most precious commodity in the X100 and X-Pro.

HYBRID with dull, obtrusive information is a poor substitute for one that could be used to take photos in the traditional way of shooting.

--
flickr
O image - audio photography