X-10: Are these settings recommendations correct?

Started Nov 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
Mark H
Mark H Veteran Member • Posts: 3,594
Design limitations, etc...

Danielepaolo wrote:

Mark H wrote:

So, I'll repeat - The 85% coverage limitation is purely there to provide a framing 'safety margin'.

Without this -15% 'safety margin' you would very often find a significant % of what you saw in the OVF had simply been cropped/clipped out of you captured image - it really is that basic, and that simple.

Do you work for Fuji Mark? Serious question. Calling it a "safety margin" seems a bit rich, as if it was designed for the user who might accidentally clip their images. More like if they had bothered to go 100% then the lens would definitely have obscured half the viewfinder.

It's not a matter of "..if they had bothered..." - and I dare say that the viewfinder could have been moved slightly/the layout changed, if the lens obstruction was the only issue - but it isn't.

100%' could never really be 100% - it could almost never be accurate enough, for many many reasons...

1. First there is the most obvious, the obvious lateral offset between the two optical axes.

2. Then, it would be something of a miracle if the two separate optical axes were ever perfectly angularly parallel to each other, and throughout their respective zoom range too.

3. The two optical systems are only 'nominally equivalent' - they are quite obviously very different in their optical designs.

4. And you can even vary the amount you see through the OVF, simply by moving the position of your eye around.

Now, if you think you could design, build, and couple together, these two viewing/capturing optical-zoom systems to produce an accurate/effective 100% coverage, then I suggest you get in touch with Fuji' and explain to them how (and Canon, Nikon etc, too, for that matter).

The 'time honoured', and obvious, way to mitigate these design/manufacturing limitations, is simply to make the OVF coverage narrower than the captured final image - so that what is seen through the OVF's view falls, more often/mostly within the somewhat wider field captured by the film/sensor.

Even SLRs do this to varying degrees, most having less than 100% coverage, for some of the same reasons, except they have no obvious parallax problem.

In the case of SLRs, it's primarily a matter of manufacturing tolerance limitations - SLRs don't have the same 'parallax' problems to deal with, because the VF and the image capture systems share the same objective optics - yet even with that advantage, many SLRs still only have say 95% coverage even then.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow