What's so special about the rangefinder shape?

mr moonlight said:

Daniel Lauring said:

shigzeo ? said:

Remember: your lenses are SLR lenses.

Click to expand...

The X-mount lenses are not "SLR" lenses, just like m43 lenses are not "SLR" lenses. The focal plane distance is different, allowing a shorter distance from lens face to the back of the camera.

There in lies the difference between these mirrorless rangefinder looking bodies which aren't really rangefinders. First there is no reason to put the eyepiece inconveniently in the middle of the screen so your nose smudges the screen and you have to smush it up against the camera to see, so they moved it to the side like a rangefinder. Second, since you don't need a prism box you can make the top of the camera flat, like a rangefinder. It leaves you a body that, coupled with a pancake lens, is much more compact and pocketable...like a rangefinder. One thing I miss, in all these rangefinderish cameras is the hand grip of an SLR. I wish they had just a bit more grip since even the flattest pancake lens sticks out a little bit so the grip wouldn't really make it wider.

Click to expand...

This.

The focal plane distance is the key feature that makes X-mount lenses different from SLR lenses, and very much like classic rangefinder lenses.

I look at the rangefinder-esque XP1 and X100 as the modern day rangefinder, but still very much a rangefinder. Think about your standard DSLR. With the exception of a few pro-models, they all come with a focus screen that's useless for MF and rely almost entirely on AF if you're looking through the viewfinder. These are the modern day version of our MF film SLR's and we don't look at them as any less of an SLR. Rangefinders on the other hand happened to be named after the focus mechanism used in the original MF versions of the cameras. If they were called anything else, the Fuji XP1 and X100 would without a doubt, be considered their direct descendants. The "rangefinder" part of the XP1/X100 has been replaced by an AF system just as the split screen of a DSLR was. The primary features of the camera remain the same. Your classic rangefinder and XP1/X100 have a viewfinder that allows you to see outside of your frame, a lens that sits very close to the focal plane, a viewfinder that sits off to the side, that compact box-ish shape, a quiet shutter and let's not forget having to deal with parallax errors.

As for "the X is just a fun wannabe that has none of the substance but all of the cheap flare." I guess this is true if you consider the mechanics of how you MF to be the most important part of your photography. For me, it's how you frame and compose your image. SLR's only see what's in your frame, my XP1/X100 sees much more than what's inside your frame-lines allowing one to compose within the viewfinder as well as anticipate what's coming into your frame. To me that's really the substance of a Rangefinder and the XP1/X100's have it. You don't get that from an SLR, and that's really "what's so special" about the rangefinder/rangefinder shape.

Click to expand...

Obviously writing this thread in the Fuji forum was a mistake! I should have foreseen this. Yes, focal plane distance is shorter on Fuji, but that has nothing to do with it looking like a rangefinder and everything to do with it being a mirroless camera. The Oly's that look like SLRs are mirror less and have very shallow flange distance. Both use SLR like lenses, but neither is mechanically coupled to the body.

I was obviously too obtuse. I do NOT use Fuji lenses. A number of people who use the X cameras do not use X lenses. We use manual lenses. The X-Pro sort of has the build that we want. It sort of has the less ugly that we want. It has the manual ergonomic control layout that we want.

But its OVF is worthless. All it would take for Fuji to correct this would be to add a PIP overlay across the OVF, not the EVF. The camera could still be used like a rangefinder where we get the interaction with the rest of the frame.

In my original OP, you will notice that I use rangefinders and know about their plusses and minuses. What I don't get is why the Fuji crowd is so up in arms against anything but faux rangefinder styling. I love the styling of my X-Pro 1. Love it. But I'm one of those very cautious buyers. I won't buy into a new lens system. In ten years if it is still around I will consider it then. Until then I will continue to use my LTM/M lenses; where/when necessary I will use my Nikon F lenses.

There are a lot of people that use the EVF in the X-Pro because the OVF and frame lines are quite inaccurate (even compared to our old rangefinders), not to mention that precise focus isn't as possible as with a true rangefinder cameras.

I come down very very hard on all hardware I own. Fuji's biggest miss is their OVF. It is a great idea. But it is too small (next to a nice Voigt or Canon P); its EVF is too small and low res for manual focusing. Too much lag for focusing. Too choppy. That is all somewhat forgivable. What isn't is that the hybrid only overlays basic information. Why isn't it usable for manual focusing? Even white outline that would close in to focus when the lens was on target.

I appreciate your answer. I'm sort of answering to the thread, not to you.

I like my x100 because its small and has a VF. It's that simple. You do an awful lot of projecting, bro. You might be taking a small sample from a micro community of Fuji users a bit too seriously. And your inflammatory language "up in arms" and "what's so special" make you look like a garden variety troll.

Oh the drama of it all.
--

shigzeo ? said:

shigzeo said:

Again, I've used both rangefinders and SLRs in my time and I don't get the anti-SLR shtick that goes on in the Fuji forum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't really think there is a Anti SLR sentiment here by most of us. I for one (and many others I assume) are well aware of the advantages of an SLR Kit, A sizable group of us have used them for 30 or more years before we switched systems with our eyes open.(and BTW still have a SLR) However for most of our day to day shooting the SLR kit with it's bulk & weight are not necessary to achieve the results we are after. Therefore the Fuji X-Pro1 or for some of us better yet the X-E cameras & lenses are just the ticket for our photographic endevors. And on those days when a simple camera & one lens will suffice, the X100/X100S just works.

That & the fact on those days when I do not mind dragging around a 55/1.2 lens or a FD 500 F4.5L for example, I can shoot nearly any SLR lens made from before I was born to the present if I so desire is down right appealing.

MrChristopher said:

I like my x100 because its small and has a VF. It's that simple. You do an awful lot of projecting, bro. You might be taking a small sample from a micro community of Fuji users a bit too seriously. And your inflammatory language "up in arms" and "what's so special" make you look like a garden variety troll.

Oh the drama of it all.
--
http://chriscurnutt.tumblr.com/

Click to expand...

Fair enough. If you looked at my gallery and my post history, you will find out that I am an X-pro user. I may be classifiable as a garden variety troll, I have no idea. Calling someone a troll is far more inflammatory than a person using blanket generalisations like I did.

Would it have been better if I phrased it: "What is so special to you about the rangefinder shape?" Picking that out as a troll point was wrong I think. Each of us have different backgrounds and uses of and for the language we speak. That phrase isn't a come-down. I've heard it used that way, but very rarely, and only on TV.

The Oxford says this about "up in arms" protesting vigorously about something:teachers are up in arms about new school tests. I think that is a pretty accurate depiction of what I see here. Both about the shape of competitor cameras, about possible Fuji X cameras, and about the market outside in general.

The X-Pro is my favourite camera, but it's many issues keep it from being a serious system for MY uses.

My issues are very realistic but then I think I'm not a good Fuji customer. I don't have Fuji X lenses, because, as I said, I don't invest in new mount systems. It's a security thing for me. In ten if the X system is still around, I may invest. Maybe.

But both here and at the banned f rumours site, the majority of users really are 'up in arms' over the rumour of a possible SLR-shaped X. A lot of the arguments are about look, a lot are about functionality. One makes sense, the other makes less sense. The 'personality' argument a rangefinder purporter often quotes is real, but not realistic. The personality of the photographer is as important. It doesn't matter if you carry an 8*10 or a tiny Rollei 35mm rangefinder, if you're a creep, you will be creepy to your subject. But I 'get' the one eye out, one eye in aesthetic argument of the 'rangefinder' like X system. Except for left-eyed people. They would be better served by SLR's as at least then the other eye would get a big of a wink at the subject.

I will be doing a one-year-on with the X-Pro. You will hate it. If I did a one-year-on about the D800, you would love it. It would slam the D800's size, handling, numerous buttons, weight, poor OVF and on and on. I would extol certain virtues of the X-Pro 1. I am very very serious about the gear I use. I never praise something because I payed for it. The stuff that works: great; it should. The stuff that is poor should be criticised. The stuff that is completely short-sighted has no point even being there.

Obviously I made a mistake posting this in the X forum. As an X user, it seems that I have very little change to criticise the X. I don't know why. The D800 I criticise heavily and the nikon forum isn't as upset. Same with the Sony a7r. I don't know why but the X system doesn't allow debate. Of course, I'm not a good debater. Nor am I a good essayist. I broached the subject incorrectly? Maybe. But I've done that before across many forums, and with more direct language, and never had as much anti-shigz or shigs-is-a-troll-because-he-used-this-phrase finger pointing.

shigzeo said:

But its OVF is worthless. All it would take for Fuji to correct this would be to add a PIP overlay across the OVF, not the EVF. The camera could still be used like a rangefinder where we get the interaction with the rest of the frame.

Click to expand...

But adding a PIP overlay would be extremely complex to have it match up to the image behind it as well as making it so the difference between reflective and backlit images isn't too distracting. In the end, an EVF with a Fuji's split screen focusing is the best solution using the current style Hybrid viewfinder system.

A more practical solution for MF would be to either add a hotshoe mount rangefinder that's electronically coupled to the lens or just make an actual built in electronically coupled rangefinder. You can already purchase old hotshoe mount rangefinders if you can find them. Of course you have to enter in your settings manually so it takes some time. Sort of like the older style non-coupled rangefinders.

mr moonlight said:

shigzeo ? said:

But its OVF is worthless. All it would take for Fuji to correct this would be to add a PIP overlay across the OVF, not the EVF. The camera could still be used like a rangefinder where we get the interaction with the rest of the frame.

Click to expand...

But adding a PIP overlay would be extremely complex to have it match up to the image behind it as well as making it so the difference between reflective and backlit images isn't too distracting. In the end, an EVF with a Fuji's split screen focusing is the best solution using the current style Hybrid viewfinder system.

A more practical solution for MF would be to either add a hotshoe mount rangefinder that's electronically coupled to the lens or just make an actual built in electronically coupled rangefinder. You can already purchase old hotshoe mount rangefinders if you can find them. Of course you have to enter in your settings manually so it takes some time. Sort of like the older style non-coupled rangefinders.

Click to expand...

Good suggestions. I'm not sure that contrast would really be that much of an issue. It may be. At least it would be an option to be able to use the OVF for both X manual focusing and non-X manual focusing. Adding an actual rangefinder wouldn't probably make good sense to Fuji, who want to sell X lenses, not Leica or Contax or Nikon S lenses.

The split prism is a decent step, but a larger EVF/OVF is probably a more helpful one. Frame refresh is important. It gets terribly slow at times. As a film rangefinder user, I just want to use the OVF but can't. Some way, any way to do that without guessing hyper focal distances and locking the lens down to F/8 or so, would be an excellent start.

It works.

Bill Robb said:

It works.

Click to expand...

True, but so do other designs.

shigzeo ? said:

Bill Robb said:

It works.

Click to expand...

True, but so do other designs.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that it works better for a mirrorless design if you are right eye dominant (as most are). It gives you a place for your nose to go and I would imagine it keeps your LCD a bit cleaner. The camera can also be smaller as the viewfinder bump and extension out from the LCD is not necessary.

Use a "rangefinder like" VF with your left eye and you see all the issues that have to be solved with a centrally located VF. The solution is available and works, but it takes more space. Of course, this solution could be a big benefit for the people that are left eye dominant.

Pretty much what I said above. Range finder shape is better suited ergonomically to right-eye shooting.

Chris G Hughes said:

Pretty much what I said above. Range finder shape is better suited ergonomically to right-eye shooting.

Click to expand...

I rather agree. If the EVF of the X-Pro had a decent update, it would be mostly true. The lag, combined with the extreme left position is ill-fitting to precise, quick manual focusing. Again, the X-pro is my favourite digital camera. But again, I'm very critical of digital cameras that fail to make life as easy as the film cameras they pretend to be.

Had the X-Pro looked less like a rangefinder and has fewer ergonomic, direct controls, I would treat it exactly as every other digital camera out there. Unfortunately for it, it looks and has the in-hand feel of a more traditional camera. Its functionality, however, is far below any manual or semi-automatic film camera for manual focusing of lenses.

It's the only way to have an OVF in a mirrorless camera. EVFs suck!

Also they are less imposing on your subject.

JackM said:

It's the only way to have an OVF in a mirrorless camera. EVFs suck!

Also they are less imposing on your subject.

Click to expand...

Disagree. I really like the EVF in the X-E2. No, it isn't the awesome experience of the Nikon F100 finder (a personal favorite) but I like it better than the OVF in my D300. WAY better.

With the latest focusing aids, EVF's are a godsend for manual focus. I recently bought the Nikon 50mm 1.2 AIS, focusing is a breeze on the xpro1 & no doubt even better on the XE2. Manual focusing through an SLR optical finder is far from easy to be precise.

The appearance of the 'hump' is a matter of personal taste but it does give better clearance for the add-on flashes & helps to avoid cast shadows particularly when using longer lenses.

DJF77 said:

With the latest focusing aids, EVF's are a godsend for manual focus. I recently bought the Nikon 50mm 1.2 AIS, focusing is a breeze on the xpro1 & no doubt even better on the XE2. Manual focusing through an SLR optical finder is far from easy to be precise.

Click to expand...

The X-Pro's update is too slow through EVF, but I agree, at 100% you really can get in there. It's just that with a good OVF, you can focus it just as well and much faster as you don't need to expand the image at all.

Fuji need a really fast EVF with high contrast. I find the X-Pro 1 to be easier to focus than the a7r when not magnified, but when magnified, it is slow, often unresponsive, and at times, impossible to enact.

jyhfeei said:

shigzeo ? said:

Bill Robb said:

It works.

Click to expand...

True, but so do other designs.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that it works better for a mirrorless design if you are right eye dominant (as most are). It gives you a place for your nose to go and I would imagine it keeps your LCD a bit cleaner. The camera can also be smaller as the viewfinder bump and extension out from the LCD is not necessary.

Use a "rangefinder like" VF with your left eye and you see all the issues that have to be solved with a centrally located VF. The solution is available and works, but it takes more space. Of course, this solution could be a big benefit for the people that are left eye dominant.

Click to expand...

I am left eye dominant but I learned to use my right eye shooting rifles. Funny, when I pick up a rangefinder camera like the Fuji type I find myself using my left eye. I generally don't have any problems doing that. When I do, I switch eyes. I find the center viewfinder on SLR type cameras isn't any more convenient. It doesn't seem to offer anymore eye relief. So I don't see any advantage of it.

It's smaller, which is good for certain types of photography and certain users' preferences. I have been shooting with an MILC and I don't miss the DSLR form factor. I feel silly any time I pick a DSLR up that doesn't blow my MILC out of the water with IQ.

Daniel Lauring said:

shigzeo ? said:

Remember: your lenses are SLR lenses.

Click to expand...

The X-mount lenses are not "SLR" lenses, just like m43 lenses are not "SLR" lenses. The focal plane distance is different, allowing a shorter distance from lens face to the back of the camera.

There in lies the difference between these mirrorless rangefinder looking bodies which aren't really rangefinders. First there is no reason to put the eyepiece inconveniently in the middle of the screen so your nose smudges the screen and you have to smush it up against the camera to see, so they moved it to the side like a rangefinder. Second, since you don't need a prism box you can make the top of the camera flat, like a rangefinder. It leaves you a body that, coupled with a pancake lens, is much more compact and pocketable...like a rangefinder. One thing I miss, in all these rangefinderish cameras is the hand grip of an SLR. I wish they had just a bit more grip since even the flattest pancake lens sticks out a little bit so the grip wouldn't really make it wider.

Click to expand...

Interesting how personal preferences differ. I have never found my nose smushed against the LCD on cameras with the viewfinder hump - but I do wear glasses which probably keeps my face back a touch. I usually have my left eye open when shooting action, and even then I don't mind the mid mounted viewfinder. Further, I find the mid mounted viewfinder more convenient when shooting in portrait orientation than having my eye at the very bottom of a camera...

As well, I've never found a problem using my glasses with a camera, and much prefer that to taking them off and on and using diopter correction. Yet others complain about eyepoint and seeing the whole view, etc. Obviously face geometry is very different among photographers!

I would agree that while the size difference is small, a flat top does make the camera that much easier to slide in and out of pockets or bags.

sportyaccordy said:

It's smaller, which is good for certain types of photography and certain users' preferences. I have been shooting with an MILC and I don't miss the DSLR form factor. I feel silly any time I pick a DSLR up that doesn't blow my MILC out of the water with IQ.

Click to expand...

It isn't necessarily smaller. Currently the smallest FF interchangeable digital camera is quite a bit larger than small 35mm SLRs of the 80's and 70's. Yes, the a74 sort of shares the SLR shape, but it basically is the same size as the X-Pro 1, which has a smaller sensor.

Obviously digital cameras are harder to make smaller- precisely because they need power and all the gadgets to make the electronic internals move. But they are annoyingly big. The X-Pro 1 is as big as an M9, which is larger than all but the M5 and much larger than the CL, itself, which was about the size of the smallest SLR cameras. The only thing larger about an SLR is the flange distance. Nikon and Zeiss SLR lenses are huge, but some SLR lenses are much smaller. None are as small as the Leica compact primes.

But then again, Fuji's X lineup are large lenses in comparison to typical rangefinder lenses.

There is no inherent advantage of rangefinder vs SLR for size- it all has to do with today's placement of mirror (for true SLR) or not. Then there is just a 'hump' that may exist. Even if it does, the a7r has a lower shoulder height than the X-pro. All else equal, it has a smaller volume.

As a camera, it is no fun to shoot. The X-pro 1 is way more fun. No comparison. But size-wise, the two really are equals.