What's so special about the rangefinder shape?

Started Nov 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,804
Re: What's so special about the rangefinder shape?

Apparently, you aren't familiar with Pentax lenses. They both look great on the X-Pro1, but work well also (at least the ones with aperture rings do). The Pentax 43mm LTD is a gorgeous lens on the Fuji.

The mirrorless camera fan people seem to be about the most rabid, with their gee whiz, look at what we have attitude. So far, i haven't seen a mirrorless that I would buy with the exception of the X-Pro1, which I bought because I wanted the very lovely 35/1.4. If the Fuji hadn't had an optical viewfinder, I would not have considered it, as I find EVF finders to be universally brutal and awful to use. I find that about 30 seconds into using an EVF, I'm getting a headache, and a minute or two after that, my last meal is trying to remove itself from me. Five minutes and I'm a mewling, puking kitten.

This is something that manufacturers really need to figure out. If they can't make a decent EVF, the whole mirrorless genre is pretty much doomed to being a niche market.

We certainly can agree on your last point. Before we get there, though, I am familiar with Pentax lenses, from m42 to their current K mount. Some lenses they make are very compact. Most are excellent. The X-Pro looks a bit better with SLR lenses than does the Sony, but I meant the X lenses. They are fine, but they don't look as good on the X Pro as do true rangefinder lenses.

Unfortuantely for users like me, not a single X camera has a good EVF. I will not buy X lenses for a number or reasons and am forced to use the slow, stammering, low contrast EVF. I've gotten used to it and can focus rather well- not as well as through a real pentaprism or mirror setup, but reasonably well.

The a7r's EVF is a long way off. I was hoping it would be good enough to pop manual focus lenses into focus in the link of an eye as is possible with the D800. No.

Above a few paragraphs, I said the only essential difference between SLRs and rangefinders: I meant handling. Construction is different of course, but in handling, the two classic designs are almost interchangeable. Today's SLRs are completely different, and I find, rife with oversight. That is why I got the X-Pro. It is a finely envisioned camera. I think, however, that it is way undershot. I hope the X-Pro 2 fixes most of the interface/slowness/irresponsive errors as well as brings:

- PIP overlay in OVF for manual focus
- larger, brighter OVF
- fast updating EVF
- 1/200 flash sync
- 1/2 stop shutter speeds from 1/400 to 8/1 like the Leica M9.

If the above could be fixed, I'd even be happy with the 16MP and APSC, but I'd much rather FF- only because I use LTM and M lenses and nothing less. I bought my lenses at the focal lengths I use: 28/50/90. On F mount I have 28/50/85. But that whole thing is screwed up with the X. I know it won't change anytime soon, which is a shame. Fuji are so close. Their camera has too many buttons and too much menu to wade through for a simple user like me, but it is the closest to a comfortable camera I've used in the non-Leica mirror less genre.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Leica SL (Typ 601) Fujifilm GFX 50S Leica M10 Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow