The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

The ellipsis is such a nice addition of drama. The Xpro3 OVF is drum roll please disappointing!

Oh no!

Dan

The Pro2 basically had two OVF's, each with a unique magnification hence a unique OVF FOV. The OVF on the Pro2 is small. The Pro2 OVF was okay but not great. The key to the frame lines is the field of view of the OVF relative to the field of view of the lens which determines the frame lines.

Someone took the specs and did a nice simulation of the Pro2 vs. Pro3 OVF. The Pro3 OVF is larger - so everything is larger. That is a plus in the Pro3 column. The FOV of the Pro3 OVF is smaller than the Pro2, I believe equivalent to a 14 mm lens on the Pro2 and 16 on the Pro3. That means there is enough room on the Pro2 to put fulling functional frame lines (fully functional includes parallax correction) for the 18 mm lens. The Pro3 the 18 mm at infinity is right inside the viewfinder FOV but the frame lines for parallax correction of the 18 will not fit.

So you lose the 18 frame lines with the Pro3. That is a plus in the Pro2 column. The Pro3 does support the 23 frame lines with parallax support but at infinity the top frame line is at the top of the viewfinder to allow for parallax correction. The 35 is inside the 23 of course, but from the simulation I saw, the 35 is about a wash. In reality the different in magnification between the Pro2 and Pro3 is .08 or 15% (.52 vs. .6) but the viewfinder is on the Pro3 is larger than the Pro2.

Where one starts to see the difference is lenses greater than 35. Form the simulations posted on this forum, it looked like the 50 was really a which, less magnification but a larger viewfinder area and smaller FOV. The impact will go up over the 50. The 80 or 90 will be impacted the most.

So it looks like on the Pro3 you will lose the 18 frame lines but you can still use the OVF with the 18 since it is not difficult to estimate where the 18 frame lines would be since it is almost the entire frame. On the Pro3, support for the longer lenses, 60, 80 and 90 will not be as good as the Pro2.

However, that needs to be weighted with the fact the FOV of the Pro3 OVF is smaller which means less potential of intrusion into the frame of a lens. That is seeing the end of the lens in the viewfinder. With the Pro2 my 23 f1.4 did slightly intrude into the OVF. It did slightly intrude into the parallax corrected frame when focused closer than some distance. Not bad but it was there. With the larger FOV, that should not happen.

The second thing is if the EVF on the Pro3 is really that much better than the Pro2, then it the Pro3 will be better when using manual focus lenses on the camera. If that is the case I might pick up an M adaptor and pop my M lenses on the camera.

So it seems to me that it is a mixed bag, some advantages of one design over the other and it also seems that neither is "superior." It gets right down to how does the camera work for a given individual. I actually don't quite see how one can make that decisions without taking the camera out for a spin and putting a few shots through it. Since I am not smart enough to read a spec, watch a YouTube video or look at it for 5 to 10 minutes at a show and determine how I will like using a Pro3 vs. a Pro2, I intend to take a Pro3 for a spin.

Truman Prevatt said:

The Pro2 basically had two OVF's, each with a unique magnification hence a unique OVF FOV. The OVF on the Pro2 is small. The Pro2 OVF was okay but not great. The key to the frame lines is the field of view of the OVF relative to the field of view of the lens which determines the frame lines.

Someone took the specs and did a nice simulation of the Pro2 vs. Pro3 OVF. The Pro3 OVF is larger - so everything is larger. That is a plus in the Pro3 column. The FOV of the Pro3 OVF is smaller than the Pro2, I believe equivalent to a 14 mm lens on the Pro2 and 16 on the Pro3. That means there is enough room on the Pro2 to put fulling functional frame lines (fully functional includes parallax correction) for the 18 mm lens. The Pro3 the 18 mm at infinity is right inside the viewfinder FOV but the frame lines for parallax correction of the 18 will not fit.

So you lose the 18 frame lines with the Pro3. That is a plus in the Pro2 column. The Pro3 does support the 23 frame lines with parallax support but at infinity the top frame line is at the top of the viewfinder to allow for parallax correction. The 35 is inside the 23 of course, but from the simulation I saw, the 35 is about a wash. In reality the different in magnification between the Pro2 and Pro3 is .08 or 15% (.52 vs. .6) but the viewfinder is on the Pro3 is larger than the Pro2.

Where one starts to see the difference is lenses greater than 35. Form the simulations posted on this forum, it looked like the 50 was really a which, less magnification but a larger viewfinder area and smaller FOV. The impact will go up over the 50. The 80 or 90 will be impacted the most.

So it looks like on the Pro3 you will lose the 18 frame lines but you can still use the OVF with the 18 since it is not difficult to estimate where the 18 frame lines would be since it is almost the entire frame. On the Pro3, support for the longer lenses, 60, 80 and 90 will not be as good as the Pro2.

However, that needs to be weighted with the fact the FOV of the Pro3 OVF is smaller which means less potential of intrusion into the frame of a lens. That is seeing the end of the lens in the viewfinder. With the Pro2 my 23 f1.4 did slightly intrude into the OVF. It did slightly intrude into the parallax corrected frame when focused closer than some distance. Not bad but it was there. With the larger FOV, that should not happen.

The second thing is if the EVF on the Pro3 is really that much better than the Pro2, then it the Pro3 will be better when using manual focus lenses on the camera. If that is the case I might pick up an M adaptor and pop my M lenses on the camera.

So it seems to me that it is a mixed bag, some advantages of one design over the other and it also seems that neither is "superior." It gets right down to how does the camera work for a given individual. I actually don't quite see how one can make that decisions without taking the camera out for a spin and putting a few shots through it. Since I am not smart enough to read a spec, watch a YouTube video or look at it for 5 to 10 minutes at a show and determine how I will like using a Pro3 vs. a Pro2, I intend to take a Pro3 for a spin.

Click to expand...

Excellent, balanced post. Very helpful.

Truman Prevatt said:

The Pro2 basically had two OVF's, each with a unique magnification hence a unique OVF FOV. The OVF on the Pro2 is small. The Pro2 OVF was okay but not great. The key to the frame lines is the field of view of the OVF relative to the field of view of the lens which determines the frame lines.

Someone took the specs and did a nice simulation of the Pro2 vs. Pro3 OVF. The Pro3 OVF is larger - so everything is larger. That is a plus in the Pro3 column. The FOV of the Pro3 OVF is smaller than the Pro2, I believe equivalent to a 14 mm lens on the Pro2 and 16 on the Pro3. That means there is enough room on the Pro2 to put fulling functional frame lines (fully functional includes parallax correction) for the 18 mm lens. The Pro3 the 18 mm at infinity is right inside the viewfinder FOV but the frame lines for parallax correction of the 18 will not fit.

So you lose the 18 frame lines with the Pro3. That is a plus in the Pro2 column. The Pro3 does support the 23 frame lines with parallax support but at infinity the top frame line is at the top of the viewfinder to allow for parallax correction. The 35 is inside the 23 of course, but from the simulation I saw, the 35 is about a wash. In reality the different in magnification between the Pro2 and Pro3 is .08 or 15% (.52 vs. .6) but the viewfinder is on the Pro3 is larger than the Pro2.

Where one starts to see the difference is lenses greater than 35. Form the simulations posted on this forum, it looked like the 50 was really a which, less magnification but a larger viewfinder area and smaller FOV. The impact will go up over the 50. The 80 or 90 will be impacted the most.

So it looks like on the Pro3 you will lose the 18 frame lines but you can still use the OVF with the 18 since it is not difficult to estimate where the 18 frame lines would be since it is almost the entire frame. On the Pro3, support for the longer lenses, 60, 80 and 90 will not be as good as the Pro2.

However, that needs to be weighted with the fact the FOV of the Pro3 OVF is smaller which means less potential of intrusion into the frame of a lens. That is seeing the end of the lens in the viewfinder. With the Pro2 my 23 f1.4 did slightly intrude into the OVF. It did slightly intrude into the parallax corrected frame when focused closer than some distance. Not bad but it was there. With the larger FOV, that should not happen.

The second thing is if the EVF on the Pro3 is really that much better than the Pro2, then it the Pro3 will be better when using manual focus lenses on the camera. If that is the case I might pick up an M adaptor and pop my M lenses on the camera.

So it seems to me that it is a mixed bag, some advantages of one design over the other and it also seems that neither is "superior." It gets right down to how does the camera work for a given individual. I actually don't quite see how one can make that decisions without taking the camera out for a spin and putting a few shots through it. Since I am not smart enough to read a spec, watch a YouTube video or look at it for 5 to 10 minutes at a show and determine how I will like using a Pro3 vs. a Pro2, I intend to take a Pro3 for a spin.

Click to expand...

I've been confused about the XP-3. After reading your brief summary of the OVF here I'm more so. As it's unlikely I'll let loose of my XP-2 I suppose it doesn't matter but it seems to me you said the XP-3 OVF loses out with the wide lens (18mm) and also loses out with the long lenses. Where do you see the benefit?

I ask this as I am an "OVF person." I put all of my full frame Nikon gear up for sale with the announcement of the XP-2 specifically for the OVF, love it, never regretted it. If it's somehow less than the XP-2 OVF it will save me a lot of G.A.S.

boogisha said:

bowportes said:

On an X-Pro2, the OVF frame lines also underestimate the edges of a 23mm photo. They are approximations, nothing more. Also, the 23mm frame is smaller in the X-PRO2 OVF because of its reduced magnification.

From what I'm seeing in this thread, the xpro3 ovf is clearly improved for a 23 mm lens over what we had with the x pro2. It's a shame that the title of this thread suggests otherwise.

Click to expand...

Oh, you wait for Threaded to come here and tell you how even "18mm framelines worked just fine on both previous cameras" (source), where now 23mm ones are "clearly compromised" and "Fuji is cheating" (source)... and all that before even seeing the new camera in person. Eh.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the handy links, and for the avoidance of doubt I stand by every word.

It's clear that you are very keen for the X-Pro3's compromises to be accepted and have nothing but optimism for the new design. That's great. I honestly don't want you to be disappointed or for the X-Pro3 to be a bad camera. But just to reiterate, the 18mm framelines are a serious loss, and between reports like both the OP's and DPreview's own, and what can be seen in videos like the above, there are certainly question marks over the usefulness of those 23mm framelines too.

Regardless of the ridiculous screen design, this is an amazing oversight to me.

Do they not know the history of photography?

If this camera is focused on "street photographers" the most common lenses are 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm (equivalents).

Amazing. It shows how little they know.

alan brown said:

Apart from arguing about the 23mm focal length in the x-pro3, let's not forget that there are no framelines for the 18mm on the x-pro3.

Click to expand...

Threaded said:

boogisha said:

bowportes said:

On an X-Pro2, the OVF frame lines also underestimate the edges of a 23mm photo. They are approximations, nothing more. Also, the 23mm frame is smaller in the X-PRO2 OVF because of its reduced magnification.

From what I'm seeing in this thread, the xpro3 ovf is clearly improved for a 23 mm lens over what we had with the x pro2. It's a shame that the title of this thread suggests otherwise.

Click to expand...

Oh, you wait for Threaded to come here and tell you how even "18mm framelines worked just fine on both previous cameras" (source), where now 23mm ones are "clearly compromised" and "Fuji is cheating" (source)... and all that before even seeing the new camera in person. Eh.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the handy links, and for the avoidance of doubt I stand by every word.

It's clear that you are very keen for the X-Pro3's compromises to be accepted and have nothing but optimism for the new design. That's great. I honestly don't want you to be disappointed or for the X-Pro3 to be a bad camera. But just to reiterate, the 18mm framelines are a serious loss, and between reports like both the OP's and DPreview's own, and what can be seen in videos like the above, there are certainly question marks over the usefulness of those 23mm framelines too.

Click to expand...

Serious loss... for you. And still ignoring the benefit of much greater magnification (0.52 vs 0.36). Again, it may be irrelevant _to you_, but it is certainly not _in general_. Just a different set of compromises, for better and for worse (while better might be for a majority of users, if Fuji`s research is to be trusted).

But thank you for keeping it reasonable (for the most of the time, as from some remarks I`m not sure if you`re just trolling, or being genuinely curious albeit overreacting).

Believe it or not, I don`t have a horse in this race - I haven`t seen X-Pro3 yet (like majority of others), and thus surely haven`t compared it with X-Pro2. But I like to keep my mind open, and at least allow some benefit of the doubt here, instead of speculating the worse out of thin air.

And when speculation seems to get out of hands, I do like to use my own head, too, and possibly provide a different view, hopefully balancing it all out a bit (or spurring further discussion) - until we get to know for sure.

razorfish said:

It’s weird how they selected the OVF as a feature to dumb down and save money on, seeing as it’s the one feature that more than anything makes the X-Pro stand out from other Fuji models. I wrote here before how the OVF should have been their primary focus for the X-Pro3, it should be enlarged, enhanced, expanded with more zoom levels. But not so. It seems to me Fuji has been more concerned with saving and skimping lately rather than impressing. The 200mm f2 and 8-16mm were truly impressing products. Since then we’ve had a mediocre 16-80mm, a scandalous failure in delivering the promised 33mm f1, and a rather unimpressive X-Pro3. I’ve said it before, Fuji’s developmental resources are being channeled into the GFX system, leaving X customers with a system that’s beginning to lag behind. We need a new X-H1 style body with updated AF and resolution, we need a faster standard zoom like a 16-45mm f2, we need f1 primes in order to be competitive with “FF” systems, not just a 50mm but a 35mm and a 23mm too (don’t give me more nonsense about size, just look at that Sigma!) And yes, it’s overtime to update older primes to LM and WR, and make MKii versions of lower performing glass like the 10-24mm. Fuji is just biting over more than they can chew right now with two systems, and we the customers are missing out because of this.

Click to expand...

Agreed in part. If there is a debate between Fuji and Nikon/Sony/Canon, then this won't really help.


Steve Bingham

alan brown said:

Apart from arguing about the 23mm focal length in the x-pro3, let's not forget that there are no framelines for the 18mm on the x-pro3.

Click to expand...

+1 And that is a deal-breaker for me.

El Chubasco said:

alan brown said:

Apart from arguing about the 23mm focal length in the x-pro3, let's not forget that there are no framelines for the 18mm on the x-pro3.

Click to expand...

+1 And that is a deal-breaker for me.

Click to expand...

I don't think we're allowed to say that. It's all subjective you see. Lots of people probably wanted those framelines to go, and anyway they weren't any good, or something. Stop speculating! Unless it's good speculating.

El Chubasco said:

alan brown said:

Apart from arguing about the 23mm focal length in the x-pro3, let's not forget that there are no framelines for the 18mm on the x-pro3.

Click to expand...

+1 And that is a deal-breaker for me.

Click to expand...

Which makes shooting with the 18 on the Pro3 much like shooting 16mm with the Pro2's OVF. I do it all the time and see essentially the whole thing, but no frame lines ... because the OVF in it's entirety gives me the 16mm FOV. Even so, using the Pro2 OVF at 16mm works well even sans frame lines.

With the pro3, I'll see the entire 18mm FOV through the OVF, but nothing beyond that, and the 18mm view will be larger and brighter than with the Pro2's OVF.

It's a trade-off at 18mm.

Threaded said:

El Chubasco said:

alan brown said:

Apart from arguing about the 23mm focal length in the x-pro3, let's not forget that there are no framelines for the 18mm on the x-pro3.

Click to expand...

+1 And that is a deal-breaker for me.

Click to expand...

I don't think we're allowed to say that. It's all subjective you see. Lots of people probably wanted those framelines to go, and anyway they weren't any good, or something. Stop speculating! Unless it's good speculating.

Click to expand...

Overreacting, still?

It's one thing stating the facts and noting something doesn't work _for you_, while speculating about something you haven't even tried and labeling it "clearly compromised" and "Fuji cheating" something completely different.

But, oh, well... Have fun

Well explained. Perhaps it’s just a necessary tradeoff, to lose the OVF zoom in order to gain a larger, clearer view. I wish we could have both though.

It should be good at least with 23mm, 35mm and 50mm then. Now if they’d just produce some faster primes...

I meant we. Lots of event and portrait photographers still use and love Fuji but they’ll leave eventually if they don’t get faster glass. I know Fuji with its portable and affordable options appeals to hobbyists more than FF mirrorless, but we’re not all retired people shooting flowers in our back yard (nice as those can be). Fuji doesn’t want to lose the pros.

mark finn said:

hpylori said:

You are not correct!! Jonas Rask proved everyone wrong on this and he has shown in one of the clips he has posted on facebook x-pro3 group. You are buying rumors and hearsays..

Click to expand...

I can only report what I saw, and with a 23mm attached it showed the yellow arrows in the corners.

Having said that, the person playing with the camera before me was experimenting with the frameline simulator function, so I wonder if they some how managed to set a focal length other than what was attached to the camera? The camera should have overrode it, but since it was pre-production firmware it may be buggy.

Click to expand...

So you post this ridiculous thread and you don’t know even know how to change the frame lines on the OVF? Wow

iRanN said:

mark finn said:

hpylori said:

You are not correct!! Jonas Rask proved everyone wrong on this and he has shown in one of the clips he has posted on facebook x-pro3 group. You are buying rumors and hearsays..

Click to expand...

I can only report what I saw, and with a 23mm attached it showed the yellow arrows in the corners.

Having said that, the person playing with the camera before me was experimenting with the frameline simulator function, so I wonder if they some how managed to set a focal length other than what was attached to the camera? The camera should have overrode it, but since it was pre-production firmware it may be buggy.

Click to expand...

So you post this ridiculous thread and you don’t know even know how to change the frame lines on the OVF? Wow

Click to expand...

You're the one sounding uninformed here, there is no way of changing the framelines on an X-Pro other than attaching a different lens. You can manually set an appropriate frameline for an adapted lens, but that should always be automatically overridden with an XF lens attached.

What do you mean with faster primes? There you have 1.4/23, 1.4/35 and 1.2/55.

Faster lenses would be too big and would block even a bigger part of the OFV.

I don't get this anyway. The biggest advantage of mirrorless cameras is the EVF and the possibility that you see what you get before taking the picture. They should omit the OVF and bring a "X-E4 Pro" with all the features of the Pro3 but with the best possible EVF. Reading the threads about the Pro3 gives me the impression that many X-Pro users use only or mostly the EVF. This makes even more sense because the lens lineup of 2019 has much more lenses that can't be used with the OVF and the 18mm f2.0 from the 3 original X-Pro1 lenses is not supported any more.

If I want to enjoy a real good OVF I take my Leica M2, the "original" RF from 1960....

Truman Prevatt said:

Some sensible stuff.

Click to expand...

Wish I could give this two thumbs up.

Karl said:

I don't get this anyway. The biggest advantage of mirrorless cameras is the EVF and the possibility that you see what you get before taking the picture. They should omit the OVF and bring a "X-E4 Pro" with all the features of the Pro3 but with the best possible EVF. Reading the threads about the Pro3 gives me the impression that many X-Pro users use only or mostly the EVF. This makes even more sense because the lens lineup of 2019 has much more lenses that can't be used with the OVF and the 18mm f2.0 from the 3 original X-Pro1 lenses is not supported any more.

If I want to enjoy a real good OVF I take my Leica M2, the "original" RF from 1960....

Click to expand...

There are many people shooting X-Pro and X100 cameras who favour the OVF over the EVF.

There are advantages to the OVF, especially in specific kinds of photography.

If the X-Pro lost its OVF and hybrid viewfinder, it would also lose a large number of its fanbase and part of what makes it unique.