Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)
Threaded wrote:
boogisha wrote:
Here`s an excerpt from Camera Labs preview video, Gordon Laing handling X-Pro3 exactly with XF 23mm f/2 attached: "Fujifilm X-Pro 3 preview: HANDS-ON first looks"[1] (starting at 5'49" mark).
Actually that video is quite revealing, and not in a good way.
Looking at the 23mm framelines, it's quite clear (from the way that the indicators are arranged around the sides for one) that the lines are drawn very close to the edge of what the OLED incorporated in the OVF can physically display - which is obviously why the OVF doesn't support any wider lens than this, despite being having a much wider optical field of view -
Note the framelines just clip the corner of the skylight top left, only include a portion of the cupboard below, clip the edge of the glass cabinet on the right etc
But now look what happens when Gordon switches to EVF with the same lens in the same position -
Suddenly we can see a lot more of the skylight, two cupboards below it, a whole extra section of cabinet on the right, and more!
Looking around the edges of the frame, in reality the field of view is very significantly wider than the framelines were showing. At best those framelines are wildly inaccurate. More cynically, it could be said those framelines are clearly compromised by the fact that they're trying to squeeze a pint into a quart pot and that OLED portion of the OVF simply cannot physically contain an accurate 23mm frameline.
I suspect that if there is a bug in the pre-release firmware, it's simply that it's currently showing some people things as they actually are, rather than the fudge that Fuji would rather you see.
More speculations, eh...?
What you seem to be forgetting is that what you see inside/outside of the optical viewfinder framelines is also dependent on how far from it you are - and it`s quite possible that camera, even pressed against the viewfinder, is a bit farther away than your eye would be, thus camera (what we see here) sees a bit less inside the framelines then your eye would (and possibly a bit less of the viewfinder in total, especially around the edges).
Besides, even Fuji states only 95% OVF coverage for X-Pro3 (it was stated 92% for X-Pro2, not to forget). And on top of all that, the wider the lens, the less precise the framelines (and 23mm is the widest one you get the framelines for on X-Pro3, being 18mm on X-Pro2).
On the other hand, electronic viewfinder has 100% coverage - and no dependency on how far away you`re looking at it from (taking that you can still see it completely).
I would have assumed you don`t need it, but just in case (and for everyone else interested), here`s a nice and brief explanation (source: photo.stackexchange.com[1]):
Imre wrote (Apr 30 '12 at 7:42):
You can move your head around, and the frame will line up differently depending on your exact point of view. And wearing glasses, the frame will seem even smaller than without - because your eye is further away. Cropping is far easier than synthesizing something you thought would end up in frame, but actually didn't.
The viewfinder on a rangefinder camera should not be considered a device for exact framing, but rather choosing the direction of shooting. The bright frame shows you what's certainly covered. The expensive Leica M9 exhibits similar behavior.
Another issue is that the focal length of a lens is only approximate, with 5% variation not too uncommon. To make matters worse, adjusting focusing distance affects focal length on most of photographic lenses.
It would be possible to craft a more exact viewfinder if the human photographers had a standardized viewfinder-to-eye mount and lenses would report their actual focal length all the time. As long as these issues remain, it's better to err on the safer side.
If anything, it shouldn`t be any different on X-Pro2, either (if not worse, even, in case X-Pro3 really brought a bit of an improvement here, precision wise).
Again, we can further speculate based on third-party (again speculative) experience, but any heavy theorizing born from it seems futile - at least nothing to get upset about, even though this is a gear oriented forum.
We`ll know much more once the camera hits the shelves (and possibly sooner, too)... while in-person time with the camera would still beat all, where possible.
No review can replace a feeling of putting your eye against that viewfinder, I`m afraid.