The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing. Locked

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
mark finn Contributing Member • Posts: 545
The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

I just went to one of Fujifilm's hands-on events with the new camera, and I liked almost everything about it except for the one thing I really wanted to like. To my surprise the new OVF is not wide enough to show framelines for the 23mm - they appear as the standard yellow arrows in the corner of the viewfinder.

Personally I shoot OVF almost all of the time, and the 35mm FOV is my go-to for most general shooting. So this kind of rules the camera out for me, which is a shame as the rest of the package is pretty solid.

I also got a little bit of gossip from the Fujifilm rep on the x100 refresh: He said that he has seen three mock ups of potential designs, two of which have flip screens (with one modelled on the Xpro3's). He also said that there have been serious discussions about weather sealing - whatever that means.

As always, grain of salt with this stuff.

Fujifilm FinePix X100
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
razorfish Contributing Member • Posts: 809
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

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.

 razorfish's gear list:razorfish's gear list
Sony a7R III Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG DN Phase One Capture One Pro
hpylori Junior Member • Posts: 41
WRONG IDEA!!

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..

ViMa
ViMa Senior Member • Posts: 1,494
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

mark finn wrote:

I just went to one of Fujifilm's hands-on events with the new camera, and I liked almost everything about it except for the one thing I really wanted to like. To my surprise the new OVF is not wide enough to show framelines for the 23mm - they appear as the standard yellow arrows in the corner of the viewfinder.

That's very confusing! I saw a video that showed the OVF with the 23mm and it looked normal. Not claiming you are lying, of course, but quite confused since we seem to have separate reports from these preproduction samples.

Personally I shoot OVF almost all of the time, and the 35mm FOV is my go-to for most general shooting. So this kind of rules the camera out for me, which is a shame as the rest of the package is pretty solid.

It'd be quite strange if they crippled the OVF for what may be considered the main FOV for street photography.

I also got a little bit of gossip from the Fujifilm rep on the x100 refresh: He said that he has seen three mock ups of potential designs, two of which have flip screens (with one modelled on the Xpro3's). He also said that there have been serious discussions about weather sealing - whatever that means.

WR would be great.

As always, grain of salt with this stuff.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Vittorio
_________________________________________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155724624@N06/

 ViMa's gear list:ViMa's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 XF 90mm +1 more
deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 9,853
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

razorfish wrote:

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.

And who exactly is this "we" you are representing here? I think that a substantial percentage of X-Pro users use it for the Form factor and the occasional OVF. Since hands is a far away option for me at this stage, I can only go by what I have read. Going by that, the 3 F2 lenses, 23, 35 and 50 should be a problem.

I have my personal wants and needs regarding a camera, I currently enjoy my X-T3, but can tell you that I would - and possibly will like the Pro3 much more...

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Sony RX1R II Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +5 more
Birdmanfriday Regular Member • Posts: 250
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

deednets wrote:

razorfish wrote:

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.

And who exactly is this "we" you are representing here? I think that a substantial percentage of X-Pro users use it for the Form factor and the occasional OVF. Since hands is a far away option for me at this stage, I can only go by what I have read. Going by that, the 3 F2 lenses, 23, 35 and 50 should be a problem.

I have my personal wants and needs regarding a camera, I currently enjoy my X-T3, but can tell you that I would - and possibly will like the Pro3 much more...

Deed

Isn’t he just referring to Fuji users in general? You’re also claiming to have some insights into how “a substantial percentage” of X-Pro shooters use their cameras - presumably you have some actual data on that?

In reality, he’s just doing what many people do here all the time, presenting personal opinions as though they were universally agreed truths.  Surely it’s best to just take it with a pinch of salt?

 Birdmanfriday's gear list:Birdmanfriday's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +6 more
OP mark finn Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Re: WRONG IDEA!!

hpylori wrote:

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..

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.

deednets Veteran Member • Posts: 9,853
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

Birdmanfriday wrote:

deednets wrote:

razorfish wrote:

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.

And who exactly is this "we" you are representing here? I think that a substantial percentage of X-Pro users use it for the Form factor and the occasional OVF. Since hands is a far away option for me at this stage, I can only go by what I have read. Going by that, the 3 F2 lenses, 23, 35 and 50 should be a problem.

I have my personal wants and needs regarding a camera, I currently enjoy my X-T3, but can tell you that I would - and possibly will like the Pro3 much more...

Deed

Isn’t he just referring to Fuji users in general? You’re also claiming to have some insights into how “a substantial percentage” of X-Pro shooters use their cameras - presumably you have some actual data on that?

In reality, he’s just doing what many people do here all the time, presenting personal opinions as though they were universally agreed truths. Surely it’s best to just take it with a pinch of salt?

The "substantial" comment came from F16 Mullins and a couple of X-Shooter events where there were debates as to where from here Re the X-Pro series. Mr Mullins only one I am aware of that, add me - I would also have liked a better EVF - so it made sense to me, also considering how many lenses you can't use with the OVF, the 10-24, 14, 55-200, 80, 90, 50-140, 100-400. Since at least a few X-Pro shooters have lenses outside the comfort zone of the 28, 35, 60 original lens lineup, it made sense to me that an EVF upgrade would be a wanted thing amongst X-Pro shooters.

I understand that when somebody states that "we" want an updated H1, she /he might mean "I"...

But maybe I felt I should comment because somebody just felt like hopping onto the bandwagon of disapproval, because it's the trend of the month.

I feel like after all those years where "we" demanded a tiltable screen, "we" got one, but not the one on offer "we" wanted.

Now, if what you are saying is true, regarding using generalizations when "we" means "I", so let me then make this little statement:

We want hidden screens that are when you want it, but there if you don't.

Better?

Deed 😎

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Sony RX1R II Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +5 more
Threaded Senior Member • Posts: 2,842
Re: WRONG IDEA!!

mark finn wrote:

hpylori wrote:

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..

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.

I wonder if there is a bug in a version of the pre-release firmware that some are seeing and others are not.  You and DPreview both report this issue; Jonas Rask refutes this and has shared a (poorly shot) video which appears to disprove, quite possibly everyone is right and there are two different firmwares at play.

Just out of curiosity, which version of the 23mm did you have attached, the f2 or the 1.4?  Apparently they are not exactly the same in true focal length despite the name, I wonder if that’s making a difference?

 Threaded's gear list:Threaded's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 1,054
Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)

mark finn wrote:

hpylori wrote:

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..

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.

This may very well be the case... thus your thread now, unfortunately, seems only to serve the (mis)purpose of further spreading false claims and unfounded fear

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).

And not to forget - that one is even slightly wider than older XF 23mm f/1.4. Still, white framelines are clearly shown, and it`s visible how parallax correction steps in, moving them around, once shutter-button half-press auto-focus is engaged.

-- hide signature --
 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon PowerShot A75 Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +10 more
Threaded Senior Member • Posts: 2,842
Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)

boogisha wrote:

mark finn wrote:

hpylori wrote:

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..

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.

This may very well be the case... thus your thread now, unfortunately, seems only to serve the (mis)purpose of further spreading false claims and unfounded fear

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).

And not to forget - that one is even slightly wider than older XF 23mm f/1.4. Still, white framelines are clearly shown, and it`s visible how parallax correction steps in, moving them around, once shutter-button half-press auto-focus is engaged.

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.

 Threaded's gear list:Threaded's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
OP mark finn Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)

boogisha wrote:

This may very well be the case... thus your thread now, unfortunately, seems only to serve the (mis)purpose of further spreading false claims and unfounded fear

If people are truly experiencing fear about the capabilities of an upcoming camera then that would be a real shame, because at the end of the day it really isn't a big deal.

I simply reported what seemed to be an oddity with the camera I held this afternoon, and wasn't saying that my experience is definitive in any way. Apparently some have reported similar, and others not. Hopefully neither opinion is going to influence anyone's buying decision one war or the other.

boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 1,054
Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)

mark finn wrote:

boogisha wrote:

This may very well be the case... thus your thread now, unfortunately, seems only to serve the (mis)purpose of further spreading false claims and unfounded fear

If people are truly experiencing fear about the capabilities of an upcoming camera then that would be a real shame, because at the end of the day it really isn't a big deal.

I simply reported what seemed to be an oddity with the camera I held this afternoon, and wasn't saying that my experience is definitive in any way. Apparently some have reported similar, and others not. Hopefully neither opinion is going to influence anyone's buying decision one war or the other.

Yeah, I believe you had no ill intent, just that it`s a bit crazy around here these days.

This is a very controversial topic at the moment, and some people that do find it a big deal do make a big deal out of it as well - especially as there were quite the opposite reports so far, and not too many people actually had a chance to try one in person and report back.

So when you started a new topic, disappointingly stating that you did hold one and the framelines are out of bounds for 23mm, it kind of pretty much settled it. Of course, people still do get to decide whether to believe you or not in the first place, but in case you really did test X-Pro3 in person, what you said should be true - and (it seems) it`s not... or there might be more to it, as you later noted yourself (but people may not read that far, eh).

Anyway, I`d still advise anyone interested to test for himself, and all the rest to refrain from expressing too much emotions/conclusions before we get some more (and solid) feedback The damn thing is not even out yet

 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon PowerShot A75 Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +10 more
boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 1,054
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.

-- hide signature --
 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon PowerShot A75 Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +10 more
bowportes Veteran Member • Posts: 3,636
Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)

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.

 bowportes's gear list:bowportes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 22,798
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

This thread should be deleted or blocked as it was obviously incorrect

-- hide signature --

Closing in...no...more like closed in. Famous words indeed

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +17 more
boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 1,054
Re: WRONG IDEA!! ... indeed (video sample)

bowportes wrote:

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.

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.

 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon PowerShot A75 Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +10 more
alan brown Contributing Member • Posts: 729
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

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.

-- hide signature --

alan brown

boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 1,054
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

alan brown wrote:

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.

Indeed. That`s a compromise on the wide end (and 16mm field of view, instead of 14mm), in order to gain much larger magnification (0.52 vs 0.36).

But that`s something we`ve been rehashing for a while in this thread: "X-Pro2 vs X-Pro3 OVF simulated view comparison (with framelines)"[1]).

 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon PowerShot A75 Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +10 more
Jerry-astro
MOD Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 14,478
Re: The Xpro3 OVF is... disappointing.

The Davinator wrote:

This thread should be deleted or blocked as it was obviously incorrect

If the OP requests it, I will be happy to lock it. The discussion speaks for itself and I don't think people would appreciate my taking on the role of a censor (well... any more than those cases where it's absolutely necessary).

-- hide signature --

Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads