X100v OVF

When I first purchased an X100 camera years ago, I felt that the fact that it had an OVF along with an EVF was wonderful. Until recently, I never cared for EVFs as I felt they were very difficult to view through and see all the details in the scene. Nowadays though, they have become pretty good and it has led me to question the usefulness of the OVF in the latest X100 cameras.

A couple of things about the OVF really bother me.

First, while I understand that some like the idea of seeing outside the actual frame, I do think that the frame at least on the OVF in the X100v is too small. The image should be magnified a bit with less outside frame real estate.

Second, a very irritating fact about focusing with the OVF is the fact that if you use the corrected frame option (and you should so that you are positioning the camera correctly in order to compensate for parallax error), you cannot even see a correctly placed corrected frame until you first press down the shutter release to focus. The frame will THEN be positioned correctly. So, unless you already knew where the camera would correctly focus, you must focus a second time where that corrected frame now falls.

Third, the focus frames in the OVF are just too big. When using the OVF, the camera does not always focus correctly. When using the EVF, the focus point frame size can be changed and become more able to pinpoint correctly.

I do understand that one of the biggest draws to these cameras is the ability to switch between EVF and OVF. But I think that at this point with improved EVFs, the OVF has outlived its value. It seems to be more of a gimmick than anything. An effort to make these cameras seem like Leicas.

Comments?

Thanks for your post, which interests me very much and makes points that I myself am a bit concerned about. I've ordered an X100V (black) -- probably won't have it for some weeks. It will be my first Fuji camera. My current main cameras are a Sony A7 III and a Sony RX10 IV, both of which have pretty good EVFs and terrific autofocus.

What I like about the idea of the OVF as I understand it's implemented in the X100V is that I'll be able to see more of the scene in front of me than I'm going to capture. That sounds useful.

But I really do not understand how you focus with the X100V and I'm looking forward to learning when I get mine. The autofocus on my current Sony cameras is tremendous so I'm not hoping for the X100V to be better -- but I do hope it's not worse.

Sean Reid's outstanding website https://www.reidreviews.com/ has a number of articles about the X100V, the X-PRO3 and a fantastic old article about the various different types of finders. It's all behind a paywall but very much worth the price of admission. He's extremely fond of Leica rangefinders and so also very keen on certain Fuji cameras like the X100V and the X-PRO3. His article on the varieties of finder is the best thing I've ever read on the subject and very thought-provoking. But it is also a bit, well, "philosophical" might be too strong, so I'll just say abstract. I like this sort of thing. But in the end, it's also the case that I use the camera as a tool to take photos. Reid is fond of the experience of shooting with rangefinder-style OVF. True he thinks it leads to better photos. I'm not so sure but am eager to find out.

William

Jay A wrote:

When I first purchased an X100 camera years ago, I felt that the fact that it had an OVF along with an EVF was wonderful. Until recently, I never cared for EVFs as I felt they were very difficult to view through and see all the details in the scene. Nowadays though, they have become pretty good and it has led me to question the usefulness of the OVF in the latest X100 cameras.

A couple of things about the OVF really bother me.

First, while I understand that some like the idea of seeing outside the actual frame, I do think that the frame at least on the OVF in the X100v is too small. The image should be magnified a bit with less outside frame real estate.

Second, a very irritating fact about focusing with the OVF is the fact that if you use the corrected frame option (and you should so that you are positioning the camera correctly in order to compensate for parallax error), you cannot even see a correctly placed corrected frame until you first press down the shutter release to focus. The frame will THEN be positioned correctly. So, unless you already knew where the camera would correctly focus, you must focus a second time where that corrected frame now falls.

Parallax error  is a function of distance. Hence it cannot be calculated until the camera knows the distance which is why you have to focus first.  However, for a fixed focal length lens - it is pretty simple to estimate it just by eyeball.

Third, the focus frames in the OVF are just too big. When using the OVF, the camera does not always focus correctly. When using the EVF, the focus point frame size can be changed and become more able to pinpoint correctly.

I do understand that one of the biggest draws to these cameras is the ability to switch between EVF and OVF. But I think that at this point with improved EVFs, the OVF has outlived its value. It seems to be more of a gimmick than anything. An effort to make these cameras seem like Leicas.

Comments?

Owned the XPRO2, thought the OVF/EVF nothing more than a gimmick IMO. YMMV.

William, re the AF, I've not used the XT4 but otherwise do know that nothing Fuji sells matches the AF-C of the RX10 IV or the newer gen A7.

Geekapoo wrote:

Owned the XPRO2, thought the OVF/EVF nothing more than a gimmick IMO. YMMV.

William, re the AF, I've not used the XT4 but otherwise do know that nothing Fuji sells matches the AF-C of the RX10 IV or the newer gen A7.

Richard,

Thanks for the comment. I am going to wait and see. It is quite possible that I'll return the X100V (assuming it ever actually arrives). But of course there's more to shooting than good autofocus.

One of the things I dislike about the Sonys is that -- in my view, anyway -- there are too many options. I am strongly (if inexplicably) attracted to the minimalist exterior of the X100V. I wish I could eliminate about half a dozen of the buttons on the outside of my A7 III. Don't ask me which ones I'd eliminate: I don't know, but this isn't entirely rational. In other respects I love the way the A7 III feels in my hand and it does take good photos.

The other problem I have with the Sonys (the RX10 IV and the A7 III) is that they're too big to carry with me all the time. The RX10 IV is great on vacation but not for, say, taking over to visit my grandchildren or just carrying around in my truck when I'm out and about. Even with the remarkably good Rokinon 35mm pancake lens, the A7 III is definitely not "compact". It's kind of down to the Fuji X100V or the Panasonic LX100 II (with its MFT sensor). We'll see.

William

Jay A wrote:

Second, a very irritating fact about focusing with the OVF is the fact that if you use the corrected frame option (and you should so that you are positioning the camera correctly in order to compensate for parallax error), you cannot even see a correctly placed corrected frame until you first press down the shutter release to focus.

Something I swear I remember the X100T could do was dynamically update the frame lines.  Maybe it required Pre-AF and AF-C but I can't imagine it wouldn't burn through your battery.

The frame will THEN be positioned correctly. So, unless you already knew where the camera would correctly focus, you must focus a second time where that corrected frame now falls.

I've always just learned to anticipate where between the two boxes the af point will be depending on how close the subject is. Much like Auto ISO won't pick an ISO without meeting first, it can't display the corrected AF box without your focusing on the subject first.

William Porter wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Owned the XPRO2, thought the OVF/EVF nothing more than a gimmick IMO. YMMV.

William, re the AF, I've not used the XT4 but otherwise do know that nothing Fuji sells matches the AF-C of the RX10 IV or the newer gen A7.

Richard,

Thanks for the comment. I am going to wait and see. It is quite possible that I'll return the X100V (assuming it ever actually arrives). But of course there's more to shooting than good autofocus.

One of the things I dislike about the Sonys is that -- in my view, anyway -- there are too many options. I am strongly (if inexplicably) attracted to the minimalist exterior of the X100V. I wish I could eliminate about half a dozen of the buttons on the outside of my A7 III. Don't ask me which ones I'd eliminate: I don't know, but this isn't entirely rational. In other respects I love the way the A7 III feels in my hand and it does take good photos.

The other problem I have with the Sonys (the RX10 IV and the A7 III) is that they're too big to carry with me all the time. The RX10 IV is great on vacation but not for, say, taking over to visit my grandchildren or just carrying around in my truck when I'm out and about. Even with the remarkably good Rokinon 35mm pancake lens, the A7 III is definitely not "compact". It's kind of down to the Fuji X100V or the Panasonic LX100 II (with its MFT sensor). We'll see.

William

Yes, there is definitely more to camera appeal than having the best AF..less than the best may suffice.

Overall, I love my Fuji gear for a variety of reasons but have given up on the XPRO series (having owned the first two releases) and have passed on the X100 series as the OVF/EVF has no appeal.

The Panasonic LX100 II might be fun to shoot with but if AF is a critical feature and you want a small camera, the last two gen RX100 cameras might be worth checking out..I own one but don't really like it (it's not worth selling/early gen).

Geekapoo wrote:

Yes, there is definitely more to camera appeal than having the best AF..less than the best may suffice.

Well, saying "less than the best may suffice" seems a bit, well, not the way I'd put it. I do want really good focus. But really good focus is not the same thing as really good autofocus. I used manual focus exclusively for a long time, including shooting weddings and even shooting school sports. As long as I can get the results I want, I'm happy, even if I have to work a little harder.

And to be honest although Sony A7 III autofocus is supposed to be pretty close to the gold standard, from my perspective, there are so many options that it almost seems a bit misleading to call it "auto" focus. I mean, it feels like I need to spend fifteen minutes before a session programming the pages and pages of autofocus options. It's so easy it's become hard!

I sometimes wonder how we ever managed to take photos back when I got started. No menus and almost no options on the cameras -- aperture, shutter speed, ASA/ISO, manual focus and perhaps futzing with a filter.

The Panasonic LX100 II might be fun to shoot with but if AF is a critical feature and you want a small camera, the last two gen RX100 cameras might be worth checking out..I own one but don't really like it (it's not worth selling/early gen).

Yes, I've considered the RX100 vii. I reviewed the original RX100 many years ago very favorably. But the RX100 vii is, to be honest, almost TOO compact for my big hands. I know, I'm hard to please. Plus I already have the RX10 iv which is basically a ginormous version of the RX100 vii with an even better zoom. At least the X100V or the LX100 ii would give me something different to play with.

I know, I'm impossible to please.

William

William Porter wrote:

I sometimes wonder how we ever managed to take photos back when I got started. No menus and almost no options on the cameras -- aperture, shutter speed, ASA/ISO, manual focus and perhaps futzing with a filter.

To play Devil's advocate, there's nothing stopping you from approaching the Fuji in this way. The options are as they are called: options. Although I will concede the focus-by-wire is not entirely pleasant to use in regards to manual focusing.

William,

As an A7iii shooter, I also wanted something smaller. I grabbed the X-E3 and 27mm 2.8, and it’s put a bug in me. Now I’m considering moving away from Sony altogether.

William Porter wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Owned the XPRO2, thought the OVF/EVF nothing more than a gimmick IMO. YMMV.

William, re the AF, I've not used the XT4 but otherwise do know that nothing Fuji sells matches the AF-C of the RX10 IV or the newer gen A7.

Richard,

Thanks for the comment. I am going to wait and see. It is quite possible that I'll return the X100V (assuming it ever actually arrives). But of course there's more to shooting than good autofocus.

One of the things I dislike about the Sonys is that -- in my view, anyway -- there are too many options. I am strongly (if inexplicably) attracted to the minimalist exterior of the X100V. I wish I could eliminate about half a dozen of the buttons on the outside of my A7 III. Don't ask me which ones I'd eliminate: I don't know, but this isn't entirely rational. In other respects I love the way the A7 III feels in my hand and it does take good photos.

The other problem I have with the Sonys (the RX10 IV and the A7 III) is that they're too big to carry with me all the time. The RX10 IV is great on vacation but not for, say, taking over to visit my grandchildren or just carrying around in my truck when I'm out and about. Even with the remarkably good Rokinon 35mm pancake lens, the A7 III is definitely not "compact". It's kind of down to the Fuji X100V or the Panasonic LX100 II (with its MFT sensor). We'll see.

William

The wide view outside the 35mm framelines matches the 28mm view when the WCL is fitted. The framelines then disappear.

jjcha wrote:

From your thoughts, I wonder if the Leica Q isn't for you. I hear you though on wanting to see outside the framelines, which is an advantage of an OVF over nearly every EVF, with the exception of the Leica Q.

What's different about the Leica Q? And (I'm a bit confused) what is the Leica different from? Are you saying that it's a unique OVF or a unique EVF?

If you're really into that and want the EVF, I can recommend shooting 35mm on a Leica Q2, as the sensor and EVF still "sees" the 28mm view, but captures a jpg with the 35mm crop or records a 28mm RAW with a default crop of 35mm.

Well, for myself, I think I'd go for the Leica if I could justify the price, but it's hard for me. I could do it, but I'd feel guilty about it -- and selling all my Sony stuff to end up with a single fixed prime lens camera seems, well, just a tad crazy, even by my standards.

William

Jay A wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Jay A wrote:

Second, a very irritating fact about focusing with the OVF is the fact that if you use the corrected frame option (and you should so that you are positioning the camera correctly in order to compensate for parallax error), you cannot even see a correctly placed corrected frame until you first press down the shutter release to focus.

Something I swear I remember the X100T could do was dynamically update the frame lines. Maybe it required Pre-AF and AF-C but I can't imagine it wouldn't burn through your battery.

The frame will THEN be positioned correctly. So, unless you already knew where the camera would correctly focus, you must focus a second time where that corrected frame now falls.

I've always just learned to anticipate where between the two boxes the af point will be depending on how close the subject is. Much like Auto ISO won't pick an ISO without meeting first, it can't display the corrected AF box without your focusing on the subject first.

Hmmm. Maybe it does require pre-af. Not something I want to have though as yes it will use a lot of battery all the time.

May have just been an X100T thing since my X-Pro2 doesn't do it.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Something I swear I remember the X100T could do was dynamically update the frame lines. Maybe it required Pre-AF and AF-C but I can't imagine it wouldn't burn through your battery.

when i had my T, it would do this if you were in manual focus mode. hopefully the V does this as well! i only use manual focus mode!