Manual Focus and X-Pro

So lately I've been thinking about the analog rangefinder I had a while ago. Something about the window viewfinder and the manual focusing experience is calling to me.

Yet I also know that analog is just too much hassle, and a digital rangefinder is too expensive. So, that leaves the X-Pro. But how does one focus manually with the OVF? I assume you can't use he digital split prism or focus peaking with the OVF?

And more generally, how do you deal with the parallax? When I tried an X100T a while ago, I kept missing focus on headshots particularly. How can you tell from the OVF whether the camera focused on the head, instead of the background?

Use the little ERF patch, or zone focus.

You'd likely have to use zone focus. My experience is with the 2, the 3 might have improved this so keep that in mind, but I find that while the ERF can be used in a pinch, it's not an experience I'd want for full-time manual focus use.
If you have an electronically connected lens, the bright frame does move as you focus, but I don't think that's any more accurate than just using zone focus.

I've compared my X-Pro2 to a Leica with the same lens (with an adapter on the X-Pro), and it's miles apart.
The X-Pro might have the aesthetic and the controls, but for manual focus lenses it's a worst-of-all-worlds solution. The OVF has no focus aids, and if you can't use the OVF then what's the point of getting an X-Pro.

The X-Pro series might look the part, but they're very much intended to be used with Fuji's own AF lenses, in particular the narrow Fujicron lineup(which are excellent, btw).

vundere wrote:

The X-Pro might have the aesthetic and the controls, but for manual focus lenses it's a worst-of-all-worlds solution. The OVF has no focus aids, and if you can't use the OVF then what's the point of getting an X-Pro.

The X-Pro series might look the part, but they're very much intended to be used with Fuji's own AF lenses, in particular the narrow Fujicron lineup(which are excellent, btw).

I think your assessment is a little harsh. I don’t think the X-Pro3 is the worst of all worlds, rather, I think it’s a good compromise. Admittedly, I don’t think it’s as good as a true rangefinder when it comes to manual focus, but, you could flip the coin and say the rangefinder is the worst of all worlds when it comes to autofocus

Okay, in all seriousness, the little ERF patch works for me, I like that you can punch in zoom to get critical focus. It covers the portion of the OVF that’s obscured by the lens anyway.

As for focus aids, in the ERF patch you can still use focus peaking, but, honestly I never use it now.

I think that lenses with hard stops and zone focusing is the only other way, and this is what some photogs do with a true rangefinder anyway!

Pocket Lint wrote:

I think your assessment is a little harsh. I don’t think the X-Pro3 is the worst of all worlds

As mentioned, I haven't tried the 3. On my X-Pro2, I find that while using the ERF patch certainly works, it's a far cry from using a real rangefinder.

If I bought my X-Pro2 solely to use with manual focus lenses, I'd likely feel like I could have gotten far more value for my money elsewhere.

Especially when compared to my Sony setup; the R3a with electronically coupled lenses for automatic MF assist is a fantastic and intuitive MF experience.

And this isn't me wanting to dislike it; I adore my X-Pro2 and its OVF and I was really hoping I could use it as sort of a cheaper pseudo-rangefinder, but the experience so far hasn't made me want to spend any significant amount of money on MF lenses for it.

Although as mentioned; I am pitting an aging camera against some real heavy-hitters; an actual Leica rangefinder and the R3a with its high-res high-refresh-rate EVF.

bastibe wrote:

So lately I've been thinking about the analog rangefinder I had a while ago. Something about the window viewfinder and the manual focusing experience is calling to me.

Yet I also know that analog is just too much hassle, and a digital rangefinder is too expensive. So, that leaves the X-Pro. But how does one focus manually with the OVF? I assume you can't use he digital split prism or focus peaking with the OVF?

And more generally, how do you deal with the parallax? When I tried an X100T a while ago, I kept missing focus on headshots particularly. How can you tell from the OVF whether the camera focused on the head, instead of the background?

My Voightlander 35 f1.2 X lives on my Pro3.  Since this lens is chipped on the Pro3 it is parallax  corrected in the OVF.  I always use the OVF.  That is the area in the focus box is what is really in the focus box.  Because of that the ERF is very useful for manual focus.  True on the ERV and a magnified version of the focus box off the sensor appears  in the lower right hand corner of the EVF.  I find that with this lens I can focus the Pro3 about as fast as I did my Leica rangefinder and that's pretty fast.

In the ERF box, the MF focus aids are present, i.e., focus peaking, micro screen, split image, etc.  The ERF also works with Fuji lenses since they are parallax corrected in the OVF.

With non chipped lenses - well the camera does not know the distance so cannot parallax correct the OVF.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

In the ERF box, the MF focus aids are present, i.e., focus peaking, micro screen, split image, etc. The ERF also works with Fuji lenses since they are parallax corrected in the OVF.

Thank you for this information! I understand (and bemoan) that the X-Pro is not a real rangefinder, but then it's not $5000, either. The other alternative might be a DSLR with an aftermarket split-prism focusing screen. But then those DSLRs were never built small, and that would surely bug me.

Do you know whether the split prism is available in the ERF only in the X-Pro3, or the 2 as well? An X-Pro2 with a chipped Voigtlander sounds terribly enticing. Are there any other chipped manual-focus lenses available?

vundere wrote:

I've compared my X-Pro2 to a Leica with the same lens (with an adapter on the X-Pro), and it's miles apart.
The X-Pro might have the aesthetic and the controls, but for manual focus lenses it's a worst-of-all-worlds solution.

That's what I fear.

The OVF has no focus aids, and if you can't use the OVF then what's the point of getting an X-Pro.

I agree. The OVF is definitely the raison d'etre for the X-Pro. And I already have an X-T. But there is something special about *not* seeing the image effects or depth of field in the viewfinder.

Although one thing that annoyed me greatly in the X-Pro1 I had a long while ago, was the sluggishness with which the OVF activated. It really took me out of the scene to stare through the empty window while waiting for the camera to recognize that there's an eye in front of it, and activating the frame lines etc.

Can one set the X-Pro2/3 to always show frame lines, regardless of the eye sensor?

Using manual lenses on the X-Pro with the OVF is pathetic. If you have used a Leica M or any other real rangefinder camera, you will be in for a major disappointment. I have an X-Pro2 and an X-T2 and when I use the X-Pro2 with a manual lens, I always use the EVF, usually with peaking. Almost never use the OVF and only with AF lenses. The dual OVF/EVF on the X100 series and the X-Pro series was one of those great ideas that Fuji's designers completely screwed up. Besides owning an X-Pro1 and two X-Pro2s, I have owned every X100 model from the original through the X100F and almost never used the OVF on any of them.

bastibe wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

In the ERF box, the MF focus aids are present, i.e., focus peaking, micro screen, split image, etc. The ERF also works with Fuji lenses since they are parallax corrected in the OVF.

Thank you for this information! I understand (and bemoan) that the X-Pro is not a real rangefinder, but then it's not $5000, either. The other alternative might be a DSLR with an aftermarket split-prism focusing screen. But then those DSLRs were never built small, and that would surely bug me.

Do you know whether the split prism is available in the ERF only in the X-Pro3, or the 2 as well? An X-Pro2 with a chipped Voigtlander sounds terribly enticing. Are there any other chipped manual-focus lenses available?

The unfortunate thing is Fuji changed the communications after the release of the Pro2 so the chipped Voight is not fully functional on the Pro2. Voigtlander just announced a chipped 23 f1.2.  The digital split image is a good idea on paper but in general it needs a boost in contrast to be all that useful.

bastibe wrote:

Although one thing that annoyed me greatly in the X-Pro1 I had a long while ago, was the sluggishness with which the OVF activated. It really took me out of the scene to stare through the empty window while waiting for the camera to recognize that there's an eye in front of it, and activating the frame lines etc.

Can one set the X-Pro2/3 to always show frame lines, regardless of the eye sensor?

Yes, there are several display modes to choose from on the 2, so if you don't want to use the eye sensor that's perfectly doable.
And even if you do use the eye sensor, it's very snappy and hasn't annoyed me when using it.

vundere wrote:

Yes, there are several display modes to choose from on the 2, so if you don't want to use the eye sensor that's perfectly doable.
And even if you do use the eye sensor, it's very snappy and hasn't annoyed me when using it.

The eye sensor on the X100T annoyed me greatly. On the X-T2 it was a minor annoyance and on the X-T3 it's actually good. So that sounds like an argument for an X-Pro3, actually.

Maybe it has something to do with my wearing glasses, or maybe I'm just inpatient, or maybe it's that I subconsciously expect an analog-like immediacy from an OVF.

bastibe wrote:

vundere wrote:

Yes, there are several display modes to choose from on the 2, so if you don't want to use the eye sensor that's perfectly doable.
And even if you do use the eye sensor, it's very snappy and hasn't annoyed me when using it.

The eye sensor on the X100T annoyed me greatly. On the X-T2 it was a minor annoyance and on the X-T3 it's actually good. So that sounds like an argument for an X-Pro3, actually.

Maybe it has something to do with my wearing glasses, or maybe I'm just inpatient, or maybe it's that I subconsciously expect an analog-like immediacy from an OVF.

I don't use glasses, so I can't comment on how that changes things, although I usually use my X-Pro2 in a mode where the LCD is off and the viewfinder is always on.

Whenever I use the eye sensor mode, I don't notice any delay or lag in the OVF turning on.

Keep in mind that the OVF is different between the 2 and the 3; the 3 has a larger and brighter OVF, but the 2 has two magnification levels while the 3 only has one.
This may or may not be of importance to you.
The EVF should also be better on the 3, afaik.

bs1946 wrote:

Using manual lenses on the X-Pro with the OVF is pathetic. If you have used a Leica M or any other real rangefinder camera, you will be in for a major disappointment. I have an X-Pro2 and an X-T2 and when I use the X-Pro2 with a manual lens, I always use the EVF, usually with peaking. Almost never use the OVF and only with AF lenses. The dual OVF/EVF on the X100 series and the X-Pro series was one of those great ideas that Fuji's designers completely screwed up. Besides owning an X-Pro1 and two X-Pro2s, I have owned every X100 model from the original through the X100F and almost never used the OVF on any of them.

I think this is an unfair assessment. Until the release of the Voigtlander lenses there wasn't any manual focus lens designed to be used with the X-Pro or X100 line.

Is like saying that the Leica rangefinders are unusable because you have only used lenses without mechanical conection with the camera (the M lenses have to comunicate the focus distance mechanicaly with the camera for it to work).

AFAIK, people that have used the Voigtlander lens with the X-Pro3 (sadly it doesn't work in older cameras) is happy with it.

And a new Voigtlander 23mm f1.2 is coming

Hi,

The OVF is for street photography. The advantage is that you see things outside of your frame like subjects that are about to enter the frame. It makes absolutely no sense for portraits or close up photography.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

bastibe wrote:

And more generally, how do you deal with the parallax? When I tried an X100T a while ago, I kept missing focus on headshots particularly. How can you tell from the OVF whether the camera focused on the head, instead of the background?

With non chipped lenses - well the camera does not know the distance so cannot parallax correct the OVF.

If Fujifilm had installed a rangefinder cam in the M Mount Adapter, the frame lines could adjust for parallax (and image size?) automatically. It's a bit late to expect this now, but perhaps one of the enterprising new independent manufacturers could make one?

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

The OVF is for street photography. The advantage is that you see things outside of your frame like subjects that are about to enter the frame. It makes absolutely no sense for portraits or close up photography.

A shame. Because it is actually fun to use.

Zinch wrote:

bs1946 wrote:

Using manual lenses on the X-Pro with the OVF is pathetic. If you have used a Leica M or any other real rangefinder camera, you will be in for a major disappointment. I have an X-Pro2 and an X-T2 and when I use the X-Pro2 with a manual lens, I always use the EVF, usually with peaking. Almost never use the OVF and only with AF lenses. The dual OVF/EVF on the X100 series and the X-Pro series was one of those great ideas that Fuji's designers completely screwed up. Besides owning an X-Pro1 and two X-Pro2s, I have owned every X100 model from the original through the X100F and almost never used the OVF on any of them.

I think this is an unfair assessment. Until the release of the Voigtlander lenses there wasn't any manual focus lens designed to be used with the X-Pro or X100 line.

Why, the OVF on the X-Pro line offers nothing to assist manual focus beyond using your eyeball. The new Voigtlander 33mm f1.2 is no different, the electronics on the lens do nothing to make the OVF magically work any better. The best Fuji came up with was that stupid little ERF down in the corner of the OVF that is basically a miniature EVF.

Is like saying that the Leica rangefinders are unusable because you have only used lenses without mechanical conection with the camera (the M lenses have to comunicate the focus distance mechanicaly with the camera for it to work).

Just like with Fuji, you can get adapters that allow the use of vintage non-m-mount lenses on a Leica M.

AFAIK, people that have used the Voigtlander lens with the X-Pro3 (sadly it doesn't work in older cameras) is happy with it.

The lens works just like any other manual lens on older bodies, you just loose the electronics.