Viewfinder X-E2 vs. X-E4

Curious if owners of both cameras have noticed any, and I mean any, improvements in the viewfinder. I'm not talking about specs, I know the specs are the same.

I'm asking about the viewfinder optics, refresh rate, coatings, panel type, things like that.

Any experienced insight would be appreciated!

3Percent wrote:

Curious if owners of both cameras have noticed any, and I mean any, improvements in the viewfinder. I'm not talking about specs, I know the specs are the same.

The specs aren't the same. In particular, the eye point / eye relief of the EVF of the X-E4 (17.5mm) is much shorter than that of the X-E2 (23mm).

So if you are wearing glasses you will most likely much prefer the EVF of the X-E2 over that of the X-E4.

I have the X-E1/2/3 but not the 4—but I believe I read (possibly incorrectly) that the 4 has essentially the same viewfinder as the 3.

The 1/2 finder is bigger and has a more glasses-friendly eye point. I was pleased to find that the 3 wasn’t as bad as some people make out (I wear glasses BTW) and I can still use manual lenses on it pretty happily, but it’s definitely a step down from the 2. For my money, they’re all technically good enough, so it’s only the size/magnification/relief that makes the difference.

I have never owned the XE2, but I don’t have any issues with the XE4 and my progressive lenses. I tend to look over the top of the frame into the viewfinder, rather than through the eyeglass lens into the viewfinder. But both are possible.

And if I have sunglasses on, I usually move them to the top of my head or take them off.

I own an X-E4, owned an X-E2 plus two X-E1s, but skipped the X-E3. While I need reading glasses to see any LCD clearly, I don't need glasses to use any viewfinder. Also, I only shoot photos in SAF or MF, mostly landscapes, architecture, or travel, plus the rare casual portrait; no sports or other moving targets that would require CAF. The EVF on the X-E4 is adequate and easy enough but I think the EVFs in the X-E1 and X-E2 appear larger and easier to use.

3Percent wrote:

Curious if owners of both cameras have noticed any, and I mean any, improvements in the viewfinder. I'm not talking about specs, I know the specs are the same.

They are not the same. The XE2's is bigger and has a longer eye-point (eye relief), for example.

I'm asking about the viewfinder optics, refresh rate, coatings, panel type, things like that.

Any experienced insight would be appreciated!

It's very personal, you need to try yourself. I assume a big nose, deep set eyes and wearing glasses is why none of the 17mm eye point EVF cameras work for me. I stopped at the XE2 and moved to Sony for their 23mm eye point EVFs. Only the XTx and XH1 have 23mm EVFs for Fuji, but they are central.

The XE2 uses a more expensive type of EVF (I heard, not sure why), but the XE4's EVF should be superior in almost every other way, than the eye-point and size. Better color, faster refresh rate etc... just general screen improvements over 8 years. My guess is that it is just an issue for a small % of glasses wearers (as so many say 17mm is fine).

Blood N Guts Murphy wrote:

3Percent wrote:

Curious if owners of both cameras have noticed any, and I mean any, improvements in the viewfinder. I'm not talking about specs, I know the specs are the same.

They are not the same. The XE2's is bigger and has a longer eye-point (eye relief), for example.

So even though the specs are the same, in real life they aren't?

I'm asking about the viewfinder optics, refresh rate, coatings, panel type, things like that.

Any experienced insight would be appreciated!

It's very personal, you need to try yourself. I assume a big nose, deep set eyes and wearing glasses is why none of the 17mm eye point EVF cameras work for me. I stopped at the XE2 and moved to Sony for their 23mm eye point EVFs. Only the XTx and XH1 have 23mm EVFs for Fuji, but they are central.

The XE2 uses a more expensive type of EVF (I heard, not sure why), but the XE4's EVF should be superior in almost every other way, than the eye-point and size. Better color, faster refresh rate etc... just general screen improvements over 8 years. My guess is that it is just an issue for a small % of glasses wearers (as so many say 17mm is fine).

3Percent wrote:

So even though the specs are the same, in real life they aren't?

But they’re not the same. Multiple sources give different specs. For example:

Comparing the E2 and the E3:

”The X-E2 has a larger 0.5-inch EVF with 2,360k dots, 0.62x of magnification and a 23mm eyepoint. The panel on the X-E3 is smaller (0.39-in) and has a shorter eyepoint of 17.5mm but the magnification is the same.”

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/fuji-xe2-xe2s-vs-xe3/

And then the E3 to the E4:

”Most of the electronic viewfinder characteristics are the same on both cameras: 0.39-in OLED panel, 0.62x magnification, 2.36M dots and a 17.5mm eyepoint. What’s new on the X-E4 is the boost mode (available with two settings: low light and resolution priority).“

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-fujifilm/xe3-vs-xe4/

In other words, the specs differ in that the E4’s finder is 22% smaller to the eye and has a shorter eye point. Neither of which is great news. I find it tolerable but there’s no denying that manual focus is easier with larger viewfinders, and the short eye point means that if you wear glasses (as I do) you probably can’t see fully into all four corners at once. To stretch the comparison a little, the difference between my X-E3 and X-T2 is very noticeable 🙂

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

3Percent wrote:

So even though the specs are the same, in real life they aren't?

But they’re not the same. Multiple sources give different specs. For example:

Comparing the E2 and the E3:

”The X-E2 has a larger 0.5-inch EVF with 2,360k dots, 0.62x of magnification and a 23mm eyepoint. The panel on the X-E3 is smaller (0.39-in) and has a shorter eyepoint of 17.5mm but the magnification is the same.”

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/fuji-xe2-xe2s-vs-xe3/

And then the E3 to the E4:

”Most of the electronic viewfinder characteristics are the same on both cameras: 0.39-in OLED panel, 0.62x magnification, 2.36M dots and a 17.5mm eyepoint. What’s new on the X-E4 is the boost mode (available with two settings: low light and resolution priority).“

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-fujifilm/xe3-vs-xe4/

In other words, the specs differ in that the E4’s finder is 22% smaller to the eye and has a shorter eye point. Neither of which is great news. I find it tolerable but there’s no denying that manual focus is easier with larger viewfinders, and the short eye point means that if you wear glasses (as I do) you probably can’t see fully into all four corners at once. To stretch the comparison a little, the difference between my X-E3 and X-T2 is very noticeable 🙂

Got it, same magnification (on all 4) but smaller lcd panel with reduced eyepoint.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

I find it tolerable but there’s no denying that manual focus is easier with larger viewfinders

This is why I keep Focus Check assigned somewhere on all my Fujifilm bodies. It’s punch-in the joystick on the XE4. Focus Check + focus peaking seems to get me past the most difficult situations.

Wishing, dreaming. I think this looks nice, aesthetically. Possible with a motivated design and engineering team one would think.

Kind of like an X100V but with interchangeable lenses, or just a mini x-pro camera. I'd take the compromises that would come with the smaller ovf view/magnification than the x-pro cams too :).

So in order to do this, eliminate the "hybrid" finder. This design would only be an ovf with a clear lcd overlay (like an X-Pro in ovf mode). Compose on the rear LCD or optical finder mode only.

The reason the X-pro is as big as it is, is that the OVF needs to be far away from the lens to avoid the lens blocking the viewfinder. The X100 gets away with a smaller body because it has a tiny lens. But if you want to be able to use normally sized lenses with an optical finder, you need distance between the lens and finder.

So, regrettably, what you envision is probably impossible.

3Percent wrote:

So in order to do this, eliminate the "hybrid" finder. This design would only be an ovf with a clear lcd overlay (like an X-Pro in ovf mode). Compose on the rear LCD or optical finder mode only.

I’d want something similar, but quite different:

• The size and ergonomics of an X-E body
• The big EVF from the X-Tx series
• In order to accommodate that, a small rear screen that only needs to support the menu system—hell, I‘d be fine with no rear screen
• And weather resistance, obvs

Won’t happen, of course, because there are probably only about six people who would buy it 🙂 but I’d be first in the queue.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

3Percent wrote:

So in order to do this, eliminate the "hybrid" finder. This design would only be an ovf with a clear lcd overlay (like an X-Pro in ovf mode). Compose on the rear LCD or optical finder mode only.

I’d want something similar, but quite different:

• The size and ergonomics of an X-E body
• The big EVF from the X-Tx series
• In order to accommodate that, a small rear screen that only needs to support the menu system—hell, I‘d be fine with no rear screen
• And weather resistance, obvs

Won’t happen, of course, because there are probably only about six people who would buy it 🙂 but I’d be first in the queue.

I would also like an X-E1/2 body ( with flash and large eye relief EVF) with a latest generation sensor and tech.

Basically an X-T30 II in a different body with larger eyepoint EVF. Unfortunately this won't be coming any time soon. My hope is that the X-T40 will get an EVF with large eye point and keep the flash.