One frustrating aspect of the X-E5

[Jeff Biscuits]

Given that I only use left-corner viewfinders, the X100VI and the X-E5 made a couple of important steps forward for me: they are the first Fuji cameras with which I could now easily manually toggle between viewfinder-only and the LCD, and they’re the first X System cameras to provide at least one of the aspect ratios that I really like, specifically 5:4.

I actually sold the GFX 100RF for the X-E5. I liked a lot about the RF but the way aspect ratios and zoom were implemented didn’t sit well with how I want to use them, and it started to feel like a one-trick pony: a 28mm equivalent lens that recorded an immense amount of detail, whether I wanted it or not.

It excelled at one thing in particular: being a compact, and extremely effective, X-Pan.



This is the one thing I really miss about the RF.

I have the 50R, which is a joy, but it’s quite large as a kit. I use old 35mm lenses, which are much smaller than GF lenses, but even so it’s considerably bulkier than X System. I can comfortably pack the camera, a pair of lenses and a couple of batteries in my usual bag, but sometimes it’s nice to go smaller (and to use AF).

But, importantly, it lets me compose for 65:24, as well as my other preferred formats of 5:4 and 7:6.





So I find it a real shame that we don’t get this option on the X-E5, or any other X System body for that matter. Of course it’s possible to crop in post, but that’s a long way from being able to compose to the frame.

There’s no good reason for its absence other than Fuji’s usual bizarre and arbitrary decision process (if there is one) about what to include and exclude from various menus and settings.

The ability to compose in a wide variety of aspect ratios is one of my favourite things about GFX. It’s disappointing that Fuji have chosen to give X System users only a few of those.

 

[Rahul94]

Yeah, there are days when I am just bored with 3:2.

5:4 is real fun. I have created 65:24 aspect ratio preset in capture one but I would really like native 65:24 to compose.

It is weird why they haven't added it since the sensor has plenty of resolution.

edit: oh, I am not an X-E5 user, but it resonated with me.

 

[jhorse]

Hi, interesting topic. I loaned a GFX100RF for four days and enjoyed using it. I decided not to buy one because my main camera, if I can use that term, is a XT5 and my fun camera, if I can use that term, is my X100VI. Funny old thing - my fun camera gets more use than my main camera! I decided that my X100VI was a better camera for me than a RF.

I agree with you about having more aspect ratios in other cameras, namely the XT5, X100VI and of course the XE5. In using the RF, I liked to use what I coined as the compositional triangle. In other words, the composition shaped by the framing the scene, the aspect ratio and the degree of cropping (or digital zooming). With the RF it is easy to adjust these elements on the fly and get a pleasing JPEG composition straight out of the camera (the RAW file retains the full image size so one can always have a play afterwards).

I can do nearly the same with my XT5 and X100VI by mapping the aspect ratio/image size to the rear command dial and adjusting the ratio on the fly, but it lacks the full range of ratios found on the RF. Surely, a firmware update could easily create and introduce a range of different ratios on all three cameras that are similar to the 9 aspect ratios found on the RF.

Thank for your thoughts, with which I agree.

 

[RangerPhotog]

I am not a user of a zoom function or aspect ratio crop function of any camera but you do not like the way these functions were implemented in the 100RF? This specific criticism of the 100RF was certainly not on my bingo card. The way I see it, the 100RF is the perfect camera if someone wanted this type of functionality because of 100mp sensor. If I wanted a panoramic on the 50R, I would opt to take multiple images and stitched them together instead of changing the aspect ratio in order to maintain image quality by preserving MPs but I am one to print such images instead of just view on a computer.

 

[biza43]

So you replaced one camera that gave you the crop functions you wanted natively, by another one that does not have such functions? Maybe I missed something?

Even if you do not like the way they ere imlemented in the 100RF, you surely knew that the X-E5 was even more sparse in such options?

Mybe Fujifilm will add them in a future firmware upgrade.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I am not a user of a zoom function or aspect ratio crop function of any camera but you do not like the way these functions were implemented in the 100RF?

No, I have two issues with it. The first I was expecting, the second I was not.

1. When changing the aspect ratio, the diagonal field of view changes. I expected this because it’s how the other GfX bodies behave, but I would have loved the ability to use it as a 35mm-equivalent field of view in all aspect ratios. (One of my pet peeves with the GFX ILC bodies is that the 35mm crop mode enforces 3:2 when it could deliver all of the supported aspect ratios inside the same image circle, allowing the use of much more of the image cast by the lens.)

2. When you turn the RF off, it forgets any zoom crop you were using. So if you want to use it as, say, a 35mm-equivalent prime for a while, you need to reapply the crop every time you switch it on. Which not only delays things but means you need to keep the zoom rocker active, and that in turn I found a bit of an issue because it’s easily knocked (I disabled the rocker for this reason using the lock feature).

Many people would find those small irritations and that’s fine. But for me they completely undermined the camera.

This specific criticism of the 100RF was certainly not on my bingo card. The way I see it, the 100RF is the perfect camera if someone wanted this type of functionality because of 100mp sensor.

On paper, yes, I agree. I was very much looking forward to it. In the end, though, having to use two controls to get between two different-aspect frames with similar fields of view, with one of those controls having to be reapplied at every power-on, was enough friction to frustrate me. I have a low tolerance for minor frustrations if they occur pretty much every time I want to use something.

If I wanted a panoramic on the 50R, I would opt to take multiple images and stitched them together instead of changing the aspect ratio in order to maintain image quality by preserving MPs but I am one to print such images instead of just view on a computer.

I print as well, albeit less than I’d like to, but I’m far more bothered by composition at the time of shooting than I am by any increases in resolution beyond “good enough”. To put it another way, if I have to stitch or crop significantly in post processing then I’m much less likely to end up with an image that I want to print at any resolution. The first image in my original post arguably does benefit a little from the 100MP sensor; the other two would not.

At the end of the day, the X-E5 would still manage a 26” wide print at 300dpi, and IME a large print can survive happily with much lower dpi than that, especially on matte paper. I don’t think I’ve ever printed more than a metre wide, and that’s still 200dpi from the X-E5.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

So you replaced one camera that gave you the crop functions you wanted natively, by another one that does not have such functions?

Yes.

Maybe I missed something?

The ability to fit a variety of lenses including much faster ones than f/4, the separation of image settings from shooting settings, IBIS, and £2200 in my pocket even after taking a roughly £1000 hit on the RF.

I bought the RF before the X-E5 was announced. Had I known about the X-E5 before buying the RF then I’d not have bought the RF.

I do miss its lovely viewfinder though

Even if you do not like the way they ere imlemented in the 100RF, you surely knew that the X-E5 was even more sparse in such options?

Yes. But obviously, as much as I value having access to several aspect ratios, that’s not the only factor in buying a camera. As above, there are several other areas where the E5 wins. Ultimately the RF wasn’t quite as versatile, within the context of my usage, as I’d hoped.

Mybe Fujifilm will add them in a future firmware upgrade.

Given their past form, I’m not at all hopeful.

 

[Antone]

Given that I only use left-corner viewfinders, the X100VI and the X-E5 made a couple of important steps forward for me: they are the first Fuji cameras with which I could now easily manually toggle between viewfinder-only and the LCD, and they’re the first X System cameras to provide at least one of the aspect ratios that I really like, specifically 5:4.

I became a big fan of 5:4 when I shot with my Bronica GS-1 6x7. I knew precisely what would appear when I made cropless 8x10 to 16x20 prints in the darkroom.

.It excelled at one thing in particular: being a compact, and extremely effective, X-Pan.



This is the one thing I really miss about the RF.

I've been experimenting with 65:24 on a number of my older files and I really like its cinematic appearance. I haven't made any prints yet, but expect to when I find "the one" image that I like most. I agree, it would be nice if this were an option in the X cameras and hope Fuji will provide it in firmware updates (are you reading this, Fuji????).

But, importantly, it lets me compose for 65:24, as well as my other preferred formats of 5:4 and 7:6.

I don't understand the allure of 7:6 - it's so close to square why not just do 1:1?

--
Antone

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I don't understand the allure of 7:6 - it's so close to square why not just do 1:1?

It just does it for me in a way that square format doesn’t. It has an orientation while still having that sort of bulk that square format has. It has that sort of monolithic feel that square has, but with a different tolerance to composition: it doesn’t steer me towards centrality like square format sometime can, yet also not towards the rule-of-thirds that 3:2 sometimes leans to. Hard to explain maybe, but I just seem to have found some sort of affinity with it

For me the difference between 1:1 and 7:6—one being a square and one not—is more significant than between 3:2 and 4:3, and lots of people get very hung up on that…

 

[Antone]

I don't understand the allure of 7:6 - it's so close to square why not just do 1:1?

It just does it for me in a way that square format doesn’t. It still has an orientation while still having that sort of bulk that square format has. It has that sort of monolithic feel that square has, but with a different tolerance to composition: it doesn’t steer me towards centrality like square format sometime can, yet also not towards the rule-of-thirds that 3:2 sometimes leans towards. Hard to explain maybe, but I just seem to have found some sort of affinity with it

No, I get it - different strokes for different folks! It just didn't exist until digital came along (other than cropping wet prints). I prefer 5:4 over 3:2 but really think 65:24 is great for certain images.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

No, I get it - different strokes for different folks! It just didn't exist until digital came along (other than cropping wet prints).

Yup, but that’s fine with me—one of the great advantages of digital is not being restricted in that sort of way. (Which reinforces the original point, really: with a digital file it’s not only possible but trivially easy to apply literally any aspect ratio to the image, so the limited selection on offer is completely arbitrary. It wouldn’t even be difficult or unreasonable to allow custom aspect ratios by entering two numbers.)

 

[Phil BH]

I started in film, and learned to compose with my intended crop in mind. With parctice you get good at visualizing in your head, the crop you want when viewing the image in a viewfinder. When I switched to digital, I never availed myself the option to crop in the camera, since not doing so gave more options when processing the RAW files. Knowing how to compose for the desired crop though is important, and a great skill to learn.

Obviously not everyone wants to work that way, and I understand that.

Phil

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

At least for composition, you could approximate 64:24 by setting the VF grid to 24 and compose by using the two center rows of the grid.

--
Randy

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

At least for composition, you could approximate 64:24 by setting the VF grid to 24 and compose by using the two center rows of the grid.

Yeah, I’ve already tried using the grid, but there’s no easy way to just turn it on and off. It’s quite a menu dive to do it. I don’t generally want it on the screen as it’s just distracting clutter. Plus in 5:4 it’s nowhere near the 65:24 crop so it also means switching to 3:2, which is more faff again, and even then it’s not a great match.

It’d be easier to draw two lines on the screen protector

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

At least for composition, you could approximate 64:24 by setting the VF grid to 24 and compose by using the two center rows of the grid.

Yeah, I’ve already tried using the grid, but there’s no easy way to just turn it on and off. It’s quite a menu dive to do it. I don’t generally want it on the screen as it’s just distracting clutter. Plus in 5:4 it’s nowhere near the 65:24 crop so it also means switching to 3:2, which is more faff again, and even then it’s not a great match.

It’d be easier to draw two lines on the screen protector

I’ve done that before!

 

[Lance St. Paul]

At least for composition, you could approximate 64:24 by setting the VF grid to 24 and compose by using the two center rows of the grid.

I've tried that & it works, however...not the way I like to use the viewfinder - too much to ignore, too much thought in a moment when thought is distracting.

Can be done & will do it again, but it's still a kludge - I gotta really wanna to do it again. If I could simply call up that format and see only that I'd be happier.

Come on Fuji - it can work with a 40 MP sensor! (and better yet with resolution enhancement in software).