What is the point of the X-Pro line if not using the OVF?

[CohenTheBarbarian]

I got an X-Pro3 a few months ago to complement my X-H2. The idea is to use the X-Pro3 in situations where the X-H2 is too conspicuous, typically for street photography.

I like the X-Pro3 for the experience it gives. I find that it’s not as immediate as other cameras I have owned in the past and that you have to “earn it”. But this is something I really enjoy.

In the last weeks I have been looking for inspiration and reading forums to understand how people use their X-Pro cameras, what lenses they pair with them, etc. and I have read many accounts of people saying they use “mainly the EVF” with their X-Pro camera, and I just don’t get it.

Don’t get me wrong I fully agree that the EVF can be useful from time to time, eg. to check exposure or to pick the most suitable film simulation, but for me the fun of the X-Pro line is to go full-on with the rangefinder-style experience and use the OVF. If you want to use an EVF there are other cameras that give you a much better experience, starting with the X-T line.

I appreciate different people have different tastes and I am not trying to convince anyone that my way is the only way, but I am genuinely curious to understand what drives people who use an X-Pro camera with the EVF only.

 

[lighthunter80]

Some just prefer the evf position on the side.

 

[SmokeAndMirrorless]

OVF usability (especially on the X-Pro3) is limited by the lens focal length. Variable magnification on the older X-Pro2 at least provided some additional range. The feature most OVF fans mention most often is the ability to "see outside the frame". You can't actually do that with the X-Pro3 while using the standard 23mm focal length. I feel safe calling that standard for many reasons including that it's the only lens bundled with the camera.

An OVF makes sense on fixed focal length cameras like the X100. But what's the point of an interchangeable lens camera where your only choices of usable focal lengths are 27 and 35mm?

Parallax. Oh, the misery. Fuji at least tried to automagically adjust the framing to compensate for parallax. But your framing is still an estimate at best.

 

[ZachVSCO]

For me the point of the x-pro 3 is a few things:

1. it’s quite small and light, with no viewfinder sticking out anywhere. With an xf27 it’s nearly x100-ish. But, it does have a small grip and I use it with the 1.4 primes without issue as well.
2. The ovf is great for catching very fast action. If I need to grab something split second, I always do better with the ovf. I know the evf is fast, but somehow it’s just not the same. It’s nice to be able to choose between accurate framing and accurate timing.
3. The ovf is also just fun sometimes. I love being able to shake things up and give myself another way to shoot. I compose differently with the ovf sometimes. It’s almost like another camera in that mode.
4. that controversial back screen. I’m in the love it camp, and I use the back screen for functional info, which I find helpful.
5. I love the way it looks. It makes me want to pick it up, use it. I’ve been a canon dslr guy most of my 20 years in this hobby, but I’m starting to appreciate a camera that I like the look of as I get older. That’s just me though.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I don't have an X-Pro, but my X100V is much the same thing with a fixed lens and I never use the OVF. For me, the EVF is the primary reason for shooting with a mirrorless camera and offers so many advantages that I can't really understand why anyone would want to shoot primarily with the OVF. I know some folks like to, but I just don't get it. I'd be very happy if Fuji was to offer a smallish full-featured premium camera in a similar form factor with a bigger/better EVF and no OVF at all (and a lower price that omitting the OVF would allow).

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

I like the X-Pro for its size, shape, weight, viewfinder position; how it feels in my hands. I 'grew up' with an Olympus (film) OM2, so the controls are also right for me. The EVF/OVF is something I select according to the needs (and lens) of the moment - sometimes one is better, sometimes the other, but it's not the defining X-Pro characteristic for me.

 

[biza43]

It is a Leica look-alike, cheaper too. And with EVF.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

I don’t think there are any other cameras which offer a better corner EVF than the X-Pro3 (X100VI).

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

OVF usability (especially on the X-Pro3) is limited by the lens focal length. Variable magnification on the older X-Pro2 at least provided some additional range. The feature most OVF fans mention most often is the ability to "see outside the frame". You can't actually do that with the X-Pro3 while using the standard 23mm focal length. I feel safe calling that standard for many reasons including that it's the only lens bundled with the camera.

An OVF makes sense on fixed focal length cameras like the X100. But what's the point of an interchangeable lens camera where your only choices of usable focal lengths are 27 and 35mm?

Parallax. Oh, the misery. Fuji at least tried to automagically adjust the framing to compensate for parallax. But your framing is still an estimate at best.

FWIW Fujis now have Sport Finder Mode which offers outside-the-frame EVF view by slightly cropping the image.

 

[Threaded]

I don’t get it either. For me the strength of the XP3 is the hybrid finder, meaning the combination of both OVF and EVF - I use either when appropriate (and often flick between both) but my default is the OVF and that’s what I prefer.

I use 23mm and 35mm primarily and for those focal lengths the XP3 is ideal. The comment above about not being able to see outside the frame with 23mm is flat wrong, you can (just as you can on the X100VI with the same finder) and it’s useful.

If I ever got to the point where I was only using the EVF, I’d switch to something else - perhaps even change systems and go full frame. There’s a huge choice of EVF only cameras that I’m sure have other advantages… but there’s only one ILC with a hybrid finder, and that’s why I keep buying X-Pros.

 

[Morris0]

If you want inspiration and see a master photographer use an X-Pro, the National Geographic Channel is currently running a series "Photographer" and it's wonderful. Episode 3 features Dan Winters and much of his work is done with Fuji cameras including the X-Pro bodies. Dan has the ability to see images in a very unique and inspiring way.

Morris

 

[Nielk Mike]

I don't have an X-Pro, but my X100V is much the same thing with a fixed lens and I never use the OVF. For me, the EVF is the primary reason for shooting with a mirrorless camera and offers so many advantages that I can't really understand why anyone would want to shoot primarily with the OVF. I know some folks like to, but I just don't get it. I'd be very happy if Fuji was to offer a smallish full-featured premium camera in a similar form factor with a bigger/better EVF and no OVF at all (and a lower price that omitting the OVF would allow).

Yes, an X-EPro. That would be the perfect Fuji camera for me.

 

[boogisha]

Some just prefer the evf position on the side.

And X-Pro does it with 2 card slots, weather resistance and bigger size (with grip). X-Pro3 has a very unique LCD approach, too.

 

[RangerPhotog]

If you want inspiration and see a master photographer use an X-Pro, the National Geographic Channel is currently running a series "Photographer" and it's wonderful. Episode 3 features Dan Winters and much of his work is done with Fuji cameras including the X-Pro bodies. Dan has the ability to see images in a very unique and inspiring way.

Morris

I didn't see an XPro3 but I did see multiple times the use of a GFX 50R.

 

[bastibe]

So much of the X-Pro body and Fuji's lenses is predicated on the OVF. The X-Pro needs to be relatively bulky, to give enough distance between the OVF and the lens mount, so the OVF isn't blocked by the lens. The lenses need to be relatively small, especially in diameter, which lead to the small original trilogy (18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4) and then the conical shape of the Fujicrons (16/2.8, 23/2, 35/2, 50/2). I would even wager that Fuji's focus on primes in general is a product of the X-Pro line.

I've had my fun with the X-Pro OVF. But at the end if the day, I found it less practical than an EVF. And hence, I eventually sold the X-Pro. Without the OVF, I don't see the point of the camera.

 

[Rakosky]

I find x-pro size perfect, I don’t like x100v size and I don’t like x-t shape/position of evf. The perfect size/shape imo is Leica M, and X-pro is similar. I don’t like cameras that seem a toy like x100, x-e, x-txx, x-s. I like a camera that is a sort of tank with whom I can go into a battle and titanium is a very good material for that. Building quality of x-t series has worsened in my opinion, the best was x-t2, x-t4/x-t5 the worst. That of x-pro remained the same for the materials, less for the reliability (cable issue) but the problem affect a minor number of cameras I think. I don’t like plastics in cameras. Then it depends by the genres of photography, X-pro is a street camera, X-t is good for a generic use x-h2 for bigger zoom lenses (wildlife, naturalistic reportages).

 

[Dr_J]

So much of the X-Pro body and Fuji's lenses is predicated on the OVF. The X-Pro needs to be relatively bulky, to give enough distance between the OVF and the lens mount, so the OVF isn't blocked by the lens. The lenses need to be relatively small, especially in diameter, which lead to the small original trilogy (18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4) and then the conical shape of the Fujicrons (16/2.8, 23/2, 35/2, 50/2). I would even wager that Fuji's focus on primes in general is a product of the X-Pro line.

All true. Pour him some beer, guys!

Having said that, I knew a few guys who used X-Pro or X100 series cameras and they all said the same thing - "I never use OVF". I feel that there would be a good market for a X100-body interchangeable lens camera with NO OVF but a large, nice EVF instead. This could be even the next X-Pro, although the problem is that removing OVF from X-Pro line would essentially mean the end of X-Pro.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I want an EVF on the left, and a camera that doesn’t reset the ISO or anything else like AF settings when I change custom settings, ie film recipe.

Those two criteria alone narrow my selection down to four models: the X100F, X100V, X-Pro2 and X-Pro3.

So if I also want anything other than a 23mm lens then I have a choice of two cameras, both X-Pros.

The fact that they happen to have OVFs is pretty irrelevant because for the most part I can just ignore it.

The only annoying issue is that neither the X-Pro2 nor the X-Pro3 work well switching automatically between the EVF and the LCD screen: the 3 obviously needs the screen to be flipped out, and the 2 has a noise and delay whenever the eye sensor activates because it decides to flip the OVF curtain in and out, which I find intolerably irritating—so both are viewfinder-only cameras for me.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I feel that there would be a good market for a X100-body interchangeable lens camera with NO OVF but a large, nice EVF instead.

The X-E2 isn’t far off that.