View Full Version : Will the X100 OVF/EVF inspire other brands to create rangefinders?
buzzardkid
10-25-2010, 08:10
Hi,
wondering: the viewfinder on the X100 is a pretty sophisticated piece of work. It's optical, but also electronical. There's no smoke and mirrors involved, only electronics so to speak.
It has not been announced yet, but the camera may have a fully functional, hybrid rangefinder. It might be possible to have a piece of the sensor image projected on the optical part of the viewfinder and thus focus manually without taking one's eye off the finder. You would not have to line up two images like in a traditional rangefinder, but instead focus the overlay image until it coincides with the optical VF image.
I'm wondering if Fujifilm has in it's press release stated that the hybrid finder is patented? Or can we maybe expect more companies to embrace this viewfinder type?
And, will Leica produce an M10 with a finder like this? Certainly less costly than their current RF, and possibly more acceptable after the rage over the 'hideous M9-Ti' with the projected LED frames and missing window has died down?
damn! i was hoping you were starting a petition to let me beta test it :p
as toy your question, i do not believe i saw this patented in the first blurb of press releases... interesting question, however.
I have no idea what patents Fuji has filed lately. But if the X100 is a success, I'm sure that other manufacturers will try to come up with similar cameras. This industry lives of me-too'ism.
Isn't the idea of such high-tech viewfinder against the notion of authentic photography? lol
/please don't hit me with your dinky mechanical cameras.
Isn't the idea of such high-tech viewfinder against the notion of authentic photography? lol
authentic?
Please, don't ruin my existential philosophizing by asking for definitions.
X100 yet has to be released, to be fair. Old mech camera on desk inspires me right now just because I can use it without talking much about it.
...will Leica produce an M10 with a finder like this? Certainly less costly than their current RF...
Silly Rabbit. I'm sure that Leica can find a way to make it much more costly.
damien.murphy
10-25-2010, 09:24
I have no idea what patents Fuji has filed lately. But if the X100 is a success, I'm sure that other manufacturers will try to come up with similar cameras. This industry lives of me-too'ism.
Indeed, it is an interesting question. I agree, there's not an awful lot of originality among camera manufacturers at the moment. On the other hand, the market for the x100 would seem to be quite similar to the medium format rangefinder market back in the film days.
I guess it will all depend on whether the x100 is latched onto by anyone outside the traditional rangefinder crowd, and if the camera will have mass market appeal. The success of the M8's and M9's would seem to show there is a real appetite for digital non-dslr cameras out there.
I don't think the X100 will inspire other companies to create rangefinders rather it will inspire other companies to create... whatever type of camera the X100 is.:)
The thing about these new formats of cameras (EVIL, X100 etc...) is that they are simplifying the basic design of the camera. The arbitration done by the rangefinder or reflex mirror does not produce a WYSIWYG effect between the scene and the final image because of the obvious superiority of the human eye versus the medium of capture. That's what these cameras are solving by marrying the focusing/composing device and the medium of capture.
Now we only need a good LCD.:)
Hmmm, and what about ND filters built integrally into a camera system? Is there precedent for this technology, or is this a first?
jsrockit
10-25-2010, 09:43
If it sells well, it'll be copied. If not, then it will not be copied.
Built-in ND filters were present in some of the Canon G series p&s cameras... the G6 has one, I'm fairly sure of that.
buzzardkid
10-25-2010, 10:00
Silly Rabbit. I'm sure that Leica can find a way to make it much more costly.
More costly to the end user while less costly to produce would mean more profit, Pooh!
:p
wondering: the viewfinder on the X100 is a pretty sophisticated piece of work. It's optical, but also electronical. There's no smoke and mirrors involved, only electronics so to speak.
Well at least mirrors are involved, so to speak ;)
It has not been announced yet, but the camera may have a fully functional, hybrid rangefinder. It might be possible to have a piece of the sensor image projected on the optical part of the viewfinder and thus focus manually without taking one's eye off the finder. You would not have to line up two images like in a traditional rangefinder, but instead focus the overlay image until it coincides with the optical VF image.
Interesting idea. The idea is basically (a) using the horizontal, and vertical, offset of the taking lens for getting a second image to overlay in the viewfinder, and (b) using the distance information from the lens for the degree of overlap between the two, yes?
However, I doubt it'd be worth the R&D effort; I don't think people are all that attached to split-image focusing, after all - it's more the idea of a small camera with a traditional user interface, retro "authentic photography" look and a good viewfinder.
Hmmm, and what about ND filters built integrally into a camera system? Is there precedent for this technology, or is this a first?
A very large fraction of point-and-shoot cameras sold today incorporate ND filters. With the very high pixel densities on these tiny sensors, diffraction becomes a problem very quickly as a lens is stopped down (many of the lenses are diffraction-limited wide open). In this situation, an ND filter is an absolute requirement if you want to decrease the amount of light hitting the sensor without using an extremely fast shutter speed or taking a large resolution hit.
In the X-100 the ND is there less to deal with diffraction (though this can still be an issue under certain circumstances), and more to allow DOF control at high illumination levels. For exactly the same reason, ND filters are incorporated on many professional-grade video cameras. The new Panasonic AG-AF100 micro-4/3 video camera has a built-in multistep ND filter, for example.
^^^ very interesting semilog, thanks for the response.
btw, I only recently learned why digital cameras have a physical shutter, as someone at a social gathering asked why it was necessary and I couldn't answer, so did a bit of reading.
I don't think people are all that attached to split-image focusing, after all - it's more the idea of a small camera with a traditional user interface, retro "authentic photography" look and a good viewfinder.
I completely agree. I have no special attachment to the split-image RF patch, and I can imagine that other focusing systems might be just as good. The microprism patch on a conventional SLR is a good example.
IMO the advantages in conventional Leica M-style VF's are that: (1) everything is in focus; (2) you can see a bit outside the framelines; (3) there is no mirror blackout. I definitely do not find M-style RF focusing to be a lot easier than focusing with a good MF SLR. Sometimes an RF is a little bit easier, sometimes a little harder. But overall, it's a tossup, IMO.
I like RF's for other reasons: the OVF, small lenses with very good performance, the overall M form factor, the minimal vibration and short shutter lag.
<snip>
IMO the advantages in conventional Leica M-style VF's are that: (1) everything is in focus; (2) you can see a bit outside the framelines; (3) there is no mirror blackout. I definitely do not find M-style RF focusing to be a lot easier than focusing with a good MF SLR. Sometimes an RF is a little bit easier, sometimes a little harder. But overall, it's a tossup, IMO.
I like RF's for other reasons: the OVF, small lenses with very good performance, the overall M form factor, the minimal vibration and short shutter lag.
Spot on! To reason #3, the benefit of no blackout has grown increasingly valuable over time. It's quite important feedback to visualizing the shot taken.
Just yesterday, I took a shot of a friend at brunch, and she waved her hand across her face in conversation as the shutter tripped.
A very large fraction of point-and-shoot cameras sold today incorporate ND filters. With the very high pixel densities on these tiny sensors, diffraction becomes a problem very quickly as a lens is stopped down (many of the lenses are diffraction-limited wide open). In this situation, an ND filter is an absolute requirement if you want to decrease the amount of light hitting the sensor without using an extremely fast shutter speed or taking a large resolution hit.
In the X-100 the ND is there less to deal with diffraction (though this can still be an issue under certain circumstances), and more to allow DOF control at high illumination levels. For exactly the same reason, ND filters are incorporated on many professional-grade video cameras. The new Panasonic AG-AF100 micro-4/3 video camera has a built-in multistep ND filter, for example.
My canon G10 has built-in ND filter but when I use it, it seems that the image clarity takes a hit.
My canon G10 has built-in ND filter but when I use it, it seems that the image clarity takes a hit.
There are a lot of parameters that contribute to, or detract from, image quality.
It could be that the G10 ND filter is of low optical quality (unlikely but possible), it could be that there are flare issues (definitely possible), it could be that it's forcing lower shutter speeds and you're getting more motion blur (likely), it could be that it's giving you shallower DOF and that focus errors that were not previously apparent are now evident (very likely). Etc., etc.
Without careful tests, you won't be able to say definitively what's going on.
There are a lot of parameters that contribute to, or detract from, image quality.
It could be that the ND filter is of low quality, it could be that there are flare issues, it could be that it's forcing lower shutter speeds and you're getting motion blur, it could be that it's giving you shallower DOF and that focus errors that were not previously apparent are now evident. Etc., etc.
Without careful tests, you won't be able to say definitively what's going on.
With my canon G10 I always shoot at f3.5 because its the sharpest at that f stop. using that f stop i can shoot at ISO 80 in most situations and still have the shutter speed and dof.
but now that i read your post i think its actually lower diffraction than the actual sharpness of the lens.
DougFord
10-25-2010, 11:47
The traditional mechanical rf along with the associated mechanical interfacing hardware comprise what a large group of RF devotees identify as part and parcel of ‘the rangefinder experience’.
The X100, presumably, will have none of that. The tactile feel of cam on roller while focusing a mechanical RF that’s comprised of a gazillion hand assembled bits ain’t gonna happen.
The X100 is an alien that has morphed into what appears to be a camera from the days of old.
The Leica RF experience, at least for me, was defined in large part by the tactile experience of ‘operating’ a well made machine.
Leica has managed to convince the users of both the M8/9 that the tactile experience of pulling film from one gear driven post to another is unnecessary. This feature, by itself, did not define the rangefinder experience apparently. The remaining manual focus interface, comprised of lens, cam, roller and mechanical RF currently define the digital RF experience.
Fuji will be redefining the ‘RF experience’ further by removing the mechanical RF assembly and the cam/roller interface altogether, along with the associated tactile experience of ‘operating a well made machine’ that was imparted to the user by this hardware.
No one should expect the X100 to mimic the tactile experience of operating a currently available digital RF.
It’s my opinion that leica should NOT abandon the traditional RF for use on their M line of cameras. This ‘RF experience’ will come at a price that most will find unacceptable, relegating the M-line to a low volume vanity product.
The hybrid OVF should be available on Leica’s mid-range product; X1 evolution with pacific rim manufacture and design assistance.
buzzardkid
10-25-2010, 12:54
...
Interesting idea. The idea is basically (a) using the horizontal, and vertical, offset of the taking lens for getting a second image to overlay in the viewfinder, and (b) using the distance information from the lens for the degree of overlap between the two, yes?
However, I doubt it'd be worth the R&D effort; I don't think people are all that attached to split-image focusing, after all - it's more the idea of a small camera with a traditional user interface, retro "authentic photography" look and a good viewfinder.
Hm. The idea would be to have a small patch of the sensor image projected on the OVF, and if the lens is correctly focused, that patch would be focused as well. So, you would not be lining up two images, but focusing a small image patch on top of the OVF image to line them up. Result is essentially the same: once the patch is clear, the lens is focused.
How about making this an option in the menu? That way it would not be foced upon all users, but switched on by those that prefer it.
I think it would be possible to program this. It would require Live View (which is readily available as a technology) and the data stream could be minimal, since only a really small part of the sensor needs to be relayed to the electronic viewfinder.
In fact, if Fujifilm have been reading here, I'm pretty sure it will be an option in the X100. This given the fact that the RFF crowd is very persistent when it comes to preference for RF and OVF technology. When the EP-1 was released most of us (including me) were very disappointed with the absence of an OVF, and the auxilliary finder on the EP-2 was at best a compromise. It would be really cool if Fujifilm have listened to all that whining and not only incorporated an OVF but by making it a hybrid also have provided RF focusing.
Lets hope for the best (are you reading this, Fujifilm?) ;)
The traditional mechanical rf along with the associated mechanical interfacing hardware comprise what a large group of RF devotees identify as part and parcel of ‘the rangefinder experience’.
The X100, presumably, will have none of that. The tactile feel of cam on roller while focusing a mechanical RF that’s comprised of a gazillion hand assembled bits ain’t gonna happen. ...
The Leica RF experience, at least for me, was defined in large part by the tactile experience of ‘operating’ a well made machine.
If a new version of an old, established kind of product is to win market acceptance, it will have to meet the users' expectations (even those of 'late adopters') in a new, innovative way. If that product is also to fulfil the manufacturer's expectations, it will have to provide the same or similar functions of earlier types in a simpler, more elegant way, but at lower manufacturing costs. This is only possible by providing a mechanically simpler device.
What you are referring to is the tactile experience of a highly precise mechanical device. That, combined with a user's expectation of imagining how precisely machines cams, levers and gears interact creates an idea of a functional concept that can be described to a certain extent as irrational. Above all, we appreciate the user experience, and not the fact that there are 1.734 (or whatever) mechanical parts intricately communicating with each other. Leica has been very good at catering to these kinds of expectations.
Let me play the devil's advocate: In the end, a user expects to get a machine which is responsive in his hands, which exudes a certain experience of being precision-machined and which provides the kind of relaibility he has learnt to expect from good mechanic devices.
So, the user doesn't necessarily expect to get cams and levers, if he can have the same user experience with a piece of electronics and a well thought-out user interface (that might even emulate the feel of precision mechanics). Just think of a 'drive-by-wire' focusing ring that uses fluidic damping, coupled with electronic circuitry that provides real-time responsiveness.
I'm pretty sure the X100 doesn't even attempt to emulate a Leica M. If however it can provide a user experience that comes close to that of a Leica, the difference in price will motivate a certain number of would-be Leica users to accept a compromise. That's how new markets are created.
And - to come back to the thread's original topic - when there is a market, competition won't be far.
They sure are!
I was not alone in leaving them the link to that "mega-thread" on Fuji's comments page. (http://www.finepix-x100.com/first-impressions/others)
then, again, may i say they need me as beta-tester?
:p
wgerrard
10-25-2010, 13:21
I have no idea what patents Fuji has filed lately. But if the X100 is a success, I'm sure that other manufacturers will try to come up with similar cameras. This industry lives of me-too'ism.
Very true. Sadly, the first thing the industry would do is copy is the retro look, wrapping it around a point and shoot.
Leica inherited the interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera market after other major manufacturers abandoned it decades ago. They didn't have to do much to refine the RF itself, nor did they update the pre-M3 styling elements...they were the only game in town.
Then Konica offered a challenge, also Contax...and CV and Zeiss even made M-mount lenses after the 50-year mount patent expired.
Epson/CV slapped Leica in the face via the R-D1, forcing Leica's hand in digital offerings.
Soon after, EVIL emerged, and now O/EVF in the X100.
So, Leica has now tested the water by replacing the available light frameline illuminator by a LED powered in the M9/T. The timing was independent of the X100 announcement...but rather lame by comparison. In truth, that LED frameline illuminator is not all that novel, similar illuminator ideas was used by others decades ago...even in a home-made device by a RFF member.
The next RF/VF in this genre cannot be just more of the same 50 year-old...er, classic...design.
Whether others, notably the rumoured Nikon EVIL development would be one-up on the X100 is of course unknown. Opinions abound, even in RFF that the end of [d]SLR is near...especially if the next-generation Epson-made EVF panel is finer than 800 x 600 x RGB.
The final nail in the old RF coffin, IMO, will be some form of well-received focusing aid project-able onto the X100 OVF. The easiest will be a patch [partial/centre view] of the EVF.
[Note: the OVF and EVF are offset from each other by ~50mm, collectively introducing x/y parallax. Unless the principal axes of the optical and electronic VF's are set to converge at some point, perhaps at hyper-focal distance, the two "optical bundles" will always be non-coincidental...un-observable at infinity but more pronounced at close focal distances.
This is not a drawback but rather exploitable via real-time re-sampling of the partial EVF display into x-parallax only, just like a standard RF split-image view. In photogrammetry, that re-sampling is called a stereo-mate, tried-and-true for almost 3 decades.
That was the origin of my statement elsewhere that a "parallax-wedge" focusing aid is "easy to do" and was implemented by many for stereo displaying the Leica (not Solms) ADS-40, 50 and 80 imagery...years ago.]
buzzardkid
10-31-2010, 00:45
Thanks Frankie, for those technical details you provide! I'm happy to read my idea is feasable in the X100!
I'm thrilled with the prospect of possibly having an actual RF in the X100.
Lets hope Fujifilm thought about this or in the future will provide it in a firmware update.
buzzardkid
10-31-2010, 00:55
Come to think of it, the benefits for both manufacturers and photographers can be huge a d I'd be stunned if this would not catch on in the market:
The RF will never go out of whack since it consists of an OVF and a sensor only
Production will be a lot less costly than the current, traditional RF
Remember those yellow or purple RF patches on 1960's cameras? They could be set in the menu
The RF focusing would be a nice addition to the retro style that Fujifilm have chosen
I had posted the benefits of the O/EVF, including no needs for adjustments, plus self-illumination, dataset displays etc. etc....in the mega-thread long ago. The technical points got lost in the excitements and many posters rather argued about JPEG v. RAW; or whether the X100 is "professional" or not...
The X100 VF optical diagram, particularly the [likely cemented] prisms immediately reminds me of typical set up in photogrammetric instruments...complicated enough even without adjustment problems. [Since you are located in the Netherlands, you must have heard or known of ITC in Enschede, once the mecca of photogrammetry.]
In photogrammetry, an image is first conceptualized as "a bundle" of light rays gathered through the perspective centre of a lens...as if the lens is a pin-hole... The science has a century of developments behind it.[Many fundamental breakthroughs in the analogue era were actually made by Otto von Gruber of Zeiss, while Wild-Heerbrugg [renamed Leica in 1992 by its owner who also long owned E. Leitz Co.] is a more successful instrument builder until digital photogrammetry wiped out its mechanical product line...sounds ominous to Solms?]In digital photogrammetry [based on analytical geometry first applied by a Canadian...in 1957], image tip/tilt [from being perfectly vertical or down-looking] can be re-sampled into normal or reverted from normal into having tip/tilt [think vertical and horizontal rotation in conventional cameras], given imaging distance [flying height]...as if a prism is virtually there. An example well-known enough in RFF is keystone correction for architecture photography in Photoshop.
The focusing ring [also a focal distance encoder or the focal distance LUT dataset display will not be possible] or AF can supply the imaging distance, which is then used to re-sample and re-injecting parallax...wholly unnecessary if AF is used to begin with but useful as a manual focusing aid for RF aficionados.
In this "parallax wedge" application, the OVF is deemed "normal" while the EVF is treated as if tilted. The y-parallax neutralized but x-parallax injected EVF image is then superimposed onto the OVF. The baseline is the principal axes offset of the independent O/E VF optical trains.
Re-sampling the whole or partial image is only 12Mp of work, at most...thus real-time, in a science long overcame image files sizes in the hundreds of megabytes.
One more piece of news.
A newly-posted field report (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_first_look.shtml) at Luminous Landscape says that the Panasonic GH2 has contrast-detect AF speed on par with current mid-range DSLRs. It's almost a given that the X100 will not be as good, but this does indicate that the camera that many of us want is technically possible — if not now, then soon.
Silly Rabbit. I'm sure that Leica can find a way to make it much more costly.
"Lady GAGA World Tour Edition"?
Kodak have become slack by late. But at least them have the sensor technology to pull something out of their hat, hopefully something better / more useful than a rabbit ;)
The question are however them feel the motivation to try or just let it pass.
Epson seems to have pulled out altogether but still support their R-D1 of course.
Casio, not very likely? But who knows.
Sony? Why not make a digital Hexar AF with FF ccd? But I guess Sony is too deeply into their Nex to care about it.
douglasf13
11-10-2010, 10:17
Leica just needs to go with Sony for the next M camera sensor. Joakim, who works in the industry, has quite a bit to say about the Kodak sensor, and it isn't good. If Leica tapped Sony for a 24x36 sensor without an AA filter, the camera would be amazing. Read Joakim's Leica sensor info here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/893332/8#8504636
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.