Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > Digital Fixed Lens Advanced Compacts > Fuji X Fixed Lens

Fuji X Fixed Lens This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

OVF Framelines
Old 05-18-2011   #1
Broke
Registered User
 
Broke's Avatar
 
Broke is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 99
OVF Framelines

Hi all,
I've had my X100 about a month now, and have enjoyed it a great deal. I've tended toward use of the OVF for framing, and for the most part I've had a reasonably good experience with this. In my opinion, this really is this camera's raison d'etre.
I must say that I'm puzzled by a few choices of the Fuji engineers, however. They've chosen to make the lines very conservative in terms of coverage (like Leica) to ensure accuracy at shorter distances. My question is, given the opportunity to design this camera, wouldn't you vary the size AND position of the framelines for any given focus distance. And while you're at that, wouldn't you move the focus patch to correspond with the image centre (where focus is actually obtained) after focusing? These are images from a projector after all... It really would be nice if, after having had focused, one could determine what he had focused on, and what was in frame.
Sigh. This camera is really impressive in some ways, however, I wish they'd kept it in development a couple months longer.
Cheers,
Jim
__________________
O=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=O

Broke
Toronto
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2011   #2
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 40
Posts: 13,671
Well, I'd rather have too much in my frame than not enough. With an optical VF, it can only be accurate at one distance really. However, consider yourself lucky to have an EVF as well for the times when you need 100%.

To me, the camera works fine as is... ideally, yes, I would like someone to make a OVF that is accurate at all distances, but it probably will never happen.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2011   #3
Broke
Registered User
 
Broke's Avatar
 
Broke is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 99
"With an optical VF, it can only be accurate at one distance really. "

This is my argument -- if you can continuously vary the projected size of the framelines, why does this need be?
Cheers,
Jim
__________________
O=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=O

Broke
Toronto
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2011   #4
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 40
Posts: 13,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broke View Post
This is my argument -- if you can continuously vary the projected size of the framelines, why does this need be?
My argument would be... if it is easy, then why hasn't it been done.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2011   #5
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,603
This OVF works like every other OVF. Decades ago people migrated away from cameras with OVFs to reflex cameras. One reason why is the OVF view can only be an approximate.

Fortunately the EVF give you a precise view when needed.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2011   #6
Broke
Registered User
 
Broke's Avatar
 
Broke is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 99
"This OVF works like every other OVF"

I don't believe this to be true -- this is the first ever OVF with framelines projected by an electronic projector, they can do whatever they wish with what's projected. This is in contrast to the Leica framelines which are simply created by frameline masks. I think that not trying to correct for size of field and for parallax is just lazy...
__________________
O=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=O

Broke
Toronto
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2011   #7
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 40
Posts: 13,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broke View Post
I think that not trying to correct for size of field and for parallax is just lazy...
Or it could be why they included a EVF. I say give them time and maybe they will come up with something... this is the first attempt.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2011   #8
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 675
It may be intellectually lazy to call an engineering solution lazy without attempting to understand why something was done and what the alternatives might have been.

The easy answer is that the camera doesn't commit to focusing and frameline size/position until you press the button. Your focusing spot would be jumping all over the place as you successively adjusted the framing and refocused, and it would be worse in AF-C mode. Something like this happens with Leicas, too, where the focusing spot moves with the framelines as you focus closer - but it is much slower and controllable.

In reality, if you fill up the focusing spot and take the split second to look at the distance scale, you rarely get problems - and you can at least see when the system has missed. And the difference between intended and actual focus point is pretty insignificant until you get closer than 1m - which is pretty much the usable limit of an OVF.

Dante

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broke View Post
"This OVF works like every other OVF"

I don't believe this to be true -- this is the first ever OVF with framelines projected by an electronic projector, they can do whatever they wish with what's projected. This is in contrast to the Leica framelines which are simply created by frameline masks. I think that not trying to correct for size of field and for parallax is just lazy...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2011   #9
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,143
The focus spot is one thing, Dante.

But why not allow sizeable frame-lines as in Hexar AF or Contax G ?
__________________
50mm Project, => Vote Now
Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2011   #10
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 675
My surmise is that Fuji picked a frameline size that corresponds to 1m-1.5m (i.e., already "shrunk") to keep the finder magnification higher. It's a pretty significant size change from ∞ to 1m.

Dante

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
The focus spot is one thing, Dante.

But why not allow sizeable frame-lines as in Hexar AF or Contax G ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2011   #11
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 675
Ferider, I checked this in the VF - you can see the shrinkage. Put the camera in MF, and dial the focus down to 0.6m. Now tap the shutter button and you will see the left and top lines move more than the right and bottom ones do. Voilà. Field correction. I stand by my prior point. Fuji had this same limited range with the LCD framelines in the GA645zi.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #12
Arjay
Time Traveller
 
Arjay's Avatar
 
Arjay is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 802
There's yet another reason why the frame lines are tighter than the lense's actual field of view: Eye-to VF axis alignment.

If you look through the optical viefinder and move the optical axis of your eye in relation to that of the camera's viewfinder, you'll notice that the projected VF frame doesn't move, but the actual optical viewfinder's field-of view will.

You can see this most dramatically in the relative change of the lense's edge in the bottom right of the VF.
__________________
FujiFilm X100, Fuji X-Pro 1, Konica Hexar RF, Hexanon & CV glass & Nikon Coolscan V ... plus a big, bad DSLR

My RFF Gallery, My Flickr, My Ipernity, all presenting different bodies of work
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #13
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broke View Post
"With an optical VF, it can only be accurate at one distance really. "

This is my argument -- if you can continuously vary the projected size of the framelines, why does this need be?
Cheers,
Jim

Because you can have shrinking framelines, but you still can't account for parallax error, because the VF is in a different position to the lens. Hence the need for conservatism. An OVF is always a compromise.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2012   #14
Broke
Registered User
 
Broke's Avatar
 
Broke is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 99
This thought was mentioned by Nick Devlin in his review also...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...cameras/.shtml

"Frame Lines
This was a surprising disappointment: the frames lines projected into the OVF are just not very accurate.* Like the M9, the framelines are significantly under-inclusive, meaning you get a lot more into the image than the lines indicate.* This*is annoying.* The Leica M series are limited by the fact that the framelines are mechanically projected. The X-Pro1, however, uses electronically displayed lines. These could be projected anywhere, can be *changed* in size and, one would have thought, been made wickedly accurate.* Or at least better than they are.* Since the frame grows and shrinks with subject-distance, the projections could perhaps re-size after focus is locked? The projected "guess-points" for focus are pretty accurate. I can think of no obvious reason why the framelines can't be made to be as well. Perhaps an ambitious Fuji tech can reprogram these, but I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, I will do what I already do with the M9 and mentally expand the frame."
__________________
O=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=C=O

Broke
Toronto
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-18-2012   #15
Zoidberg
Registered User
 
Zoidberg is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2
the rule of thirds grid should move with the frame after focusing
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-18-2012   #16
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Ferider, I checked this in the VF - you can see the shrinkage. Put the camera in MF, and dial the focus down to 0.6m. Now tap the shutter button and you will see the left and top lines move more than the right and bottom ones do. Voilà. Field correction. I stand by my prior point. Fuji had this same limited range with the LCD framelines in the GA645zi.
Yep, the frame lines certainly do shrink at shorter focussing distances.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-19-2012   #17
madmaxmedia
Registered User
 
madmaxmedia is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13
Okay, here's how I now think about it. Even with the electronically-adjusted frame lines, the camera can still never know the exact image borders. The one thing the camera can accurately do is adjust the focus point for parallax, because it knows the exact distance of the focus point. It doesn't know anything about the rest of the frame!

Let's say you focus on a brick wall 2 feet in front of you. The x100 knows your center point focus is 2 ft., and tries to approximate the frame lines. But it doesn't know the distance of what else is in the frame (in this case everything is up close, there is parallax error.)

Let's say you focus on a flower 2 feet in front of you, with nothing but open horizon behind the flower. The camera has the same AF distance info of 2 ft., and will probably project the same frame lines. But I am thinking that the actual image borders will be different compared to the brick wall example right? Regardless of the close subject distance, most of the frame is at infinity so there is essentially no parallax error in this case.

The best Fuji can do is assume that if AF point is close, it can adjust for parallax correction so your subject will be about where you want it to be in the final image. And if the AF point is far, then the most important parts of the final image are far so little to no parallax correction should be applied. But no matter what it is only a guess, a guideline- it cannot know the actual resultant image borders.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:03.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.