Fuji X100 EVF will turn every picture into a dutch still life!

ferider said:
12.7 cm vs. 22.1 cm. Almost twice the size of the DOF window, Arjay. Basically the x100 at f2 will have similar DOF than the FF 35mm/2 at f2.8.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand how you arrive at your numbers. If I take my corrected near/far values, calculate the difference and convert into cm, I get 46,63cm for 24mm/APS-C and 32,31cm for 35mm/FF.

Thus, DOF is quite comparable, albeit not identical. It always pays off to really do the math insterad of believeing what others say.

Try the calculation for yourself - the Dofmaster website explains all formulas.
 
ferider said:
Basically the x100 at f2 will have similar DOF than the FF 35mm/2 at f2.8.
Click to expand...

Oops - I checked again, calculating DOF for 35mm/FF @ f2.8 -> you're right.

I had read in other sources that the difference would be 2 f-stops, so I am pleasantly surprised it's just one.
 
Fuji X100 f2, focused at 6 ft

total dof 1.67 ft

near limit 5.28 ft
far limit 6.95 ft


For a ff sensor the dof at the same setting would be 1 ft. but things get interesting as the lens is stopped down. at F4 a APS-C sensor has almost twice the dof of a FF sensor.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone notice the histograms in the viewfinder of the engadget video? Look like live histograms? If I have live histogram and picture preview in my viewfinder AND if I can adjust iso (fn+back wheel), aperture and shutter without removing:
1) Right finger from shutter release
2) Left hand from bottom of lens
3) Eye from viewfinder

If I can do this, I have my perfect camera, allowing me to only focus on composition, perspective and light.

Crossing fingers!
 
Much to expensive for what it is!!! Therefore no interest, other than an interesting design exercise.

edited by moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChrisN said:
Technically, I'd say nothing. But in today's market, who wants it apart from the few weirdos that hang out here? :D 99% of the market is perfectly comfortable with other forms of focus confirmation.
Click to expand...

I actually think there might be a little difficulty in projecting an RF patch. For one, because the patch would be generated from the sensor, it would be offset from the viewfinder both vertically and horizontally. A normal bright window projects a patch that is offset only horizontally, which, I presume, would at a minimum cause it to behave entirely differently.

For two, the patch would also be offset in terms of depth, because the sensor is not at the same distance as the VF. Further differences abound that way, and the difference would likely manifest itself differently at different subject distances.

Also, the patch would be generated from a sensor that would not be receiving an in-focus image unless it was already in focus, meaning the patch would not be effective unless you were already in focus.

And finally, the hybrid viewfinder system, if its rough schematics are to be believed, prevents the addition of a traditional bright window patch.

I considered all of these things not to refute you or anyone else, but because for the first week of this camera's announcement, I thought it offered this functionality. When I realized it didn't, I wanted to see why not, and... well, it seems pretty tough to implement.

A possible (expensive and unnecessary, ludicrously so) option would be to put a small sensor behind a window where a bright window would be, and to project THAT image, assuming it could be made to be sharp enough at all times, positioned at the proper depth, and offset from the VF only horizontally. But I wouldn't expect nor ask for such a luxury!
 
I find it amazing, frankly, that anyone would disparage someone who shoots a fixed lens camera - or not consider a fixed lens camera "professional". You gotta be kiddin' ... You honestly only really need one good lens - a 35 or a 50 based on preference! Am I in the right forum today? Alternate universe?
 
Arjay said:
Oops - I checked again, calculating DOF for 35mm/FF @ f2.8 -> you're right.

I had read in other sources that the difference would be 2 f-stops, so I am pleasantly surprised it's just one.
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb that I've been told in these matters is that a crop factor applies to focal length AND DoF. Namely, multiply both numbers by the crop factor and you arrive at the equivalent. So the 23mm/ f2.0 lens of the X100 behaves at wide open as a 34.5/ f3.0 lens would. I think the math bears this out.

But circle of confusion is an odd, typically misunderstood beast. Numbers have been arrived at for "35mm film" and for "APS-C sensors" and these numbers are well and good. But coming from a cinematography background, I've learned that, budget permitting, one needs to test a given lens or set of lenses for CoC and determine for yourself.

As an example, the (quite amazing; best lenses ever manufactured for my money) Zeiss Master Primes offer significantly less DoF at 1.3 than the (quite old, workhorses of indy film) Zeiss Superspeeds at 1.3. I've seen it. Lenses of the same focal lengths and apertures nonetheless have a different "focus roll-off." The old Superspeeds are never as sharp as the master primes. But when sharpest, the differences are minute when focus is not exactly on. At the same focal length and distance, the new Master Primes are not only razor sharp when on, in a way that is clinical and amazing, but quickly fall off to a point of unacceptable sharpness when focus is missed. So (in an arbitrary and likely not quite accurate example) if a subject is at 4' 6" and focus is incorrectly set to 5', on the old Superspeeds the image is still perhaps acceptably sharp, especially in regards to how sharp the lenses get. On the new Master Primes, however, this is entirely not the case.

Then I looked at how these differences manifested themselves on a smaller screen, and again on a larger screen. The result, in the end, is that proper circle of confusion needs to be determined based on a number of factors and tests. Ideally, circle of confusion used in calculating depth of field needs to take into account (in still photography) the specific lens used, and the target print size.

But one needn't be so clinical, and the accepted numbers (used by DOFMaster, which I use nearly daily... their iPhone app is quite handy) are, in most circumstances, quite useful. I just wanted to provide another point of view as pertains to Depth of Field.
 
Wiyum said:
I actually think there might be a little difficulty in projecting an RF patch. For one, because the patch would be generated from the sensor, it would be offset from the viewfinder both vertically and horizontally. A normal bright window projects a patch that is offset only horizontally, which, I presume, would at a minimum cause it to behave entirely differently.

For two, the patch would also be offset in terms of depth, because the sensor is not at the same distance as the VF. Further differences abound that way, and the difference would likely manifest itself differently at different subject distances.

Also, the patch would be generated from a sensor that would not be receiving an in-focus image unless it was already in focus, meaning the patch would not be effective unless you were already in focus.

And finally, the hybrid viewfinder system, if its rough schematics are to be believed, prevents the addition of a traditional bright window patch.

I considered all of these things not to refute you or anyone else, but because for the first week of this camera's announcement, I thought it offered this functionality.
Click to expand...


THat sounds convincing. I always thought an RF patch was wishful thinking - but perhaps technically possible. But your second point in particular is a killer. There are certainly innovations in focusing possible with this display, but I suspect we'll have to wait for a future iteration.

I think they got their couple of USPs on the camera and that was enough. Which, to be honest, it is for me.
 
Thank you Wiyum for your interesting insights!

Wiyum said:
But circle of confusion is an odd, typically misunderstood beast. Numbers have been arrived at for "35mm film" and for "APS-C sensors" and these numbers are well and good. But coming from a cinematography background, I've learned that, budget permitting, one needs to test a given lens or set of lenses for CoC and determine for yourself.
Click to expand...

If I remember this correctly, the traditional CoC calculation is derived from two factors:
  • A standardized print output format, which leads to different magnification factors for the varous film/sensor formats.
  • A standardized viewing distance for that print format, which leads to a consideration of a minimum discernible detail size. This detail size, however is calculated from the human eye's resolving power, espressed in arcseconds. When using this angle, put in relation to the standardized viewing distance, one can calculate the minimum feature size that can still be seen by the eye.
Interestingly, this calculation is not taking into account the resolving power of the camera's sensor. Can anyone tell me, how the X100's image sensor fares in terms of resolving power? I.e. does it offer usable detail beyond the standardized DOF formula? An analysis of this behavior might shed some more light at how the lens' DOF and the sensor's behavior might interact, e.g. by offering suitable resolution to display a creamy bokeh.

Is that so, or have I fallen victim to some misconception?
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
Or the APS format, which you could crop in camera. Weird one. Funny how sensors are APS-C or full-frame. It's very confusing.
Click to expand...

Let's not even think about APS cameras such as the EOS IX or Nikon Pronea to which you could mount ordinary lenses designed for 135 film. The horror!
 
Arjay said:
Interestingly, this calculation is not taking into account the resolving power of the camera's sensor. Can anyone tell me, how the X100's image sensor fares in terms of resolving power? I.e. does it offer usable detail beyond the standardized DOF formula? An analysis of this behavior might shed some more light at how the lens' DOF and the sensor's behavior might interact, e.g. by offering suitable resolution to display a creamy bokeh.
Click to expand...

Well, taking into account the rigors I spoke of before, in a motion picture context, a DoF test would need to be performed for any lens/sensor-film/output size combination. Those three factors really make up the decision (and in truth, particularly with still photography, viewing distance is the 4th variable). When I've done such a thing, we set a halogen maglite on a stand without its focusing lens. The bare bulb projects a point source that the camera can see. We test it at the proper distance, then defocus the lens to various degrees to determine where that point source becomes unacceptably sharp. We do this at a variety of distances. This can vary depending on the lens, film stock/sensor, projection size, etc. In my experience, it is only through testing that one can determine how a given full system (ie: lens, film/sensor, viewing size) performs. The differences in circle of confusion can be quite profound, especially with different lenses. Given that, I imagine that, despite the sensor, we'll have to wait until we see the Fuji lens in question to know for sure. If it is a real gem in terms of sharpness, then it may be less forgiving than its peers might suggest... in other words, the Nikon 24mm lens on what is assumed to be the same sensor. That lens has always been "very good" but never "great" in terms of sharpness. If Fuji has really been rigorous in its lens design and has truly "designed to the sensor," then we may have no proper analogue by which to anticipate the performance we get from this camera.
 
Am I the only one who believes that a bigger DOF is better... that a slight background blur with recognizable details is better than molten cheese background blur... that a bigger aperture is best used to gather light and not to melt the world?

For me, that $1200 price tag better be worth the build quality of the camera. With this much anticipation and the rather strong outing of the X100, I can't imagine/expect Fuji failing to deliver enough image quality. Somehow, all those strong press releases aimed at serious photographers seemed like a good deterrent against bad camera performance!:D:D:D

Brian Sweeney said:
Depth of Field is content sensitive. It depends on scene content.
Click to expand...

If I got what you're saying, yep you're right. I do think the same thing.

sper said:
but then I don't know what the deal with that apple picture was....
Click to expand...

Man, that video killed a moment for me. I imagine myself going "What!? What's that, an apple???" while using the camera:D.

Hi Fujifilm, I'd like to be able to change the apple photo with a photo I like.:D
 
Last edited:
my favourite camera is a ricoh grdiii because it has tons of dof and I only have to focus it every second full moon
 
Much discussed in this thread, including personal attacks, was long discussed elsewhere. I guess some paid no attention to Photokina last fall and only discovered the X100 because it was now shown in CES. The thread starting in the wrong segment did not help.

[Please, Head Bartender, the X100 deserves a sub-forum of its own.]

What was now seen displayable in the EVF [in the engadget video] was long identified, item for item...4 months ago.

The specifications I originally compiled last September starting the "Back to the Future" thread was in error only in filter size and "straight" lens hood.

The X100 shook up RFF. It is the closest thing, other than the R-D1, to an alternative RF-type camera..."Barbarians at the [Leica] Gate".

As to price, I [we] have to put things in perspective. My first camera, the Minolta Hi-matic 7s cost me far more then my net worth...when I was earning $1.25 per hour (Canadian minimum wage then). :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top