Ecaton Posted June 27, 2012 Share #21 Posted June 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I looked at the X Pro 1 in a store in Bangkok, although I was a bit rushed when I did. My impression was that the OVF was much darker than that of the M9. On problem for me was that I have very good far vision, but need reading glasses. On an M9 VF I don't need a diopter adjustment, but do need one with the EVF (from my experience with the Ricoh GXR, which has built-in dipper adjustment). I found that for the X Pro 1, I would need diopter adjustment but the store did not have one available. Also, as far as I recall, I remember that I couldn't see clearly with the OVF — does this mean that Fuji have designed the VF in such a way that, if you need a diopter adjustment on the EVF, the same one will work for the OVF? It would seem to me that this would have to be the case; otherwise one would not see clearly through the OVF if one used a diopter adjustment in the EVF. Anyone know? —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Unfortunately it's the way you describe in your last sentence. When I use +1.5 screw in diopter adjustment, the EVF is fine, but the correction doesn't work for the OVF. So my options are using the OVF without adjustment and the EVF with, obviously not a workable solution in the field if one wanted to switch back and forth between the two VFs depending on the type of shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Hi Ecaton, Take a look here Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted June 27, 2012 Share #22 Posted June 27, 2012 That's amazing! I would assume that the X100 is the same way. Since it's common that people have good far vision but need reading glasses, I am surprised that this issue has not been discussed more with regard these two dual EVF/OVF cameras. —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 27, 2012 Share #23 Posted June 27, 2012 That's amazing! I would assume that the X100 is the same way. Since it's common that people have good far vision but need reading glasses, I am surprised that this issue has not been discussed more with regard these two dual EVF/OVF cameras. —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface The X100 is different. The build in diopter adjuster works for the EVF and OVF. I assume when used with the OVF only the data overlay gets adjusted and the view through the VF glass remains uncorrected otherwise. I think that's the main difference which makes the hybrid VF a joy to use with the X100 and of rather limited benefit for farsighted shooters with the XPro1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share #24 Posted June 27, 2012 How? I find the M9 to be the only camera that actually focuses where I want it to focus. I shoot a lot at 0.7m and the focus is spot on and extremely accurate. It's not a question of focus. It's a question of parallax error. What you see in the viewfinder at close range is not what you get in the shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted June 27, 2012 Share #25 Posted June 27, 2012 One thing that having an M9 has forced me to consider is 'what I need' rather than 'what I want' I 'want' and X Pro 1 ....... with the usual self delusional arguments that everything will be 'easier 'and the pictures will be 'better'...... Unfortunately the idiot behind the viewfinder is unchanged and I am sure I will be disappointed. A true artist and craftsman can turn out superlative work with the most basic of tools. Photography is no different. The fact that a pitifully small percentage of my photos are memorable is a reflection of my inadequacies rather than that of the camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 27, 2012 Share #26 Posted June 27, 2012 It's not a question of focus. It's a question of parallax error. What you see in the viewfinder at close range is not what you get in the shot.Completely wrong - the M viewfinder has parallax compensation. Just watch the frame lines shift diagonally as you focus. Actually the frame lines are at their most accurate at close distances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 28, 2012 Share #27 Posted June 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Completely wrong - the M viewfinder has parallax compensation. Just watch the frame lines shift diagonally as you focus. Actually the frame lines are at their most accurate at close distances. Jaap, be honest. The framelines may show the actual field of view at the focused distance but at close distances the viewfinder does not show objects in the same relationship to each other that the lens sees. As Viv said, What you see in the viewfinder at close range is not what you get in the shot. The extreme case of this is when you're photographing through a hole in a fence: get things right in the viewfinder and the lens will see nothing but the fence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted June 28, 2012 Share #28 Posted June 28, 2012 How close are you to the fence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 28, 2012 Share #29 Posted June 28, 2012 The framelines show which objects in the focused distance will be within the image, but for both longer and shorter distances they will be off. This may or may not matter for image composition – sometimes a background feature you believed to be hidden is actually not, or vice-versa. The same can happen with the foreground as in the example of photographing through a hole in a fence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share #30 Posted June 28, 2012 If our Moderator were a lady, I would be tempted to quote Shakespeare to say that "She doth protest too much", to the point of being economical with the truth. I am an experienced user of the M9. I know its strengths and weaknesses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 28, 2012 Share #31 Posted June 28, 2012 Many years ago I traded in my first M6 for a Contax G2. More fool me. I see parallels. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2012 Share #32 Posted June 28, 2012 Jaap, be honest. The framelines may show the actual field of view at the focused distance but at close distances the viewfinder does not show objects in the same relationship to each other that the lens sees. As Viv said, What you see in the viewfinder at close range is not what you get in the shot. The extreme case of this is when you're photographing through a hole in a fence: get things right in the viewfinder and the lens will see nothing but the fence. Two different things. I am talking about parallax correction in the plane of focus, you are talking about parallax shift in the perspective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted June 29, 2012 Share #33 Posted June 29, 2012 Interesting reading all the different viewpoints...most have a different experience with the camera and viewfinder. And then there are the experts to slap anyone daring to step off the long and narrow on the wrist...no dissidents allowed here...and well if your experience differs from the 'party line' then you obviously dont 'get it'. Here I am not just talking about this post but the general trend when it comes to discussing the handling and pro's and con's of the m line on the LF Just think if the M had a EVF then all the talk about parallax and focus accuracy etc etc will disappear...now I think an EVF will please all...those that dont want it wont and their beloved M will still be the same except for the little hole on the body to accommodate the electronics and those that do, well they will then have it but still have the M body which all love so much, but now with a choice of two viewfinders. Maybe Leica can make two bodies, one for the 'traditionalists' and one for 'modernists' ...more sales...Just think with an EVF leica can make a shift lens, a 1:1 macro, super telephotos think of the increased market for all those goodies...all compatible with the original beautiful m shape body....seems like a no-brainer to me:) but then what do I know....I use stuff made from, gasp, dare I say the word....'plastic'... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share #34 Posted June 29, 2012 [quote name=malland;2110945does this mean that Fuji have designed the VF in such a way that' date=' if you need a diopter adjustment on the EVF, the same one will work for the OVF? —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Yes, the same diopter correction works for both viewfinders. I have direct experience of this, using a +2 correction. Suitable diopter correction lenses are available from Zeiss and Cosina. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted June 29, 2012 Share #35 Posted June 29, 2012 The thing about EVF is, it doesn't feel right to me when I look at it. Others put it in better words, but I still prefer seeing through a window (even with mirrors built-in, if necessary) to watching a screen. The rear screen may still allow more contact, but with EVF I feel cut off from what's in front of the lens. I'm seeing an electronic interpretation instead. Feels like going cyborg. When trying it out, I liked the X Pro 1 until realizing that I could not do controlled manual focus unless using the EVF. EVF is also still holding me away from the OM-D5, although I would have 4/3 AF-glass to go with it. The price league of the M9 just makes it a no-go for me, I don't like (or need) digital enough for such an investment. But I like the idea of keeping a simple (read less expensive) full-frame digital M in the line up if/when a new more loaded M body gets introduced. Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted June 29, 2012 Share #36 Posted June 29, 2012 [ The price league of the M9 just makes it a no-go for me, Alexander Well isn't it great then that there are alternatives out there, without having to sacrifice quality of the image nor the handling experience and not having to buy a 'luxury' item at prices only the 1% can afford....judging by my experience with the X1..the first generation of anything is perhaps not such a good buy...and I look forward to the 2nd or next generation of all whats on offer today...by then we should have more maturity and tools more in line with what photographers really need or want... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 29, 2012 Share #37 Posted June 29, 2012 Yes, the same diopter correction works for both viewfinders. I have direct experience of this, using a +2 correction. . No it does not, unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 30, 2012 Share #38 Posted June 30, 2012 No it does not, unfortunately.I suppose that "it works" in that the diopter adjustment is applied to the view through through the OVF rather than just to the projected data overlay, as you've stated in your post above on the X100, which I'll repeat here: The X100 is different. The build in diopter adjuster works for the EVF and OVF. I assume when used with the OVF only the data overlay gets adjusted and the view through the VF glass remains uncorrected otherwise. I think that's the main difference which makes the hybrid VF a joy to use with the X100 and of rather limited benefit for farsighted shooters with the XPro1. I continue to be amazed that Fujifilm did not use the same sophisticated diopter adjustment system in the X Pro 1 that they used on the X100, and that there has been no (or perhaps very little) discussion of this problem. For me, and for many other people that have good far vision but need reading glasses, the dual X Pro 1 viewfinder becomes largely useless, as one would have to install a diopter and use the EVF for framing, since the view through the OVF would be fuzzy with the diopter because one is looking at something "far away" as one does with a Leica-M viewfinder. —Mitch/Bangkok Pak Nam Pran: From Fishing Village to... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share #39 Posted June 30, 2012 No it does not, unfortunately. It does for me. Each person has different accommodative power, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 30, 2012 Share #40 Posted June 30, 2012 It does for me. Each person has different accommodative power, of course. If it worked this way, simply using your 2+ reading glasses would yield the same result as compared to the screw in adjuster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.