Viv Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share #41 Posted June 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If it worked this way, simply using your 2+ reading glasses would yield the same result as compared to the screw in adjuster. Not quite. with the adjuster the eye is much closer to the lens than with glasses. Increasing closeness diminishes the effective power of a converging lens. All I can do is to repeat that the adjuster works very well for me with both the EVF and the OVF. Others may have a different "view". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Hi Viv, Take a look here Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted June 30, 2012 Share #42 Posted June 30, 2012 How can the diopter lens be effective for just one viewfinder mode when you are looking through the same diopter lens in either case? And btw., the LCD panel used for the electronic viewfinder image is the same panel that is used to create the overlays for the optical viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 30, 2012 Share #43 Posted June 30, 2012 Using the EVF for the Ricoh GXR I have to set the diopter to see a sharp image, from which I take it that the eye has to focus the way it does when reading; with the M6 I don't need a diopter adjustment presumably because the eye focuses at something at a distance far beyond the plane one focuses on when reading. In this sense. when I looked through the X Pro 1 viewfinder I found that the image in the EVF was blurred but the the one through the OVF was sharp, except for the projected data. That means to me that if I use a diopter, the image in the EVF will be sharp but what I see though the OVF will be blurred, except for the projected data. I've never looked through the X100. —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 30, 2012 Share #44 Posted June 30, 2012 Fuji’s explanation of how and why the viewfinder in the X-Pro1 is different from the one in the X100 can be found here: 4: Advanced Hybrid Viewfinder | FUJIFILM X-Pro1. Basically the viewfinder optics was rotated by 90 degrees so the LC panel is now below the optics rather then to the right of it. Also there is now a slide-in magnification lens. What is missing here is an explanation of why the adjustable diopter was replaced by interchangable but fixed diopter lenses – it was to avoid increasing the depth of the viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sksaito Posted June 30, 2012 Share #45 Posted June 30, 2012 What is it with Fuji and auto focusing? X100 has this problem, although the update improved it somewhat. They don't have the AF technology? Is it too costly for them? The X10 isn't bad though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted June 30, 2012 Share #46 Posted June 30, 2012 It depends on what you are comparing the Fuji's contrast detection AF with. If comparing it with a modern DSLR's phase detection AF system then there is no comparison, as the DSLR will win every time, although not necessarily in the accuracy stakes! However if comparing with Leica's rangefinder system it will usually AF faster and more accurately than most users can manually focus. This fact is conceded by several experienced rangefinder users. I can accurately auto focus with both the X100 and XP1 for deliberate and slow picture making. I would not use either of them for fast sports or tracking birds and wild animals. I use my big heavy DSLR's and long but heavy lenses for that work. Having said that there are some XP1 users who can set their camera up to take fast moving images even moving towards them...it can be done by defying the usual wisdoms, but that is best left to the appropriate forums to teach! I have however seen some fantastic macro images taken with the XP1 of insects, close up and personal! So when I get too old to lug around DSLR kit, I can always slow down and take macro wildlife pictures! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 30, 2012 Share #47 Posted June 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) How can the diopter lens be effective for just one viewfinder mode when you are looking through the same diopter lens in either case? And btw., the LCD panel used for the electronic viewfinder image is the same panel that is used to create the overlays for the optical viewfinder. It is being discussed and it is an issue. For one of the posts over at DPReview: "I have the same issue, but I don't call it a problem. If you put in a diopter to better see the EVF, you won't be able to focus as clearly on the OVF. When you look through the OVF, you're just looking through a clear piece of glass and using the distance part of your presecription and focusing on something in the distance (THROUGH) the OVF, not ON it! When the EVF is on, you have to focus ON it, but its only a fraction of an inch away, so you need to use the reading portion of your glasses." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 30, 2012 Share #48 Posted June 30, 2012 For me this is a major issue with the dual EVF/OVF viewfinder because I have very good far vision nut need glasses for reading, a common enough situation. —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 30, 2012 Share #49 Posted June 30, 2012 "When you look through the OVF, you're just looking through a clear piece of glass" When you are looking through the OVF you are looking through three or four lenses (depending on whether the slide-in magnification lens is in place) and a prism, but indeed these optical elements are made from clear glass. (There is a fifth lens if you use a diopter lens other than the standard (planar) lens.) The basic design of the X100 OVF is quite similar (both are reverse Galilean designs), except that it has a single lens in front of the prism rather than the two lens group in the OVF of the X-Pro1, and obviously there is no slide-in magnification lens as the X100 has a fixed focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted June 30, 2012 Share #50 Posted June 30, 2012 For me this is a major issue with the dual EVF/OVF viewfinder because I have very good far vision nut need glasses for reading, a common enough situation. Exactly same as myself. I use a +2 diopter lens and I can see both EVF and OVF perfectly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 30, 2012 Share #51 Posted June 30, 2012 ...if comparing with Leica's rangefinder system it will usually AF faster and more accurately than most users can manually focus. This fact is conceded by several experienced rangefinder users... I did not think i could ever read things like that on the Leica or any other rangefinder forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 30, 2012 Share #52 Posted June 30, 2012 Which experienced rangefinder users? Don’t count me amongst them... It depends on what you are comparing the Fuji's contrast detection AF with. If comparing it with a modern DSLR's phase detection AF system then there is no comparison, as the DSLR will win every time, although not necessarily in the accuracy stakes! However if comparing with Leica's rangefinder system it will usually AF faster and more accurately than most users can manually focus. This fact is conceded by several experienced rangefinder users. I can accurately auto focus with both the X100 and XP1 for deliberate and slow picture making. I would not use either of them for fast sports or tracking birds and wild animals. I use my big heavy DSLR's and long but heavy lenses for that work. Having said that there are some XP1 users who can set their camera up to take fast moving images even moving towards them...it can be done by defying the usual wisdoms, but that is best left to the appropriate forums to teach! I have however seen some fantastic macro images taken with the XP1 of insects, close up and personal! So when I get too old to lug around DSLR kit, I can always slow down and take macro wildlife pictures! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted July 1, 2012 Share #53 Posted July 1, 2012 Good old JAAP, Defender of the Faith! I suppose it goes with the Job Description, quite right too. In fact I can direct you to Sean Reid's Fuji XP1 blog where you can read this and I have read it elsewhere too. Now like his writings or not, I doubt if many would argue that he is a very experienced Leica rangefinder user and is (or possibly was) a member of this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted July 1, 2012 Share #54 Posted July 1, 2012 basically the answer is yes and no. It totally depends on the context. In certain situations my fuji x-100 focuses infinitately faster than the M RF- in those situation I can't focus the M accurately at all. In other situations the M is spot on in a fraction of a second and the x-100 has no hope of ever achieving focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oronet commander Posted July 1, 2012 Share #55 Posted July 1, 2012 Yes, it totally depends on context. In fact, AF can be very fast getting focus, but very hard to have it in the place you want it That's as important as speed, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 1, 2012 Share #56 Posted July 1, 2012 Good old JAAP, Defender of the Faith! I suppose it goes with the Job Description, quite right too. In fact I can direct you to Sean Reid's Fuji XP1 blog where you can read this and I have read it elsewhere too. Now like his writings or not, I doubt if many would argue that he is a very experienced Leica rangefinder user and is (or possibly was) a member of this forum. As it is, I happen to know Sean, and strangely enough, when I saw him in May he was shooting an M9... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.gt Posted July 1, 2012 Share #57 Posted July 1, 2012 The real issue is deciding to buy a Leica M9 or future landfill, IMO. What is the oldest Fuji you have used? Seriously, these arguments are detritus amongst the jungle known as internet forums and are getting very old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 1, 2012 Share #58 Posted July 1, 2012 As it is, I happen to know Sean, and strangely enough, when I saw him in May he was shooting an M9... He had better have had a Leica with him in Berlin! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted July 2, 2012 Share #59 Posted July 2, 2012 Yes, it totally depends on context. In fact, AF can be very fast getting focus, but very hard to have it in the place you want it That's as important as speed, isn't it? I took it as implicit that the focus is where one wants it- if it isn't then focus has not been 'achieved'... And AF can put focus where one wants it- and quickly- and sometimes far easier than an RF. At other times the RF wins. To say one is intrinsically better than the other across the board is foolish. The fact is RF focusing has limitations that shouldn't be glossed over but accepted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 2, 2012 Share #60 Posted July 2, 2012 Did you ask him to sell you an M9? Bet he doesn't have one to sell. FYI, any local dealer here has got at least three M9 on the shelf still unsold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.