Who is Fuji working with to make the Hybrid Viewfinder?
Image courtesy: Quesabesde
Iker Morán from Quesabesde made an Interview with Hiroshi Kawahara, Operations Manager at Fujifilm Electronic Imaging Products Division and one of the designers of the FinePix X100.
Why an APS-C sized sensor instead of one with smaller dimensions, like in the case of the Micro Four Thirds cameras, which would have enabled you to reduce the size of the camera?
“Although the size of the camera is not a fundamental aspect in this type of model, we designed the FinePix X100 under the concept “co-existence of compact size and high-quality”. From the viewpoint of image quality, the APS-C system has a clear advantage over Micro Four Thirds (in particular, high sensitivity and low noise). Also, for obtaining a beautiful soft focus background “bokeh” effect, APS achieves beautiful result. For these reasons, we chose an APS-C sized sensor.”
But that is the most interesting part:
At Photokina we tried a pre-production unit of the X100 and one of the things we liked most was the “hybrid viewfinder”. Is this your own technology or will we see it in future cameras of other companies?
“Fujifilm is the first company to use a hybrid system viewfinder and we did this because we thought it was the best option for this type of product. We cannot say whether other companies are going to follow in our footsteps, but in view of the speed with which other manufacturers’ technology is currently adopted, it’s possible this might happen.”
So the question know is Fuji working with on the Hybrid Viewfinder technology development?, Maybe with Panasonic or Olympus?
Via Quesabesde
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Seika: Each to their opinion.
There is these t...
Comment from Bill: "you can always use Photoshop to blur ar...
Comment from Jonathan: Correction - 1.5 times as small (still q...- Comment from Jonathan: m43 is twice as small as APS-C, that's q...
kesztió
2 years ago |Guys!
Pleeeease!
Forget hybrid viewfinder!
This thing is useless on interchangeable lens system cameras, hence on m43.
jeff
2 years ago |um no , micro43 is currently being driven by people who think people want SLR’s REALLY REALLY REALLY small
people dont want that , nobody wants to carry around a small ass camera with a 6 inch long slow as hell zoom lense on it , it defeats the purpose of having a small camera you can take anywhere and makes the camera unbalanced.
what people want (and have always wanted) is an affordable leica , which fuji seems to be doing and will make massive bank by doing so.
Micro 43′s only needs about 5 lenses to be successful
3 of them being small, fast, high quality primes in the 24mm , 35mm and 50mm focal lengths.
why anybody would spend 800 dollars on a 300mm zoom lense thats max apature starts at 4.0 is beyond my understanding
blabla
2 years ago |“why anybody would spend 800 dollars on a 300mm zoom lense thats max apature starts at 4.0 is beyond my understanding”
Sport/wildlife photography.
But m43 bodies may not be best fit for these niches.
jeff
2 years ago |“sports wild life photography”
for like 200 bucks more you can get the 50-200mm 43 lense at 2.8
the lenses for micro 43 are a joke at the prices they are asking for is what im trying to say.
MikeS
2 years ago |“for like 200 bucks more you can get the 50-200mm 43 lense at 2.8″
200? Try 1000.
And 600 bucks for a 600mm equivalent (i.e. 100-300mm Panasonic) with stabilization ain’t too shabby.
Primes are a bit lacking for the system, but u4/3 is great for the times where lugging around my D700 is impractical/conspicuous.
hd72
2 years ago |Hi Jeff, the Zuiko 50-200mm is $400 more than the Panasonic 100-300mm on both Amazon and B&H right now. It gives you 1 to 1.5 stops more in aperture, but has no image-stabilization on Panasonic bodies. And its maximum zoom is effectively 400mm as opposed to 600mm. Those are some reasons why someone would choose the Panasonic. I’m sure the Zuiko is great for a shallow depth of field especially at the wider end, though. I got the 100-300 for wildlife, so the portrait-length isn’t as important as the tele end.
pdc
2 years ago |I have both the Panasonic 100-300 f/4.0-5.6 and a Nikon AF-I 300/f2.8 with Nikon TC301 2x teleconverter. At 300mm and f/5.6 the imagery of both lenses on a Panasonic G1 is not that much different. At infinity, the Nikon glass is definitely sharper, but out to 100 meters or so I cannot see any differences. I can travel easily with the Panasonic camera and lenses – I wouldn’t even think of travelling with my big old Nikon gear, especially if I need long telephoto. Of course, at home in lousy winter light I can get some good images maxing out the big Nikon that I can’t with smaller glass.
tgutgu
2 years ago |Unfortunately, it is YOU, who has absolutely no clue about what people want. THEY want portable system camera, which can replace their buly DSLR systems in most cases. Thus the Lumix G system with the GH2 body concept is right on target.
The OP is absolutely right: the Fuji X100 does not really makes sense as it has no interchangeable lens system. It’s use is simply too limited. If you look at the excellent, large EVF of a GH2, the hybrid vF has not much point.
THE people do not want Leica replacements, they want a versatile camera system, which can feet both demands: an ultra portable body like the GF2 and an advanced body like the GH2, on which I can use the same lenses.
Fuji is on the wrong route with the X100. It will be a collector’s niche camera, but not a workhorse for photo enthusiasts.
Thomas
jeff
2 years ago |the biggest and most exciting product at photokina was the x100 hands down and there are polls to show it.
These small camera systems are a joke with huge lenses that cost too much.
small cameras and small primes , thats what the original pen film camera did and it was sucessful
Thomas
2 years ago |Hmm.. Please let me point out that no-one of YOU ALL HAVE ANY CLUE what the people want/not want. Or please show me wrong by putting up some data here.
You simply generalize based on what you and perhaps a couple of your friends/some people on this forum (a very homogenic group btw) sais.
Making this kind of speculations is both silly and naive, and even more so is bickering over them. Let the companies do their speculations based on real market studies, and state your opinions as opinions (not facts).
Miroslav
2 years ago |“micro43 is currently being driven by people who think people want SLR’s REALLY REALLY REALLY small ”
I want a REALLY REALLY REALLY small camera with SLR image quality. Ever tried to get in a concert with a large camera? Ever been to a beach and hated having to lug more than 1kg of gear with you? Ever gone to a night out with friends and wanted to put a camera in your girlfriend’s hand bag? Well with m4/3 you can do all those things and take great pictures. That’s what it’s all about. And since lenses are interchangeable, you can put a prime if you don’t like large zooms.
jeff
2 years ago |you want a small camera with great image quality
great , that doesnt change the fact that most of the lenses for m43 are huge and stick out just as much as the lenses for normal SLR system.
olympus needs to make GOOD FAST PRIMES for their pen cameras and if they make zooms they need to be collapsable like the kit pen lense.
the idea of the pen is to have a small camera profile , it doesnt matter how big you make the camera body if the lenses are 10x the size of the camera.
erik
2 years ago |pretty much everyone is right. there are some that want long lenses or zoom lenses or primes. It all depends on how and what you like to shoot.
however, If I were to fall into one camp versus the other, I prefer small cameras and small primes. I haven’t used zoom lenses in a decade or more. I don’t like the large size and I don’t like the slow apertures. In the film days, I shot with a Nikon FM2n and a 28mm prime almost exclusively. That Fuji pretty much fits the bill for me, but I’ll admit it may be as a second body.
But I think the mass audience wants the versitility of a zoom. It just doesn’t fit the way I like to shoot.
Plus, who’s to say that there won’t be auxiliary lenses for the Fuji? then it will be a system camera…
Joel
2 years ago |“These small camera systems are a joke with huge lenses that cost too much.”
G2 with 20/1.7 cost me (new) about UD$800 shipped to my home, probably cheaper than the X100 and I have options to add more lenses. Like the Oly 9-18mm still small.. Voigtlander 40/1.4 and 75/2.5 (M mount, adapted) both still small… I see that as the difference, yes there are large slow lenses like the 100-200 4-5.6, but if you don’t want that (me) there are plenty of other options, the x100 has no lens options…
Joel
2 years ago |US$800 not UD..oops..
deniz
2 years ago |couldnt agree more. i have yet to understand the point of all these stupid zoom lenses.
canard
2 years ago |Okay, but you can get a micro camera and the Panasonic 20 f/1.7. Probably similar size to the Fuji, significant difference may be handling and it may not stroke your “I’m a TRUE” photographer ego in the same way, and by all accounts way cheaper (I work in retail and we’re hearing rumblings that the Fuji will debut at around $1600 here in Canada – that’s quite a pretty penny just for vintage good looks – the manager of one of the shops I part time at isn’t even sure if he wants to order any).
And then with the micro camera if you want or need you can add zooms. Some of which are big, true, but awfully small if you compare the 300mm zooms to 600mm lenses on 35. It’s an option, which you don’t have to use. I don’t get the “any option that doesn’t fit my self image as a photographer is stupid and I’m going to crap all over it” attitude.
blabla
2 years ago |Pleeeease!
Do you really need to flame every news about X100 with hate of hybrid OVF?
Like in every news, someone will tell you this have been done before and was totally useable, and this time it’s my turn. From pre WWII old leica to past years contax G2 (autofocus! And automatically zoomed ovf to fit the lens fov).
Miroslav
2 years ago |Well, technically it’s possible to make a hybrid viewfinder even with zoom lenses. Native lenses communicate electronically with the body and supply the focal length information to the camera. If Panasonic/Olympus engineers than made a tunnel-type OVF, similar to those on the old P&S cameras, it could mimic through the lens OVFs of DSLRs using the information from the lens. The other part, the EVF, could be done the way Fuji did it.
Now, what would be the point of such complicated system I don’t know, I’m perfectly fine with EVFs. I sometimes miss OVF I used in the film days, but not much
.
I
2 years ago |Once again, I will repeat the same comment: you can easily adapt the concept to interchangeable lenses using overlayed framelines (especially with lenses transmitting information such as focal lenght to the body) . Of course, it will not work for important telephoto. But I am doing mainly wide-angle, it will be a huge added value to have an optical viewfinder. For situations where it does not work (telephoto) you just switch over to the EVF. Nothing so complicated.
jeff
2 years ago |that camera is so sex , i want one exactly like it
Don Pope
2 years ago |Some proofreading before posting the article would have been nice.
Richard
2 years ago |What is the point of this post?
You must be really really struggling for news / rumors.
If you have no quality information, can i suggest not posting anything at all rather than guff?
Luc Charlier
2 years ago |Hey Richard,
what is the point of your comment?.
You must be really struggling for something really interesting to do, if you need to read posts that do not add to your enjoyment.
If you have too much time, take your camera and go out taking some pictures with it.
Admin, keep on with the good work.
jak0b
2 years ago |This article actually has some relevance to 4/3 products… I think…
As far as i remember Olympus was the first company to bring in-body image stabilization, electronic sensor cleaning and live-view to the consumer camera arena. It would be weird if they weren’t working on some new technology advancement…
Miroslav
2 years ago |I’m sure admin knows something we don’t
. Maybe he’s making a buildup to that FT5 rumor he promised on Saturday 
.
admin
2 years ago |+1 Miroslav
Henrik
2 years ago |… but that is something you have been saying for a long time now
. It has come to a point where I dont really get excited anymore ;<.
But no matter what I appreciate your work and effort!
Greg
2 years ago |What is the point of this comment?
You must be really struggling for significance on the web.
If you have no interest in a product that appeals to m43 users for obvious reasons, can I suggest you shut the fuck up rather than brag about aimlessly?
hd72
2 years ago |It’s not that anyone hates the hybrid OVF. I think it’s very clever, it’s just that it’s easy to get it to work when you have one tiny, fixed pancake lens. Seriously, look at that photo at the top of the post! That lens is tiny compared to most of the m4/3 zooms, and it still comes within millimeters of the viewfinder opening.
I’ve got 3 different Panasonic zooms on my GF1 where all the AF assist lamp illuminates is the side of my lens.
There’s absolutely no room for a viewfinder opening on the front of the camera that wouldn’t be obstructed.
Maybe if Panasonic had made nothing but tiny, manual-focus primes for $3000 apiece like Leica it could have been different.
The Contax G2 is a really great-looking camera. But its lenses were small. They started out as primes, and the zooms came later (designed with that OVF in mind), and there was even a separate viewfinder that attached in the hotshoe for focal lengths the OVF couldn’t handle – a necessary complication since there was no EVF.
The reason i feel so strongly about this is I very much want a viewfinder built into the body of a rangefinder-sized Olympus or Panasonic, but i DO NOT want them to ruin the device by forcing a hybrid VF. They would have to make the body significantly larger, or overly complicated with an expensive contraption to move the VF, and there’s no way for it to accommodate all focal lengths from 14-600mm. It’s unfortunately too late for an OVF – a great many lenses are out, and they’re big. It’s been one of the criticisms of m4/3 in general.
I really don’t want Panasonic or Olympus to create the Windows Vista of cameras to try to retro-fit something that isn’t necessary and doesn’t belong. This isn’t Microsoft4/3rds.
MikeS
2 years ago |“This isn’t Microsoft4/3rds”
Oh come on, don’t dash all of our hopes for a Zune Camera.
hd72
2 years ago |Haha I’m sure it will be highly-customizable, all at the expense of everything that matters.
Tomas
2 years ago |“Cool – I can record video in Flash!! Oh, wait, the battery’s dead.”
safaridon
2 years ago |I for one would like to hear some comment from those who handled the X100 at the photo show on how well this small combo OVF/EVF actually worked? I assume from the pictures that the view size is only 0.2″ and previous small OVFs have suffered from tunnel vision or not being accurate? On the other hand this combo OVF/EVF appears smaller in overall size than the external VF1 EVF for the GF1 and still probably the largest size practical for an inbody rangefinder style without the body becoming very large.
If there is another manufacturer like either Oly or Pany involved in the development of this OVF/EVF then Oly would seem the most logical as often mentioned in past with possible working with Fuji and having problem fitting an EVF into a very small PEN body?
On the other hand Pany with its tiny 14/2.5 already has an interchangeable m4/3 lens with a size which could work on such as camera and maybe they will introduce one or more other small primes of similar size to go with the GF2? Note with ETC provisions for extending the focal length for range Pany may not need to go as far.
I am amazed that this hydrid OVF/EVF size even with higher definition appears to be smaller than a EVF stand alone? Granted the OVF would not work with other zoom lenses or larger focal lengths but then why not just use the OVF for the Pany kit 14/2.5 lens and the EVF function for all other lenses?
Steve
2 years ago |The only way we will see this from another manufacturer is if they come out with a fixed lens camera. This is the only way you can get this solution to work.
I don’t see Olympus or Panasonic doing this as they want to sell lenses.
pdc
2 years ago |When the X100 becomes a reality, we can make some objective comparisons with Panasonic/Olympus micro four-thirds. The comments in the Kawahara interview may prove specious. The “bokeh” comment is just marketing rubbish. While I admit to being a little frustrated at the slow rate of improvement in micro four-thirds sensors, I remain confident that this format is a long term winner, and is as good a compromise between image quality, photographic flexibility, and portability as we can hope for.
Greg
2 years ago |“The “bokeh” comment is just marketing rubbish.”
Why please?
canard
2 years ago |Because the whole concept of “bokeh” is marketing rubbish. The ability to selectively de-focus backgrounds is a photographic tool, but the “I can haz bokeh?” crowd is fixated on something that only looks good in a handful of images (and even then only usually at computer screen sizes and resolutions – prints dominated by defocused areas tend to look like arse).
pdc
2 years ago |Because bokeh is more an artefact of the lens, the aperture
it is used at, and the dynamic range and backlighting in the scene, rather than an artefact of the sensor.
calxn
2 years ago |Your comments are rubbish. Bokeh difference is real and samples are readily available on the web. The 20/1.7 would be the equivalent of a 40/3.2 or so on 35mm. So, Fuji Film and Leica, 2 vangaurd of photography are wrong and you’re right? Go educate yourself before writing rubbish.
canard
2 years ago |See, as proof of my above comment, the opinion of this guy that viewing samples on the web constitutes being photographically educated. B
Jonathan
2 years ago |APS-C does have a small advantage over 4/3 in terms of DOF (aproximately the equivalent of one f stop), but remember: we are talking about a 23mm f/2 lens.
The X100 will NOT offer shallow enough DOF to isolate human subjects (unless you are thinking of extreme close ups), but will do the trick with small objects such as jewelry, flowers etc. Check out the sample pictures in Fuji’s website.
On the other hand, going the APS-C way gives Fuji much more latitude in selecting the best sensor they can, they are not bound to buy sensors from Panasonic…
Expect much better dynamic range (Sony sensors provide up to 4 – four – additional stops over Panasonics current generation) and high Iso performance.
Fuji is doing the right thing. I wonder how much bigger would a FF version of the X100 be (imagine the image quality such a camera could offer).
@admin – I am curious to know how you deduced from Hiroshi’s words that the X100′s hybrid VF is a joint effort involving another camera maker.
calxn
2 years ago |The argument is not about how much of a difference in bokeh it has. The bonehead(s) make defending their love for a large corporation by saying there is no difference between m43 and APS-C. They neglect all the reviews, including those in their own camp, e.g. Mr Bloom, who have reviewed the best of m43 and APS-C and have all walked away with definite belief there is a difference. Dynamic range, bokeh, ISO, etc. I can tell you, having owned everything from p&s to m43 to APS-C to FF to digital medium format, there is a definite difference. There have been so many reviews and demonstration of differences, even on this very website. Those who are blind will defend their format to the end. They can’t afford FF or medium format so they must fight the fight. It’s a shame. I’ve come to accept the limitation of m43 and wouldn’t mind buying back in again in the future because you don’t need the best all the time, but I won’t be sitting around pretending there isn’t a difference.
What Fuji said mirrors what Leica said. Bokeh, dynamic range, iso capabilities. Hate to say it, but I’ve come to believe these defenders of falsehoods are nothing but bitter, jealous people with thinner wallets. No one begrudges a poorer man, but everyone hates the poorer man who makes a scene about it.
m43 has its place, but there is NO format that will triumph over all. They will all coexist, but in the end, I think either APS-C or FF will own the marketshare. m43 will have it’s place just as p&s have their place.
demian
2 years ago |Wise words. Thank you calxn,
demian
Miroslav
2 years ago |“m43 has its place, but there is NO format that will triumph over all. They will all coexist, but in the end, I think either APS-C or FF will own the marketshare. m43 will have it’s place just as p&s have their place.”
That’s the 2010 view. In the long run and if the investments in formats are similar, APS-C will loose to m4/3 because of the bulk. The time will come when m4/3 will have clean ISO 6400 and APS-C clean ISO 12800 with similar advances/differences in DR, but it just won’t matter to the end user because what m4/3 offers will be good enough. But the size/weight difference will still be there.
Full frame and medium format are different story, they will be used by professionals and those who feel like one
.
Miroslav
2 years ago |This is the old Sony 12 Mpx sensor, used in Pentax k-x and k-r for example. I don’t know how much they can squeeze out of it, but I don’t think they should be too proud of it. They wouldn’t loose much if they went/waited for the 2011 Panasonic m4/3 sensor. But the Sony is much cheaper now, so I presume the decision was based on that as well.
no name
2 years ago |I hate this camera!Horrible design!
Henrik
2 years ago |I wouldnt say that I hate it but I wont buy it either and its not a good looking camera according to me. E-p1 and 2 looks alot better I think.
SkyZ
2 years ago |Fuji tells the truth. Better image quality+high ISO usability/relatively low noise NEED bigger sensor AND supreme lenses, it’s almost physic. 4/3 went half way (4/3 ZD lenses), and m4/3 went 1/8 way (ridiculously expensive antique cine lenses, like Cooke, Carl Zeiss Jena, Angenieux… etc and have to use them in MF mode).
Anyway, to me the real meaning of m4/3 system, or APS-C type of EVIL cameras or even Leica M system are about snapshot, they aren’t born to be all rounder, don’t ever think about wild life photography or professional portrait, just leave it to Canikon/Pentax/Sony (or even better, 120 format cameras like 645D/Hasselblad/Phase one… etc in the studio).
canard
2 years ago |Screw it – let’s just all get 8×10 plate cameras. That’s the only really acceptable format.
Who feels like mixing up some collodion?
RW
2 years ago |SkyZ;
Gosh – that’s the first time I have ever heard it said that you can’t do a professional portrait with a Leica M. I understand your point – but you hurt the credibility of your arguments with statements like that.
SkyZ
2 years ago |Okay, I have to say I was wrong about Leica M system, it’s a totally different breed and the smallest sensor it used was APS-H, and the quality of their lenses are unquestionable.
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |You only (maybe) get truth out of marketroid when you have his neck in guillotine!
In absolute sense sensor’s sensitivity or signal vs. noise performance depends on its light gathering ability meaning pixel’s size.
And for example 12MP 4/3 sensor has slightly bigger area per pixel than Canon’s latest 18MP sensor.
So if both sensors were made with same manufacturing process and same design hyped APS-C Canon would actually loose in noise/high ISO performance.
Also that bigger sensor isn’t automatically always better than smaller: If DOF gets too shallow for the purpose stopping down eats away signal strength which fast negates any sensitivity advantage of bigger sensor. (when sensor tech is at same level)
So unless shallower DOF is needed advantage of bigger sensor is more in capability for more pixels for bigger print sizes than in anything else.
Or are you one of those insisting pegs of every shape fit just fine to square hole?
demian
2 years ago |Hiroshi Kawahara, Operations Manager at Fujifilm says:
“From the viewpoint of image quality, the APS-C system has a clear advantage over Micro Four Thirds (in particular, high sensitivity and low noise). Also, for obtaining a beautiful soft focus background “bokeh” effect, APS achieves beautiful result. For these reasons, we chose an APS-C sized sensor.”
That’s also my opinion. I like also the 2/3 format. Thank you Fujifilm.
Jonathan
2 years ago |just a few remarks
bokeh designates the (more or less subjective) quality of OOF areas of the frame rather than absolute DOF. you can have thin DOF and bad (read harsh) bokeh and vice versa.
as such bokeh is more of an attribute of the lens than of the sensor size, though obviously with smaller sensors and deeper DOF the entire bokeh issue becomes moot as practically the entire frame is in focus.
Fuji may have achieved even shallower DOF on a 4/3 size sensor by using a longer FL (25mm or 50mm equivalent), wider aperture lens. the following figures are based on the DOF Master online calculator:
APS-C (12.3MP Sony A500 sensor), 23mm, f/2, OD 6ft: 1.67ft
4/3 (12MP Panasonic sensor), 25mm, f/1.4, OD 9ft: 1.67ft
4/3 (12MP Panasonic sensor), 25mm, f/1.2, OD 9ft: 1.4ft
neither is very useful for background isolation of, say, a head and shoulders portrait unless the background is pretty distant.
there are MANY good reason for choosing APS-C for this specific camera, DOF per se is not one of them, bokeh even less so.
i’m hoping the X100 proves to be an awesome camera, if Fuji succeed in pulling this one out i’ll be buying one myself. it will not replace my micro 4/3rds kit.
Ihateidiots
2 years ago |This is pretty much what I thought too. For such a bloody large wide lens, getting a good DOF is near impossible. Fuji should have just chucked a 35mm/f1.4 lens instead.
Jonathan
2 years ago |personally i find 35-40mm (equivalent) to be a best FL in a single lens camera.
the Konika Hexar had a 35/2 lens, the Leica Minilux 40/2.4, the Contax T2 (i still have this camera) a 38/2.8, the Nikon had 28mm and 35mm models and Sigma followed the same path with their DP1 and DP2 (effective FLs).
35mm, or >50mm effective FL reproduces the ‘normal’ perspective more or less but the framing would be too tight.
i think Fuji is spot on with the X100 specs.
Daemonius
2 years ago |With who is Fuji working? Sony ofc. Hybrid viewfinder is one of things that SLT A77 is supposed to have. Ofc, its just rumor..
I
2 years ago |???!!!
Portable – GH-2?!
I don’t see any real advantage over my E-410 and E-620. GF-1/2 I understand, but the GH-2 being right on targe with regard to size and portability?!
Seika
2 years ago |“but in view of the speed with which other manufacturers’ technology is currently adopted, it’s possible this might happen.”
Sounds like: we’re not sure, but these days everyone is copying each others, so why not? We can’t rule out nobody would copy our H(ybrid)VF concept.
Not neccessarily they work with other company to design or implement it.
Unless something is gone in translation.
Thomas
2 years ago |I don’t understand why the X100 has to be a fixed lens camera. Is it some technical reason?
I had one of those Canon RFs fixed at 40mm and grew tired of it pretty quickly.
demian
2 years ago |Before you ask the question, you would have to read the interview.
The reason (according to the interview) is:
… it is very difficult for an interchangeable lenses system to be compatible with a “hybrid viewfinder” system. In addition, achieving compact size and structure for high-resolution becomes a problem in interchangeable lenses systems. We will of course consider the possibility of forthcoming models reflecting the expectation of the end-users.
I like to use a fixed lens to photograph, it forces me to be creative.
Nathan
2 years ago |I’d like to see Hybrid Viewfinder in an SLR. I don’t consider rangefinders to be adequate for a wide enough cross section of photography.
Nobody uses Leica rangefinders to do macro or small product photography or food photography. Nobody uses them to shoot birds or wildlife. They are extremely boutique, expensive, but great at candid street photography and wide angle landscapes. Great indoors also, but they are not the singular tool that SLRs are.
I, too, experimented with a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. 40mm was cool, but there were times I would have killed for a 2x converter on the dang thing. It couldn’t really do portraits at all.
I liked having it with me, but half the time I pulled it out of the glove compartment, the thing I found to shoot wasn’t a 40mm shot. More likely it was a 28mm shot or an 85mm shot.
Ihateidiots
2 years ago |Actually, I wonder if Epson is the company Fuji is working with. They do have a unique set of technologies, not least Epson did work with Cosina to build a digital rangefinder once.
Aisha
2 years ago |ohh cute camera! too bad its with a fixed lens
Nathan
2 years ago |“From the viewpoint of image quality, the APS-C system has a clear advantage over Micro Four Thirds (in particular, high sensitivity and low noise). Also, for obtaining a beautiful soft focus background “bokeh” effect, APS achieves beautiful result. For these reasons, we chose an APS-C sized sensor.”
What an unbelievably stupid thing to say. The 4/3 sensor is not that much smaller than APS-C. It’s just squarer. It’s a hell of a lot wider, but only about 10 percent taller.
Now, if you need an image that’s got a higher L:W ratio, and you’d be cropping the 4/3 image to get there, then your used sensor size is about half that of the APS-C. I’ve run into this issue sometimes with full-length portraits and landscapes, but it’s not caused me image quality issues that affect prints.
The real issue is that APS-C sensors are more widely available and do have better image quality. It’s not a huge difference, but there is a difference.
Personally, I’m usually fighting for MORE depth of field. It’s not hard to get shallow depth of field when you want it, and you can always use Photoshop to blur areas if you like. Conversely, though, when using a larger sensor and longer focal length (natch), you cannot use post-processing to restore the depth of field you did not have.
demian
2 years ago |You are right about the small difference between the 4/3 and the 3/2, but I like the taller en wider 3/2 aspect ratio and then is the difference quite large: 4/3: 226 mm2, 3/2: 372 mm2
Jonathan
2 years ago |m43 is twice as small as APS-C, that’s quite a bit smaller in my book.
Jonathan
2 years ago |Correction – 1.5 times as small (still quite a substantial difference):
Sony APS-C: 23.5 x 15.6 mm = 366.6 sqmm
Panasonic GF1: 18 x 13.5 mm = 243 sqmm
Bill
2 years ago |“you can always use Photoshop to blur areas if you like”
Idiot technophile that pretend to be a photographer award of the day.
Seika
2 years ago |Each to their opinion.
There is these two group of photographers.
One that think it’s stupid to not use what’s available (auto focus, automatic exposure calculation, software correction, ability to take thousands of pictures to secure that single frame for sure rather than sorry for it later). If it can be fixed later, don’t worry too much. If it can’t be fixed later, get it done when shooting.
Other that think if “everyone can do it” (with all the technology) it’s not art (got to have it done in camera, one shot one kill, everything by hand and brain).
While journalism or some contests would not allow modification, all’s fair elsewhere.