x-pro1 and x-pro 2 OVF frame lines offset to the bottom

[haroldp]

My x-pro1 and x-pro 2 OVF frame lines are offset to the bottom in landscape mode, meaning that there is extra coverage on the bottom of the frame, and the top cuts off slightly.

 

Is this normal, and can it be adjusted.

 

I am a 45 year Leica user and understand OVF framelines. Leica being mechanical sets it's frame box for close in, and leaves extra coverage evenly around the frame, never cuts off.

[gdanmitchell]

Are you referring to the frame lines being offset downward and to the right a bit after you half-press the shutter release? If so, that is the default mode in the OVF. The camera is adjusting for the rangefinder's normal slight displacement form the actual image position, and it is doing so in a very smart way — leaving the AF point where you positioned it but showing the true frame margins.

 

There is an option in settings — sorry, forgot the name — that changes this behavior so that the frame lines stay the same but the AF area indicator moves.

 

Dan

[haroldp]

Thank you for the reply. That is not what I am seeing.

I know the behavior of a parallax compensate OVF.

After all of the OVF frameline moves following focus, I get extra coverage on the bottom and cut off on the top at all distances.

 

Both my X-pro1, and X-pro2 are doing this.

 

My 5 Leica's do not.

[gdanmitchell]

Thank you for the reply. That is not what I am seeing.

I know the behavior of a parallax compensate OVF.

After all of the OVF frameline moves following focus, I get extra coverage on the bottom and cut off on the top at all distances.

 

Both my X-pro1, and X-pro2 are doing this.

 

My 5 Leica's do not.

 

OK, I think you are referring more to the difference between the (moved) framelines and what you see in the captured image. Is that it? 

 

I'll have to double-check that when I shoot with the X-Pro2 a lot later this week when I visit an urban environment. Are you using a Fujifilm lens?

 

Don't be offended that I mentioned the other possibility. When responding to forum questions it isn't always easy to know the background of the photographer, or his/her experience with a particular camera, particularly a brand new one. (I think I can actually beat your 45 years of experience. I've earned the gray in my beard as seen in my profile photo... ;-)

 

Take care,

 

Dan

Edited March 26, 2016 by gdanmitchell

[haroldp]

Dan:

 

Thank you again for responding.

You are correct, the framelines do not correspond to the captured image.

 

I use only fuji X lenses on these cameras and usually autofocus.

 

I expect OVF's of this type to cover slightly less than the captured image so nothing expected is cut out, but not to have anything inside the framelines not be in the image.

 

Leica's only cover 90% of the image in the framelines because the frame size cannot change while focusing, so the frameline covers about 92% close in, and about 86 % at infinity. Leica for film also assumed that people were shooting slides and compensated for the mount covering part of the frame.

 

Digital Fuji's with electronic / variable framelines should do better.

 

I learned to compensate with the Pro-1 and was hoping for better with the pro2.

 

If mine is like everyone else's, then I will compensate, if not, I will hammer Fuji to fix it.

 

We are probably close in experience. I got my first Leica M2 (and Nikon F) in 1966.

 

Regards ... Harold

[KenBures]

I think I am having a problem with my OVF that is related to the issue of this thread. I have a non-Fuji 90mm lens attached to an X-Pro2 with Fuji's M-mount adaptor. The OVF shows not one but two brightline frames. Both are the same (correct) size but one is bright and has the "focus zone" box at its center, and the other frame is dimmer and offset from the brighter one by about 10 percent of the frame's dimensions. Both are sharp, one does not appear to be a stray reflection or something like that. The dimmer frame does not have a "focus zone" box associated with it.

 

When the camera is in landscape orientation the dimmer frame is to the right of and below the brighter frame by about 10%, and when the camera is in portrait orientation this means that the dimmer frame is now below and to the left of the brighter one. The dimmer frame gives the correct framing (the actual image is slightly bigger than what this frame shows but it is centered properly). In the portrait orientation, the brighter frame cuts off the top and shows more at the bottom and left side, just as Harold experienced.

 

Does anyone know why there are TWO brightline frames? Is there a way to fix this problem?

 

Ken Bures 

[ggsa]

I have noticed soms cutting off as well, and I believe it might vary a bit per camera sample, but lacking a direct comparison, this is very subjective. I agree the bright frames should never include a part of the scene that is not included in the final image, so this needs to be improved.

 

Also the focus point indicator square is off by quite a significant portion, and the electronic range finder does not match the area in the focus indicator square, this can differ per focus distance and per focus point.

 

I wonder if it is some mechanical issue (misalignment of the viewfinder for example) or some software issue.

Edited May 4, 2016 by ggsa