Jump to content

Just how precise is your OVF ?


Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

First thread ! After using and loving my X-PRO1 for half a year I came to dive in the functions I use rarely only.

Surprisingly enough, I use the EVF/LCD practically 100% of the time !

Time and again I encountered users passionately defending their need for the optical viewfinder OVF of course expecting Fuji to carry it over to an X-PRO2.

 

I found that a bit strange because I just find that OVF to be totally unprecise.

But maybe it´s just my specimen so I give you something to compare with your experience... See the attached pic.

That picture is totally random and awful to look at so you can concentrate on the facts:

I had aligned the post and the edge of the road with the bottom and right framelines of the OVF- look what I got !

Meanwhile, the top and left edges of the picture are as close as I expected from experience with my Leica M6 from the early 2000s- totally useable.

 

Is this what I can expect from any X-PRO1/XF35 combo or is this too much ?

I cannot find a technical reason why the LCD framelines on this camera shouldn´t be much more exact than with a Leica M- the electronics have all the data (distance, focal lenght, camera orientation etc) to do a better job than the mechanical rangefinder, right ?

 

This thing doesn´t spoil my X-PRO1 experience at all- that´s the camera I settled right in with (size, IQ, lenses, "feel"), but I´m close to having it serviced just to find out about that OVF...

 

What do you say ?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Fuji publish a figure for frameline accuracy... Perhaps it's 90something percent. I don't remember exactly

 

I think the accuracy varies depending on things like target distance

 

For me?

 

The OVF is a feature, great for capturing the moment (provided that I've pre focused and preclocked exposure) great for seeing when something is about to enter the frame. Great for helping me compose a shot, I can see how it might look if I move the camera a bit

 

But for critical focus, and critical framing, the EVF is your friend :) (as you have stated)

 

I've never owned a Leica nor shot with one, but there's a reason the M240 offers live view and an accessory EVF and the Q doesn't have a OVF and that reason is focus and framing :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Optical viewfinders have never been precise. Single lens reflex cameras were developed to overcome this characteristic. Each has their virtues. There is zero lag with an OVF. One can view the surrounding area with an OVF with normal lenses and catch moments that would otherwise be missed, compared to the tunnel-vision of reflex cameras. Cameras with an OVF have been a traditional choice for candid and street photography. Focus is usually dead accurate, first with rangefinders and now with contrast detection in sensors.

 

Reflex viewing takes place on a screen, and the photographer sees exactly what the camera sees. Early SLRs were very slow to operate, and shooting lag was substantial. Now EVFs still have a bit of lag, but refresh quite quickly. Current dSLRs are quick to focus, but may need to have individual lenses fine tuned to be accurate with auto-focus. My D700 has memory for up to 12 different lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question to the OP

 

Are you,

 

1) looking through the OVF, framing the shot and taking the picture?

 

Or

 

2) looking through the OVF, framing the shot, half pressing the shutter button to induce the camera to move the framing box to adjust for parallax and then taking the picture?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question to the OP

 

Are you,

 

1) looking through the OVF, framing the shot and taking the picture?

 

Or

 

2) looking through the OVF, framing the shot, half pressing the shutter button to induce the camera to move the framing box to adjust for parallax and then taking the picture?

Hallo Fujists,

Thanks for taking your time, more opinions welcome !

 

@adzman808: it´s 2)- I composed by the corrected frame (at about 6-7m distance the frameline shift isn´t too much anyway)

I´m well aware that the EVF is more precise in framing but:

Still I´m wondering if my specific XP1 is actually off too much or if that offset is what everybody else would get with their XP1s

 

what do you think ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to make a test for you this morning, but it wasn't very scientific

 

I should try again!

 

Anyway, I noticed that my XP1 is more accurate with the frame lines on the left hand side, which was about right, compared to the right hand side which gave me more in the shot that I'd planned.

 

If in your test shot the post was where the frame line was, then I'd say I got about the same amount if extra framing on my right hand side too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I personally found this problem very annoying. The final image is "cropped" when compared  to the of OFV vision at the top and on the left part, thenon the picture  you loose part of the image  ( the same problem exist with the X100 ).

It would have been better if the OVF frames had a smaller coverage (  IE : 90%)  in order to get on the file all the info, and crop, if necessary, in the post production phase. I don't know if this problem has been corrected in the XP2 but certainly this will refrain me from buying another camera of this type.

By the way, the frames of Leica M240 are very precise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the XPro1, OVF accuracy is about 85 - 90% at best. With that in mind, I try to shoot a bit wider and crop. Some post processing is necessary.

 

The real problem comes when subject is close (like min focus distance of lens) where the hypothetical AF point may be a few mm off from the subject. 

 

With these in mind, the ovf is both a joy and challenge to use. Esp, when I nail it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The top cuts off slightly on the pro1, but not the pro2.

Leica's with mechanical ovf 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.

 

In any case nothing inside the frame lines should ever be cut off.

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

 

... H

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I too had lots of problems with the OVF abd gave up and used the EVF instead until I read this article: http://vopoku.com/fujifilm-ovf-focusing/

 

Once I understood how it worked I liked it and now use it most of the time. Sure its not 100% accurate but once you know what the basic limitations are and how it all works its great for composing

 

Steve V

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Have read all the interesting remarks about the OVF on the X-Pro1. I own the camera and I am very, very pleased with it, because it INVITES to be used, cannot let it lay down in my room....it INVITES FOR GOING SHOOTING!!!

 

About this parallax and inaccuracy issues of the OVF:

 

1. This 85 or 90% coverage is not a big deal and you get used to it easily and in practice it means simply you have pictures which have some more registered surface then you were thinking when taking the photo. Easy to adjust in post processing or do some "automatic" correction during shooting already, but a far more annoying issue (and so curious others have the same trouble):

 

2. found out that the bottom of the pictures contains much more registered surface then the additional surface at the right, left and upper frame lines (because of limited coverage). Very annoying, because the bottom line becomes unreliable as a reference in relation to the final composition. In practice you gonna use the upper frame-line as reference for the composition and you must taking into account that the camera will register more at the bottom then as indicated in the OVF all the time.

 

Are here any users who can confirm this and maybe found some "tricks" to tackle this annoying problem? (or my particular camera has a problem?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everybody,

First thread ! After using and loving my X-PRO1 for half a year I came to dive in the functions I use rarely only.

Surprisingly enough, I use the EVF/LCD practically 100% of the time !

Time and again I encountered users passionately defending their need for the optical viewfinder OVF of course expecting Fuji to carry it over to an X-PRO2.

 

I found that a bit strange because I just find that OVF to be totally unprecise.

But maybe it´s just my specimen so I give you something to compare with your experience... See the attached pic.

That picture is totally random and awful to look at so you can concentrate on the facts:

I had aligned the post and the edge of the road with the bottom and right framelines of the OVF- look what I got !

Meanwhile, the top and left edges of the picture are as close as I expected from experience with my Leica M6 from the early 2000s- totally useable.

 

Is this what I can expect from any X-PRO1/XF35 combo or is this too much ?

I cannot find a technical reason why the LCD framelines on this camera shouldn´t be much more exact than with a Leica M- the electronics have all the data (distance, focal lenght, camera orientation etc) to do a better job than the mechanical rangefinder, right ?

 

This thing doesn´t spoil my X-PRO1 experience at all- that´s the camera I settled right in with (size, IQ, lenses, "feel"), but I´m close to having it serviced just to find out about that OVF...

 

What do you say ?

Hi! I confirm that I have the same "error" in relation to my X-Pro1 in combination with the 35mm/2.0 and also with the 50mm/2.0 (see my other comment(s) on this page).

 

Funny thing is: the frame you see in the OVF compared to reality becomes more accurate when the subject distance becomes shorter and parallax correction becomes stronger!

 

Another thing I noticed: when making pictures on "infinite" (let's say more then 10 meters) and keeping left and upper frame-lines as reference, the actual result for the left and upper is almost accurate, while at right and even more at the bottom a lot of surface is added. This is strange, because taking into account that the OVF just reflects 85-90% of the total view, you would expect that you would get some additional surface in the final result at the left and the upper frame-lines as well.

 

Did anyone make some test pictures with the 50mm/2.0 and/or the 35mm/2.0 and getting same (annoying) results?

Edited by HansRO
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi everybody,

First thread ! After using and loving my X-PRO1 for half a year I came to dive in the functions I use rarely only.

Surprisingly enough, I use the EVF/LCD practically 100% of the time !

Time and again I encountered users passionately defending their need for the optical viewfinder OVF of course expecting Fuji to carry it over to an X-PRO2.

 

I found that a bit strange because I just find that OVF to be totally unprecise.

But maybe it´s just my specimen so I give you something to compare with your experience... See the attached pic.

That picture is totally random and awful to look at so you can concentrate on the facts:

I had aligned the post and the edge of the road with the bottom and right framelines of the OVF- look what I got !

Meanwhile, the top and left edges of the picture are as close as I expected from experience with my Leica M6 from the early 2000s- totally useable.

 

Is this what I can expect from any X-PRO1/XF35 combo or is this too much ?

I cannot find a technical reason why the LCD framelines on this camera shouldn´t be much more exact than with a Leica M- the electronics have all the data (distance, focal lenght, camera orientation etc) to do a better job than the mechanical rangefinder, right ?

 

This thing doesn´t spoil my X-PRO1 experience at all- that´s the camera I settled right in with (size, IQ, lenses, "feel"), but I´m close to having it serviced just to find out about that OVF...

 

What do you say ?

 

I am very curious: did you ever do the same test and keeping the upper and left frame-lines as a reference and what were the results?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Having shot with both Leica M series cameras for years, and SLRs, I found that you make different images with the rangefinder cameras. It isn’t about the accuracy of framing, but the way you look at the world though the OVF. That’s why I bought a used X-Pro1, and shortly there after, a new X-Pro 2 with several lenses. (18mm, 23mm and 50mm). FWIW, the X-Pro 2 has a more accurate OVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...