Fuji X-Pro user question please

[Harry Harrison]

Anyone still using one of these? I bought mine secondhand in beautiful unmarked condition because I wanted predominantly to use the Optical Viewfinder (OVF). Unfortunately much as I like it in every other way the OVF framelines are not properly aligned vertically with the actual image, they are in effect a little too high, at all focal lengths (they adjust in size according to the lens fitted - very clever).

 

This means that if I use the OVF the top of the resulting picture is chopped off and there is too much foreground. Note this is not associated with parallax compensation. Having used the excellent X100 for 10 years or so that came as a disappointment. I've seen online someone describing exactly the same problem. Are they all like this? I'd be grateful for any feedback. I bought the X-Pro1 to see how much I liked it with a view to maybe getting an X-Pro2, but I've also read of the same problem with an X-Pro2. Have I just got a 'Friday afternoon' camera?

[Mr Standfast]

Hello Harry, any particular lens?

 

[Harry Harrison]

20 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Hello Harry, any particular lens?

Hello there Mr. Standfast, any of them it seems but I specifically want to use it with the 35mm f1.4, the '50mm' standard as it were. It's a pain actually because I wanted a '50mm' X100 if you like, I like the way you see outside the frame, and optically, like a Leica rangefinder. 

[Mr Standfast]

Hi, I'll have a look. 😉

[Harry Harrison]

25 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Hi, I'll have a look. 😉

That would be great, thank you. I suppose if you take it that the frame is 24mm high (it isn't but let's pretend) then I'm out by about 5mm, quite significant, particularly where the top goes missing. I know the frame is just a guide, not the exact area captured, but it's difficult to compensate when it's consistently out in this way. X100 is conservative (small c) but accurately positioned.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Mr Standfast]

Ok, so on mine the bright frame matches the viewed area. Nothing is chopped off.

 

The Fujifilm X-pro 1 brochure shows examples of what you should get.

 

https://cupdf.com/document/fujifilm-x-pro1-brochure.html?page=10

 

The Fujifilm repair operation is, well it was, good.  Last problem I had they were able to discuss over email before I sent the camera in.

 

https://repairs.fujifilm.eu/en/contact/

 

Good luck!🦔

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

Ok, so on mine the bright frame matches the viewed area. Nothing is chopped off.

Thank you very much for checking, I really appreciate it. I hadn't seen that brochure, in fact my OVF looks like that, the frames don't look obviously too high there, it's only when you compare it with the EVF, and of course the picture itself, that the problem becomes apparent.

[Mr Standfast]

👍

[Steve Hyde]

On 14/09/2022 at 12:04, Harry Harrison said:

Anyone still using one of these? I bought mine secondhand in beautiful unmarked condition because I wanted predominantly to use the Optical Viewfinder (OVF). Unfortunately much as I like it in every other way the OVF framelines are not properly aligned vertically with the actual image, they are in effect a little too high, at all focal lengths (they adjust in size according to the lens fitted - very clever).

 

This means that if I use the OVF the top of the resulting picture is chopped off and there is too much foreground. Note this is not associated with parallax compensation. Having used the excellent X100 for 10 years or so that came as a disappointment. I've seen online someone describing exactly the same problem. Are they all like this? I'd be grateful for any feedback. I bought the X-Pro1 to see how much I liked it with a view to maybe getting an X-Pro2, but I've also read of the same problem with an X-Pro2. Have I just got a 'Friday afternoon' camera?

 Hi Harry,

 

as per the messages in the other thread I tried switching between the OVF and EVF on my X pro 2 yesterday. As it happened I was using my XF35 f1.4. 
 

With the OVF I get a slightly larger picture than I viewed in the frame lines. It’s not much but the image has slightly more foreground and the right hand edge goes out a bit wider.

 

Switching back to the EVF I get what I see but the resulting image also has even more foreground.  Using the OVF, At about 50ft away a car in the foreground is cut in half. Using the EVF I get the whole car. 
 

As I said before I never use the OVF. I do like my XPro 2 though. It’s my walk about, everyday camera with that 35mm lens (the older version).  Coupled with a Sony RX100 mkvi it pretty much does me for holiday and general walk about photography.
 

I like my XT2 as well but tend to use it my with any longer lenses, planned shoots, vintage lenses and mostly for setup food shots etc at home.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Steve Hyde

[Harry Harrison]

24 minutes ago, Steve Hyde said:

With the OVF I get a slightly larger picture than I viewed in the frame lines. It’s not much but the image has slightly more foreground and the right hand edge goes out a bit wider.

 

Switching back to the EVF I get what I see but the resulting image also has slightly more foreground.  Using the OVF, At about 50ft away a car in the foreground is cut in half. Using the EVF I get the whole car. 

Steve, thanks very much for doing this. I think your X-Pro2 is doing exactly what it is intended to do in that the EVF and the resulting image include slightly more than the OVF frame lines. That's crucial because if the the composition of your picture is defined by the framelines you can always crop down to it if you see fit, and it won't be by much anyway, and of course there may be slight parallax issues to accommodate. That's how I imagined my immaculate X-Pro1 would work as well but unfortunately with mine if I compose a picture with the OVF frame then the resulting image misses out the very top of that composition and includes too much foreground.

 

Anyway, thanks to yourself and Mr.Standfast I can see that mine is not performing as it should, and also that I should be OK with an X-Pro2 if I decide to upgrade. Before digital my walkaround camera has always been a Leica M2 which I still have and so I've just got used to the optical viewfinder.

 

I also have an X-T2 and I use it much as you do, there's not much it can't do in my sphere of photography and I also find the flip screen useful to see above crowds in certain situations, but I don't tend to use it as a walkaround camera.

 

Thanks again.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Steve Hyde]

👍

[Betty LaRue]

6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Steve, thanks very much for doing this. I think your X-Pro2 is doing exactly what it is intended to do in that the EVF and the resulting image include slightly more than the OVF frame lines. That's crucial because if the the composition of your picture is defined by the framelines you can always crop down to it if you see fit, and it won't be by much anyway, and of course there may be slight parallax issues to accommodate. That's how I imagined my immaculate X-Pro1 would work as well but unfortunately with mine if I compose a picture with the OVF frame then the resulting image misses out the very top of that composition and includes too much foreground.

 

Anyway, thanks to yourself and Mr.Standfast I can see that mine is not performing as it should, and also that I should be OK with an X-Pro2 if I decide to upgrade. Before digital my walkaround camera has always been a Leica M2 which I still have and so I've just got used to the optical viewfinder.

 

I also have an X-T2 and I use it much as you do, there's not much it can't do in my sphere of photography and I also find the flip screen useful to see above crowds in certain situations, but I don't tend to use it as a walkaround camera.

 

Thanks again.

Back in the day several years ago, in the FujiX forum I remember this being discussed concerning the X-Pros. Since I wasn’t enamored of those cameras and started out with the X-T1, I didn’t pay much attention because it didn’t concern me. But I do remember it being discussed a lot, but I can’t say if it was with all of the X-Pros or a particular one. I do know the X-Pro owners were a rabid bunch who loved the form. Almost cultish.

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Back in the day several years ago, in the FujiX forum I remember this being discussed concerning the X-Pros. Since I wasn’t enamored of those cameras and started out with the X-T1, I didn’t pay much attention because it didn’t concern me. But I do remember it being discussed a lot, but I can’t say if it was with all of the X-Pros or a particular one. I do know the X-Pro owners were a rabid bunch who loved the form. Almost cultish.

Thanks Betty, I might have a search there in that case. Not normally into cults, but I could make an exception for the X-Pro!

[Betty LaRue]

18 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks Betty, I might have a search there in that case. Not normally into cults, but I could make an exception for the X-Pro!

Use the search bar, I saw entries by using search words like X-Pro, parallax. Those were discussions from several years ago. Seems like whatever lens you have on matters. Most seemed to use the cameras with 23mm and 35mm. Don’t take this for gospel, but I think the longer the lens, the more parallax rears it’s head.

Remember, I’m not very technical and the whole bit with the parallax is over my head. So I leave it with vague suggestions and in your capable hands.

Edited September 17, 2022 by Betty LaRue

[Harry Harrison]

49 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Use the search bar, I saw entries by using search words like X-Pro, parallax. Those were discussions from several years ago.

I've already had a look, and will look some more. There was in fact a lot of consternation when the X-Pro1 came out in 2012 because it was so revolutionary. Few apart from Leica M rangefinder users understood the concept of an optical viewfinder, and how it needed to have some kind of parallax compensation according to how close you were to the subject, and then how the frame changed in size according to the lens fitted, and even accommodated zoom lenses, and more to the point, how it could never be 100% accurate. I've read a lot of comments where the camera was working as designed but photographers couldn't get used to it, or Leica users complaining because it wasn't exactly like a Leica M etc. Still, I'm on the trail and it's an interesting trail, for me anyway. Thanks again.

Edited September 17, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Betty LaRue]

11 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I've already had a look, and will look some more. There was in fact a lot of consternation when the X-Pro1 came out in 2012 because it was so revolutionary. Few apart from Leica M rangefinder users understood the concept of an optical viewfinder, and how it needed to have some kind of parallax compensation according to how close you were to the subject, and then how the frame changed in size according to the lens fitted, and even accommodated zoom lenses, and more to the point, how it could never be 100% accurate. I've read a lot of comments where the camera was working as designed but photographers couldn't get used to it, or Leica users complaining because it wasn't exactly like a Leica M etc. Still, I'm on the trail and it's an interesting trail, for me anyway. Thanks again.

You are welcome. BTW, I love my 35 1.4. It’s on my X-T4 right now. I also have the 56 1.2. There is a new 56 just released for US $999 that is supposed to focus faster and have rounder bokeh, but I like mine just fine. I am patient with my gear, and I guess I never noticed any focusing problems. I’m not a runner/gunner. With both of those lenses, the subjects I shoot with them doesn’t require instant focusing. It would matter more if my 100-400 lens and my 80 macro were slow focusing. I use those for insects/birds.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Betty LaRue