Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on September 24, 2019, 10:02:17 am
-
Any comments on the new features being introduced in the third version of this iconic camera? I like the way they were bold and made it more difficult/purposeful touse the rear screen, plus it will be made of titanium. An improved EVF is also in the list of updates.
-
I adore my Titanium camera (OM4Ti) but film cameras don't have issues with heat and I think that's the main concern here. That being said the X-Pro 3 isn't primary for video shooters.
I think the hidden screen is probably a hindrance for most shooters, definitely for video use.While 90% of the time I use EVF cameras with a fully articulating screen I have it in the reverse "closed" position, the other 10% is used for showing images, changing settings and live view. This will not be comfortable with the new design.
I use the D-Pad on Fuji cameras to change AF and exposure settings on the fly. Removing it (on an already sparse camera) provides no benefit at all.
The small screen for presets and exposure settings is kind of cool.
I'm really excited about the upgraded OVF - if it approaches Leica in quality I'll probably purchase the camera regardless of other niggles as the options for an AF rangefinder are extremely limited. Hopefully they leapfrog the X100F, which I actually prefer to the X-Pro 2 finder wise.
I wish Fuji would accept that X-Trans, on balance, provides little to no benefit and is a headache for many.
-
I always wondered why is “chimping,” ie, the ability to check the image you just took, viewed in such derogatory terms?
-
I always wondered why is “chimping,” ie, the ability to check the image you just took, viewed in such derogatory terms?
I've heard two explanations, neither of which strikes me as very persuasive:
- Taking time to review what you have just shot is a distraction that interrupts your effort to visualize the next image.
- If you know what you are doing, you shouldn't have to chimp to determine whether you nailed the shot.
The second rationale strikes me as especially bogus because unless you are operating the camera in full manual mode, chimping may be the only way to discover that the firmware has done something dodgy—e.g., botched autofocus—while you still have an opportunity to try the shot again.
On the other hand, depending on how good the electronic viewfinder is in the X-Pro3, using it to review an image may be as effective as looking at a back panel, especially in bright sunlight.
-
I wish Fuji would accept that X-Trans, on balance, provides little to no benefit and is a headache for many.
I respectfully disagree. I’m very happy with X-Trans. It’s no headache for me or many of my friends using X-Trans. It’s taken Adobe quite a while to actually do a reasonable job of demosaicing X-Trans though. For the best results I add an extra step with Iridient X-Transformer. I find the additional detail from X-Transformer quite worth it for a number of images. Depending on the image that step may not be necessary though. Yes, I am an Adobe Lr and PS user. FWIW I was a Canon SLR/DSLR shooter for over 40 years.
-
A funny and wise comment by kirk Tuck:
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2019/09/fuji-announced-new-x-pro3-fans-go-wild.html
-
:D
-
I always wondered why is “chimping,” ie, the ability to check the image you just took, viewed in such derogatory terms?
It's not the practice of checking your image that was used in a derogatory sense, it was the photographer's reaction to his images. I was told at the time the term was invented, back in the early days of digital, that it came from a photographer quickly paging through his images while looking at the screen, and making "Ooo, ooo, ooo," chimp-like noises in appreciation of his own work. Everybody checked images, only some people "chimped." 8-)
-
It's not the practice of checking your image that was used in a derogatory sense, it was the photographer's reaction to his images. I was told at the time the term was invented, back in the early days of digital, that it came from a photographer quickly paging through his images while looking at the screen, and making "Ooo, ooo, ooo," chimp-like noises in appreciation of his own work. Everybody checked images, only some people "chimped." 8-)
I knew that. But it doesn’t make sense for a camera manufacturer to deliberately design it to prevent an urban legend, depriving the majority of its legitimate use. I would never buy a camera with such a passive-agressive attitude.
-
It seems very unlikely that Fuji would design the camera to prevent an urban legend.
-
It seems very unlikely that Fuji would design the camera to prevent an urban legend.
And yet they did. Unless you have an alternative explanation?
-
My guess would be they did it for a very different reason. I don’t yet have a real idea who the potential buyers might be or in which country they may reside. I may live in the US but not everything revolves around the US.
-
I read a review plat SLR lounge I think it was. There story they say they got from Fuji is that the lcd was hidden to to encourage photographers to keep looking through the viewfinder and not spend too much time looking at the back of the camera. If they are reporting that accurately it seems weird to me.
I don’t chimp very often and when I do these days I go to the EVF rather but not everyone works that way. Why force photographers to not chimp if they wish to do so? I Lao use my lcd as a touch pad to move the focus point around and also have it set up to show info I don’t want in my viewfinder. I don’t even have it set up to show an image but it’s still very useful for other stuff.
I’m sure it will suit some people but for me I would not be attracted by that feature. It’s trying too hard to be a thing. Reminds me a bit of that Yashika I think it is that needs a little fake film canister to change picture styles. What’s next? A fake film advance lever you must use before taking the next photo? How about a little knob you must wind back 45 times before removing the SD card. Make you think about how many photos you are taking. That would give an authentic experience I think.
-
I don't mind the new LCd screen, as I don't use it often for viewing/composing. As a street and reportage camera for pros, with a better OVF and EVF, the resort to LCD would be less now?
If you simply want to review photos later on or go into the menu, the new screen is fine. I also think the XPRO is really not targeted at tripod users, so no harm there.
For shooting from the hip while looking down, it is fine.
-
What if you're shooting verticals from the hip?
Personally I think all photographic cameras without exception lacking an articulated screen for both orientations are flawed.
Including my Sony a7R3.
For shooting from the hip while looking down, it is fine.
-
None of this means anything unless you were considering buying the unreleased X-PRO3 anyway.
-
None of this means anything unless you were considering buying the unreleased X-PRO3 anyway.
Exactly!
I think there is a trend that most vocal opponents of a newly released product were not planning on buying it anyway.
I know I'm not, but that's why there is the X-T3 or the X-E3 for the form factor.
-
I am perfectly entitled to an opinion on a camera wether I am planning on buying it or not. It is part of my work to keep abreast of new developments and making that a habit is one of the reasons I am still a very busy photographer at almost 60. I have owned a Fuji digital camera and a number of lenses. I may buy another one at some point. I am a bit mystified by the positioning of the lcd on this camera and if anyone has anything interesting to say on the matter I would like to hear it. Perhaps I have overlooked or misunderstood something. Saying this conjecture is meaningless because I wasn’t planning on buying the camera is in itself an entirely meaningless statement and comes across as defensive and not much else.
-
I've heard two explanations, neither of which strikes me as very persuasive:
- Taking time to review what you have just shot is a distraction that interrupts your effort to visualize the next image.
- If you know what you are doing, you shouldn't have to chimp to determine whether you nailed the shot.
The second rationale strikes me as especially bogus because unless you are operating the camera in full manual mode, chimping may be the only way to discover that the firmware has done something dodgy—e.g., botched autofocus—while you still have an opportunity to try the shot again.
On the other hand, depending on how good the electronic viewfinder is in the X-Pro3, using it to review an image may be as effective as looking at a back panel, especially in bright sunlight.
Hmm... the only time I chimp is when I am faced with serious backlighting situations.
Yes, you do have to know something about how exposure works to do it (not chimp) with confidence, but hey, coming from film, it's a no-brainer.
There are many film photographers who claim never to use a meter; I have no idea if those same guys do their own developing and printing. If they did, they would soon learn that the eye is not terribly reliable. When I shot b/w film I would meter the set-up, and once I had that nailed, never look at the meter again unless I had to change something for some reason. With transparencies, I always used a meter to set the thing up, as above, but frequently checked to make sure the sun hadn't clouded over to a tiny degree that could go unnoticed. Colour trannie was far more vulnerable to light modification than was black/white film.
I had a Polaroid back for my Hassy pair but doubt that I pulled more than a dozen shots in all the many years I owned those lovely machines.
With digital, I have the Nikon on Matrix metering, and for anything that, as I explained when I came in, does not have extremes of backlighting, the thing is perfectly accurate enough for anything I have had to do.
In the case of that exteme backlight, I go off automatic metering, and once I have chimped the situation to my taste, don't use it again until in another lighting situation when, usually, it's back to Matrix. Otherwise, by the way, the camera is almost always on auto ISO, the most convenient aid of them all. With aperture (mainly) being the more important factor for me, shutter set to whatever I think the task needs, ISO can go where the science tells it to go as long as it isn't too high for my needs, which it is normally not. Actually, the greater problem I face is that sensors are too sensitive, and I hate using ND filters, even though I have a variable one.
P.S.
Just struck me: looking at making-of videos, one often sees as assistant darting into shot and checking something again with a meter. That's in the really big-time world... so meters are not obsolete quite yet.
-
Hmm... the only time I chimp is when I am faced with serious backlighting situations.
That's one of the nice things about an electronic viewfinder: it simplifies dealing with difficult lighting by allowing you to adjust the exposure before you snap the shutter. I especially appreciate the physical exposure compensation dial on the top of my X-T3 because I can locate and rotate it without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. The preview seems reasonably accurate—at least as accurate as chimping after the fact with the screen on the back of the camera, which I believe simply displays the little JPEG embedded in the raw file. Of course, if you're attempting to optimize the exposure—i.e., to get as much light to the sensor as possible without blowing out the highlights—you still need to acquire an intuitive sense of how much latitude the sensor offers, just as you needed to know the limits of each type of film you shot with in the analog era.
But I chose autofocus as an example in my previous post advisedly. In my experience, that's where digital camera automation is most prone to transient errors. I probably shouldn't have allowed myself to become so dependent on it, but that's water under the bridge now. I've tried a few times to revert to using manual focus on a regular basis, but I now find it a real burden. The autofocus technology on the Fujis has gotten better over time, although I don't think it is yet up to the level of the last of the several generations of Nikon DSLRs I have used, a D800E. But with rapidly- or erratically-moving subjects the D800E isn't perfect, either. So I need the rear screen even with it.
-
That's one of the nice things about an electronic viewfinder: it simplifies dealing with difficult lighting by allowing you to adjust the exposure before you snap the shutter. I especially appreciate the physical exposure compensation dial on the top of my X-T3 because I can locate and rotate it without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. The preview seems reasonably accurate—at least as accurate as chimping after the fact with the screen on the back of the camera, which I believe simply displays the little JPEG embedded in the raw file. Of course, if you're attempting to optimize the exposure—i.e., to get as much light to the sensor as possible without blowing out the highlights—you still need to acquire an intuitive sense of how much latitude the sensor offers, just as you needed to know the limits of each type of film you shot with in the analog era.
But I chose autofocus as an example in my previous post advisedly. In my experience, that's where digital camera automation is most prone to transient errors. I probably shouldn't have allowed myself to become so dependent on it, but that's water under the bridge now. I've tried a few times to revert to using manual focus on a regular basis, but I now find it a real burden. The autofocus technology on the Fujis has gotten better over time, although I don't think it is yet up to the level of the last of the several generations of Nikon DSLRs I have used, a D800E. But with rapidly- or erratically-moving subjects the D800E isn't perfect, either. So I need the rear screen even with it.
Yeah, but don't blame yourself for your current difficulties with manual focussing: the screens don't help you one little bit! I have more manual lenses than af ones, but the main problems are the screens along with depending, because of them, on that little focus confirmation light: it destroys my concentration on the subject far too much.
Af is great, all the same, once you get used to relying on it. Having said which, I only use the central spot and none of my cameras has eye-detection etc. but for what I do, it hardly matters anymore.
Rob
-
Last time I went to a live baseball game, I kept waiting for the instant replays you'd see at home on the TV. It drove me crazy until I learned to relax about it.
-
I am perfectly entitled to an opinion on a camera wether I am planning on buying it or not. It is part of my work to keep abreast of new developments and making that a habit is one of the reasons I am still a very busy photographer at almost 60. I have owned a Fuji digital camera and a number of lenses. I may buy another one at some point. I am a bit mystified by the positioning of the lcd on this camera and if anyone has anything interesting to say on the matter I would like to hear it. Perhaps I have overlooked or misunderstood something. Saying this conjecture is meaningless because I wasn’t planning on buying the camera is in itself an entirely meaningless statement and comes across as defensive and not much else.
Of course you are. But this camera is not for you. If you expect every camera to fit what you desire in a camera I suspect there won’t be much difference between them.
If none or few of the Fuji (or any manufacturer) lines would fit what you want, sure, I think you would have a valid point. But this is one line only; there are the X-T3, X-E3, X-H1. Plenty others to choose from. I have many Fuji lenses and cameras and I think this camera is for a particular type of photographer to which I don’t belong but I don’t lose much sleep over me not belonging.
-
It seems very unlikely that Fuji would design the camera to prevent an urban legend.
Fujifilm has offered exactly “no chimping” as an explanation, according to DPReview at https://m.dpreview.com/news/7641028419/fujifilm-teases-development-of-x-pro3-with-titanium-body-mini-rear-lcd-hidden-display-and-more
But maybe that is just spin to cover another motive, like the aggressively retro look with fake film box end on a tiny LCD. For my tastes, the X cameras are way too retro, but if that quirk improves the viability of a system with many other virtues, then “de gustibus non est disputandum”
-
Of course you are. But this camera is not for you. If you expect every camera to fit what you desire in a camera I suspect there won’t be much difference between them.
If none or few of the Fuji (or any manufacturer) lines would fit what you want, sure, I think you would have a valid point. But this is one line only; there are the X-T3, X-E3, X-H1. Plenty others to choose from. I have many Fuji lenses and cameras and I think this camera is for a particular type of photographer to which I don’t belong but I don’t lose much sleep over me not belonging.
When I think about it I realise what annoys me about this camera. I realise it’s my own take on it and my own interpretation but that’s how it goes.
I have admired the Fuji range of cameras for years. Fine equipment. Lovely lenses. But this camera strikes me as gimmicky. The little screen that looks like the holder we had on SLR’s for the end of the film box to remind us what film we had in the camera. The film emulations done in camera. It strikes me as hipster stuff(are hipsters still a thing?).
I do quite a lot of street photography. For my own pleasure pretty much. I have no issue buying a dedicated camera for this purpose. I haven’t quite settled on a camera yet for street and sometimes use my A9 with an old 28mm Minolta lens and sometimes with a new Sony 28mm prime. Sometimes I use my RX10iv and have considered upgrading to the new vii. I sometimes use an older Nikon A1 I think it is, the underwater version. I won’t put this Fuji on my list. I think it’s trying too hard. I don’t need to be reminded of my film days. I shot film for 20 years and remember it well. I don’t suffer from nostalgia.
I certainly won’t judge anyone who buys it. I’m sure many fine photographers will take many fine images with it. All I’m saying is it’s not for me. I don’t like the design philosophy. Doesn’t suit me.
-
Classic street photogs haven't been chimpers.....
hard to do with film ;D
-
An interesting thought: considering the fact that digital cameras all become so out of date so rapidly, why would anyone make one from titanium, other than to raise the costs?
Rob
-
Weight???
-
The little screen that looks like the holder we had on SLR’s for the end of the film box to remind us what film we had in the camera. The film emulations done in camera. It strikes me as hipster stuff(are hipsters still a thing?).
There are other types of information that can be displayed there. It basically functions as the top screen on the X-H1.
-
I could live with the re-arrangement of the LCD viewer, especially if the EFV & OVF are improved. But I have been hoping for years that Fuji would add GPS capability. Street shooting with my X-Pro 2 is great, and I would love to make the new version my travel camera. But GPS data has become such a valuable tool, especially with international travel. So I guess I'll need to keep lugging my 5D Mk IV around...
John
-
An interesting thought: considering the fact that digital cameras all become so out of date so rapidly, why would anyone make one from titanium, other than to raise the costs?
Rob
I'm thinking bragging rights more than anything but I could be wrong
-
An interesting thought: considering the fact that digital cameras all become so out of date so rapidly, why would anyone make one from titanium, other than to raise the costs?
Rob
I suspect that era of rapid obsolescence is coming to an end. There may be a few sharpness fanatics who want more and more of it, but for street shooting? I think the Fuji would probably serve you well for years. It's not my kind of camera, but from what I've read, it's very, very good.
-
Street looks better unsharp. It's about the people, the story they're telling.
-
Street looks better unsharp. It's about the people, the story they're telling.
Depending on the environment, I quite often add a bit of glow to my street images to give them a more old time look. Sharpness has it's place...but like everything else, overused and it takes away from the image.
-
I have been hoping for years that Fuji would add GPS capability. Street shooting with my X-Pro 2 is great, and I would love to make the new version my travel camera.
I think the issue that has held Fuji back is power. The current batteries used by the X-Trans cameras can't even survive a day of active shooting, and powering a GPS would tax them even more.
As a workaround, I've been using a dedicated GPS, a Bad Elf GPS Pro+ (https://bad-elf.com/pages/be-gps-2300-detail), for a couple of years now. Pricey, but it's extremely accurate and remarkably quick to achieve a satellite lock (it utilizes both the U.S. and Russian systems), a single charge is good for a full day, and it works with any camera I am using. There is plenty of competition at lower price-points, and I suspect many of the less expensive devices work as well or better than the GPS receivers built-into or attachable-to some cameras.
This approach isn't perfect because you need to sync the geotags with the image files in post. Adobe Lightroom makes this very easy; I don't know about other image-management software.
Actually, the biggest problem I've had is that I sometimes forget to put it in my pocket. My cellphone serves as a somewhat less accurate back-up.
-
Why do you need exact GPS locations for all your shots?
-
I think the issue that has held Fuji back is power. The current batteries used by the X-Trans cameras can't even survive a day of active shooting, and powering a GPS would tax them even more.
As a workaround, I've been using a dedicated GPS, a Bad Elf GPS Pro+ (https://bad-elf.com/pages/be-gps-2300-detail), for a couple of years now. Pricey, but it's extremely accurate and remarkably quick to achieve a satellite lock (it utilizes both the U.S. and Russian systems), a single charge is good for a full day, and it works with any camera I am using. There is plenty of competition at lower price-points, and I suspect many of the less expensive devices work as well or better than the GPS receivers built-into or attachable-to some cameras.
This approach isn't perfect because you need to sync the geotags with the image files in post. Adobe Lightroom makes this very easy; I don't know about other image-management software.
Actually, the biggest problem I've had is that I sometimes forget to put it in my pocket. My cellphone serves as a somewhat less accurate back-up.
I have not noticed a significantly increased battery drain caused by GPS in my mirrorless cameras. The EVF and LCD typically use considerably more power.
The 'less accurate' location of a cellphone is often good enough for me, therefore my Bad Elf is staying in the drawer. BTW, later iPhones are using GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and QZSS.
-
I have not noticed a significantly increased battery drain caused by GPS in my mirrorless cameras. The EVF and LCD typically use considerably more power.
The 'less accurate' location of a cellphone is often good enough for me, therefore my Bad Elf is staying in the drawer. BTW, later iPhones are using GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and QZSS.
My wife thinks her directions are the best. :-\
-
Why do you need exact GPS locations for all your shots?
It helps a lot with accurate captioning, and even identifying subjects. Whether it's a particular temple in Kyoto, a neighborhood in Vienna, or a location within a national park in Utah. During a day running around shooting, there is just no way I can write down notes for every exposure, so it's great to be able to unearth that data after the fact. And I really like the ability of the camera to embed it into the EXIF data - when street shooting, e.g., I don't want yet another accessory to keep track of, have extra batteries for, etc.
-
Well, here it is:
https://fujifilm-x.com/pt-pt/products/cameras/x-pro3/
-
An interesting thought: considering the fact that digital cameras all become so out of date so rapidly, why would anyone make one from titanium, other than to raise the costs?
Rob
According to Fujifilm:
"The frame of the camera body is made from magnesium, while the top cover and the base plate, which are the parts exposed to the elements are made from corrosion resistant titanium."
-
They got rid of the ability to change viewfinder mag in the OVF, it looks like 23mm (35mm FF) is the widest you can use with frame lines. Of all the issues I have with the camera, this makes it a complete non starter for me.
-
They got rid of the ability to change viewfinder mag in the OVF, it looks like 23mm (35mm FF) is the widest you can use with frame lines. Of all the issues I have with the camera, this makes it a complete non starter for me.
The OVF is good down to 16mm (albeit with no frame lines). According to Fuji, most XPro users were using the EVF anyway - hence they chose to improve that, compromising a bit in the OVF coverage.
When I get the chance (local event perhaps) I will try the camera. Seems the OVF has been improved too.
-
After a trip for several days in New Orleans where I had a X-T2 with few primes and one zoom, exclusively with Across simulation, I'm starting to understand where this X-Pro is aiming. I made a more conscious effort to get everything right in the camera, including minute framing and perfect exposure, and I had very little need to chimp (although old habits die hard). This in turn lead to a significantly more enjoyable experience. I doubt it lead to better photos but I was happier than usual with how things were going. Here is a selection: https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/p853836271 .
This X-Pro will force you to break the old habits and just focus on the creation process. I don't think I can justify it, I like versatility and I don't do enough city shooting, but at least I'm starting to understand the rationale for it.
-
Some nice photos Armand.
Yes, the XPro series has always been about "digital Leica RF experience". A well built camera with OVF and EVF, plus small prime lenses to go with it. That allowed film photogs and new comers to photography to experience RF format and ergonomics.
Also, the target market is probably getting older.
-
Went to an event and handled the X-Pro 3 in Dura Black. Beautiful finish. Lovely camera. But I came away disappointed. I’m sure I could learn to adapt to the hidden LCD but it just seems like an “all loss and no gain” situation to me, with zero advantage in the way the LCD works. The simulated film box end is just silly (unless your hipster quotient is very high), and when in “info mode” this small display is not very visible in even the ambient room light of the shop I was in. Outside it was invisible for all practical purposes.
The change in the EVF is significant “on paper” but visually a very small change from my Pro 2. The change in the OVF is nice for glasses wearers (that’s me), but the other changes re framing lines is not good. For the 16mm there are four little orange “corner arrows” that are not so great. So, for me, the OVF changes are at best a “push” and in some ways a net loss compared to my Pro 2. Before actually handling one, I had firm plans to “upgrade” to the Pro 3. It is now, sadly, off my radar altogether.
I love Fuji and sincerely hope this camera is a success and that there “really is” a market for what it offers. For me, it would be too many compromises to tolerate for no practical gain that is significant to warrant the expense. I suspect that many/most of the firmware upgrades will find their way to other models with the same sensor/processor combination, so that also is not enough to compensate for the very strange design choices Fuji made.
Rand
-
They should have a way of switching the back so you can see the display if you want and chimp. That'll be next.
-
They should have a way of switching the back so you can see the display if you want and chimp. That'll be next.
So far, the best solution for Never Chimpers is, for instance, like Canon does:
-
So far, the best solution for Never Chimpers is, for instance, like Canon does:
Agreed; some Olympus models also have fully articulated screens that can be reversed like this, which also appeals to me for protecting the screen when not in use.
Other options include duct tape and just a modicum of will-power; I rarely review except to immediately delete obvious duds, and would not give up occasionally useful options like shooting with camera held overhead.
But to each their own priorities.
-
For some reason I didn't warm towards the articulated screens, I prefer the X-T2 type. I don't like the screen sticking on the side when you need any angle, as flexible as it may be.