Fuji X-T1 news

[Petrus]

Absolutely agree, a mirrorles should look as a rangefinder.

Most practical design is best. Something like Fujifilm X-T1 is practical, because the viewfinder is aligned with the lens in the most used framing, horizontal. Faux prism box holds larger than usual EVF screen. A faux rangefinder design places the viewfinder in the corner where it is not aligned with anything. Why would a fake rangefinder design be more natural than fake SLR? Form follows function, that is all.

[armand]

It seems the DxO testing is not going to happen after all

[BJL]

Absolutely agree, a mirrorles should look as a rangefinder.

Why? A camera with an EVF but no OVF is neither an SLR nor a rangefinder, so the form should best follow its actual function, not necessarily mimicking either of those film camera designs.  In particular, since the EVF requires just a single rectangular viewport (as with an SLR viewfinder) not a horizontally extended, two-windowed baseline (as with a rangefinder), there is no reason for the whole top of the camera to be as high as the VF; instead it might make sense for the "shoulder" to be lower to either side of the VF port, making room for control knobs and buttons on top without them rising above the height of the VF port.

It is a mistake to think that the "mock-SLR" styling forces the EVF to be any higher; instead the EVF can sit immediately above the rear screen and be no higher than the EFV in a flat-top "mock-rangefinder" styling, but with the regions to either side lower.

There is then the questions of where to put the EVF: central or to one side?
- Film SLRs must have the VF rather central; over the middle of the film gate;
- Digital SLRs must have the VF somewhat central; over the sensor, but with latitude to have the sensor somewhat off-center
- rangefinders probably must have the VF port at one edge, to allow for a long enough baseline;
- EVF cameras have no such constraints, so mimicking film camera designs is not a good basis for making this decision.
(I would like a mirror-less camera with an EVF hump at the left end and a long, lower shoulder to its right, but no camera maker seems to agree with me!)


P. S. I notice that I already said roughly the same thing very early in this long-lived thread, many months ago; sorry for the repetition. (At least I am consistent!)

[AFairley]

;
- Digital SLRs must have the VF somewhat central; over the sensor, but with latitude to have the sensor somewhat off-center

Not really, see the Olympus E-300.  Anyway, I'm fossilized enough to want my camera to look like they did when they were all gears and stuff and not little computers, you know, real cameras.   

[Bob Rockefeller]

Most practical design is best. Something like Fujifilm X-T1 is practical, because the viewfinder is aligned with the lens in the most used framing, horizontal. Faux prism box holds larger than usual EVF screen. A faux rangefinder design places the viewfinder in the corner where it is not aligned with anything. Why would a fake rangefinder design be more natural than fake SLR? Form follows function, that is all.

On of the features of mirrorless is that there should be many new ways to design a camera. There's no need to be restricted to DSLR or Rangefinder options. Perhaps we'll see someone really set us on our ears with a design that fits the use best, not adapters the technology best.

[jjj]

Absolutely agree, a mirrorles should look as a rangefinder.

No, it can look like whatever it wants as it is not limited by an optical viewfinder or a rangefinder set up.

[BJL]

Not really, see the Olympus E-300.

True, I understated the latitude for an off-center OVF; forgetting my E-1!

Anyway, you want your digital cameras to look like film cameras; I instead want them to look however optimal ergonomics makes a non-SLR, non-rangefinder, non-film-moving photographic tool look.

[pluton]

Most practical design is best. Something like Fujifilm X-T1 is practical, because the viewfinder is aligned with the lens in the most used framing, horizontal. Faux prism box holds larger than usual EVF screen. A faux rangefinder design places the viewfinder in the corner where it is not aligned with anything. Why would a fake rangefinder design be more natural than fake SLR? Form follows function, that is all.

Assuming you are right-eyed, or can shoot with your right eye, the left corner finder is way nicer because you don't have to squash your nose against the back of the camera to view straight-on through the hole.  The camera body can rest against the part of your face below the right eye for the third point of contact.
The only reason the finder on the film SLRs was located where it was was because there had to be roll of film on one side and a take up spool on the other, and the mirror box can't be relocated.  Ergonomically and haptically, it's lame.

[Petrus]

Anyway, shooting with SLR style viewfinder gives solid support, nose squashed or not, and I like a view without horizontal parallax, only a slight vertical one. Having the EVF in the corner gives both vertical and horizontal, compared to bare eye.