[shaolen]

Has anyone seen the hoopla on the screen on the X-pro 3? I think it's brilliant. I feel like the people who complain about it are missing the whole point of the camera.

---------- Post added 10-02-19 at 10:33 AM ----------

I also think that Pentax should do something similar. Make a digital version of the K1000 with no rear lcd . Make it real retro

[photoptimist]

The hidden screen certainly appeals from a retro-stylistic perspective and probably helps save on batteries.

But it looks useless for portrait-orientation shots (unlike the K-1 screen) which makes it useless for about 50% of the images that I tend to take.

[shaolen]

Surely it isn't for everyone. At least you understand the purpose of it, there are many out there where they can't at all understand it

[photoptimist]

Surely it isn't for everyone. At least you understand the purpose of it, there are many out there where they can't at all understand it

The purpose of a HIDDEN screen would seem to be:
1) retro looks.
2) the main screen is protected most of the time.
3) the main screen is off except when flipped out (saves power).

An articulating screen is useful for:
1) low angle, chest-height, waist-level, over-the-head, next-to-the-tripod shooting.
2) less obtrusive street photos (the subjects think the photographer is looking at the camera rather than looking at the subject).
3) some designs flip all the way to face toward the subject for selfie/vlogger shooting.

The X-Pro 3 does not seem to offer full selfie/vlogger articulation or left/right tilt needed for some types of shooting .


But maybe I've missed something???

[shaolen]

The X-Pro 3 does not seem to offer full selfie/vlogger articulation or left/right tilt needed for some types of shooting .


But maybe I've missed something???

It doesn't offer those because it seems it's not meant to be used that way. Not targeted at the photographer who wants those features. Rather it's meant to give you a retro look and experience. To make you shoot more like if you were shooting an old camera with no screen.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I think it's a brilliant idea, and it made me want that camera from the moment I saw it. In fact I'd be even happier with just the info display on the back and no flip-out screen at all. I've always felt that the control layout on Fuji's cameras comes closest to my own ideal, with a shutter speed dial, an iso dial, and an aperture ring on the lens. So getting rid of the screen seems like a logical progression and I'm all in favour of it. I just wish that Pentax would offer a model that does something similar.

I don't think it's about sending a message to others saying, "Hey, look at me with my expert's camera." I think it's just about giving those who want it the chance to have a camera that gets rid of the things that they don't need and don't use.

[photoptimist]

It doesn't offer those because it seems it's not meant to be used that way. Not targeted at the photographer who wants those features. Rather it's meant to give you a retro look and experience. To make you shoot more like if you were shooting an old camera with no screen.

Interesting. So it's just like turning the backpanel off on the K-1 and disabling the shot review option.


As for the retro look, I fear I'm too much of an engineer to care about the looks of cameras. They aren't fashion accessories for me. What really matters is the look of the images and the ergonomics of the controls. And in that regard I've never really liked Fuji's images or controls. No doubt, others disagree.

[Kunzite]

It's useless, and made that way only for fake retro looks. It might look brilliant, until you're using the camera and try just to change some setting...
Chimping is not mandatory, but an option. People who don't want to use the back LCD can just disable theirs. Do it; go out shooting, without using the LCD once (with a mid-range Pentax having a monochrome LCD, to be fair). Will you like it?

But, the final product might have a standard (articulated) screen.

[shaolen]

Interesting. So it's just like turning the backpanel off on the K-1 and disabling the shot review option.


As for the retro look, I fear I'm too much of an engineer to care about the looks of cameras. They aren't fashion accessories for me. What really matters is the look of the images and the ergonomics of the controls. And in that regard I've never really liked Fuji's images or controls. No doubt, others disagree.

That's fair. I would say the retro aspect isn't just looks but also mentioned to spark a feeling of using an old camera. The x100 and X-pro lines have always been aimed more at the Leica audience and as we see with their cameras similar concepts such as the one that shoots only black and white, and another that I believe doesn't have any rear LCD at all. I find the controversy interesting. Those that love it completely get it, while for those who don't like it, it's incomprehensible why Fuji would do it lol.

---------- Post added 10-03-19 at 05:38 AM ----------

I think it's a brilliant idea, and it made me want that camera from the moment I saw it. In fact I'd be even happier with just the info display on the back and no flip-out screen at all. I've always felt that the control layout on Fuji's cameras comes closest to my own ideal, with a shutter speed dial, an iso dial, and an aperture ring on the lens. So getting rid of the screen seems like a logical progression and I'm all in favour of it. I just wish that Pentax would offer a model that does something similar.

I don't think it's about sending a message to others saying, "Hey, look at me with my expert's camera." I think it's just about giving those who want it the chance to have a camera that gets rid of the things that they don't need and don't use.

What do you think of my proposal for basically a digital K1000 that's all manual focus?

[Dartmoor Dave]

What do you think of my proposal for basically a digital K1000 that's all manual focus?

I think it's a great idea that has been proposed a few times before (including by me), but sadly I don't think it's one that will ever happen. It's the sort of camera that could only be released by a manufacturer with a wide enough range and big enough sales to be able to offer such a quirky "prestige" model, and that's not Pentax.

I'm always fascinated by the appalled way that so many people react to the idea of a fully manual digital camera. It seems that lots of people are so dependent on automation and chimping, and so horrified by the idea of a camera that doesn't offer it, that they can't tolerate the thought of such a camera even existing. The usual complaint, as voiced in this thread, is that a fully manual camera could only possibly appeal to posers. The idea that some people might simply prefer to shoot fully manually because they genuinely find it the best way for them, and that those people would really like to have a digital camera built specifically around the way they shoot, seems to be taken as an implied criticism by many of those who are themselves dependent on automation.

"Just buy a fully automated camera that lets you select manual mode," they always say. Well actually that's what I do, because I haven't got any other choice in my price range. But here's the thing: those who want fully automated cameras have got a huge range of DSLRs and MILCs made by different manufacturers to choose from, so is it really too much for us manual shooters to want the option of one or two cameras designed specifically for us too? Without having to pay Leica prices?

[shaolen]

I think it's a great idea that has been proposed a few times before (including by me), but sadly I don't think it's one that will ever happen. It's the sort of camera that could only be released by a manufacturer with a wide enough range and big enough sales to be able to offer such a quirky "prestige" model, and that's not Pentax.

I'm always fascinated by the appalled way that so many people react to the idea of a fully manual digital camera. It seems that lots of people are so dependent on automation and chimping, and so horrified by the idea of a camera that doesn't offer it, that they can't tolerate the thought of such a camera even existing. The usual complaint, as voiced in this thread, is that a fully manual camera could only possibly appeal to posers. The idea that some people might simply prefer to shoot fully manually because they genuinely find it the best way for them, and that those people would really like to have a digital camera built specifically around the way they shoot, seems to be taken as an implied criticism by many of those who are themselves dependent on automation.

"Just buy a fully automated camera that lets you select manual mode," they always say. Well actually that's what I do, because I haven't got any other choice in my price range. But here's the thing: those who want fully automated cameras have got a huge range of DSLRs and MILCs made by different manufacturers to choose from, so is it really too much for us manual shooters to want the option of one or two cameras designed specifically for us too? Without having to pay Leica prices?

I think one day it will happen. Someday I think Pentax will be the only game in town for DSLR. The majority of the camera industry will be cell phones. People will buy Pentax to enjoy the old ways of photography

[Winder]

I like it. I don't use my rear screen very much and I kind of like be able to fold it up and protect it. I think it works well for the target market. The people who are complaining about it are usually the people who aren't going to buy an X-pro 3 regardless of the rear LCD. Seems to be a lot of people who like to complain about products that they were never going to buy anyway and I don't understand that. I won't be buying one either, but I'm glad Fuji is making unique products and trying different things.

[shaolen]

Yes I think very few of them are actually using x-pro

[photoptimist]

I think it's a great idea that has been proposed a few times before (including by me), but sadly I don't think it's one that will ever happen. It's the sort of camera that could only be released by a manufacturer with a wide enough range and big enough sales to be able to offer such a quirky "prestige" model, and that's not Pentax.

I'm always fascinated by the appalled way that so many people react to the idea of a fully manual digital camera. It seems that lots of people are so dependent on automation and chimping, and so horrified by the idea of a camera that doesn't offer it, that they can't tolerate the thought of such a camera even existing. The usual complaint, as voiced in this thread, is that a fully manual camera could only possibly appeal to posers. The idea that some people might simply prefer to shoot fully manually because they genuinely find it the best way for them, and that those people would really like to have a digital camera built specifically around the way they shoot, seems to be taken as an implied criticism by many of those who are themselves dependent on automation.

"Just buy a fully automated camera that lets you select manual mode," they always say. Well actually that's what I do, because I haven't got any other choice in my price range. But here's the thing: those who want fully automated cameras have got a huge range of DSLRs and MILCs made by different manufacturers to choose from, so is it really too much for us manual shooters to want the option of one or two cameras designed specifically for us too? Without having to pay Leica prices?

I, too, shoot in manual mode quite often. Yesterday, I was shooting fall colors with 3 manual lenses (Pentax K50/1.2, Rikenon 24/2.8, and Vivitar 28-210) and 3 auto lenses (Sigma 12-24, Pentax 28-80, and Pentax DAF 100/2.8 macro) with both manual and auto lenses getting a good workout. Some days I only take M42 lenses with me.

There's nothing appalling about manual operation. The added diligence required by manual operation can be quite rewarding.

The reason there are so few "manual-only" cameras is two fold. First, very few people say "I refuse to buy a new camera with automation" but there are many that would say "I refuse to buy a new camera without automation." Second, those who do say "I refuse to buy a new camera with automation" probably want to go truly retro and buy an old, used, manual camera.

The point is that a new "retro manual" camera would compete with all the true retro manual cameras on the used market while failing to appeal to new camera buyers who occasionally want some automation.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I, too, shoot in manual mode quite often. Yesterday, I was shooting fall colors with 3 manual lenses (Pentax K50/1.2, Rikenon 24/2.8, and Vivitar 28-210) and 3 auto lenses (Sigma 12-24, Pentax 28-80, and Pentax DAF 100/2.8 macro) with both manual and auto lenses getting a good workout. Some days I only take M42 lenses with me.

There's nothing appalling about manual operation. The added diligence required by manual operation can be quite rewarding.

The reason there are so few "manual-only" cameras is two fold. First, very few people say "I refuse to buy a new camera with automation" but there are many that would say "I refuse to buy a new camera without automation." Second, those who do say "I refuse to buy a new camera with automation" probably want to go truly retro and buy an old, used, manual camera.

The point is that a new "retro manual" camera would compete with all the true retro manual cameras on the used market while failing to appeal to new camera buyers who occasionally want some automation.

Those are all good and valid points. They don't alter the fact that I personally really wish that a fully manual digital camera existed a price I could afford, but they do explain why it'll probably never happen. And I still love the hidden screen on the X-pro3.