Rangefinder evolved: the Fuji X-series

Fujifilm X100s — the original X100 marked the rebirth of a camera category.

(Photo courtesy Fujifilm Canada Inc.)

Fujifilm has had a good couple of years for photographers. Their X Series cameras (the new digital models, not the similarly named SLR system from the 1980s) has been very well received. What started as one groundbreaking camera (the Fujifilm X100) has become a family. The X Series includes small point and shoots (the X10 and X20), innovative large-sensor compacts (X100 and X100s), and interchangeable lens “mirrorless” cameras (the X-Pro1 and the X-E1., and the SLR-look alikes the X-T10 and X-T1.) Across most of these cameras, the family resemblance is striking; they are “rangefinder-like” cameras. Rangefinder cameras have a rich history that includes the interchangeable-lens Leica and Contax rangefinders and the Kodak Retina IIIs, and high-quality fixed-lens cameras like the Canon Canonet and the Yashica Electro 35 series. As Leica continued to make traditional manual focus rangefinders, the rangefinder tradition evolved and matured into later entries like the Contax G1 and G2, or Fujifilm’s own TX/Hasselblad XPan. It’s a camera tradition that had largely vanished under the waves of popular SLR cameras and the rise of digital photography.

Fujifilm X20 compact rangefinder-style camera with optical viewfinder and mechanical zoom lens control. In real life, it’s much smaller than it appears here. (Photo courtesy Fujifilm Canada Inc.)

Traditional exposure controls

Some critics have been skeptical of the X Series, commonly dismissing the cameras for being “retro.” The cameras do have a classic look; but I argue that Fuji has made more than a simple styling choice. The X Series has picked up threads of camera development that evolved over a hundred years of portable camera design, and which were abandoned as camera makers chased fashion and lower product manufacture costs. The design brief for the X Series seems to have been to embrace camera interfaces that reached their peak in the 1970′s, modernize them where needed or where possible, and prove that camera evolution between 1915 and 1980 was not a dead-end, nor was it begging to be usurped by SLR viewfinders and click-wheel controls. Fujifilm’s resulting cameras prove to be much more than a styling exercise; they look “retro” because form follows function, and the functions re-deployed by Fujifilm laid fallow for nearly two decades. With certain exceptions, the X Series has embraced these once-dominant, now-dormant ideas:

• lens aperture is controlled by a ring on the lens itself, that is labelled, and can be rotated to select the aperture directly
• shutter speed is controlled by a seperate knob that can be rotated to select the speed directly
• lens focus is controlled by a ring on the lens itself (alongside autofocus)
• zooming (where available) is controlled by a ring on the lens itself
• the photographer is able to hold the camera to their face and see through an eye-level viewfinder

Regardless of the photographic medium, film or digital, a photographer requires control of these things:

• shutter speed
• lens aperture
• ISO (sensitivity)
• framing/composition
• focus
• shutter release/firing

These controls are timeless, fundamental to the image-making process. Fujifilm has built a series of cameras around the idea that these controls should be directly available to the photographer. In so doing, Fujifilm built on the evolved form of the rangefinder-style camera.

The control-wheel era: paradise lost

During the first two decades of digital imaging, many photographers wondered why these controls had disappeared from cameras, or had been hidden within menus and multifunction buttons. I propose that this “evolution” (the obfuscation of key photographic controls) had nothing to do with camera functionality or human interface design. Rather, as film (and then digital) cameras changed from clockwork mechanical devices to electronic microprocessor control, abstracting traditional camera functions behind as few buttons or knobs as possible lowered the production cost for cameras.

Once the camera functions are controlled by microprocessor, there are two possible strategies to lower manufacturing cost:

1. permit full-time automatic functions to make every decision, which allows you to remove most every button or mechanical complexity;
2. permit manual control of functions, through as few buttons as possible, because software is cheap and hardware isn’t.

Applying one or both of these strategies, the result was most of the film and digital point-and-shoot cameras made between 1990 and 2010. Costs were lowered, camera components were commoditized, and camera manufacturers could keep working on key marketing strategies: selling the “newness” of electronic/digital controls, automated point-and-shoot operation, and iterating new features from year to year by updating software without incurring additional hardware costs. Electronically controlled cameras, even those with very few hard buttons or wheels, could accrue ever-longer feature lists; the decoupling of form from function allowed almost limitless iteration of features on even the cheapest tier of camera. This works very well in marketing materials, magazines, and the camera store; it works less well in the real world where hundreds of features remain obscured behind menus and multi-function controls, rarely used even if the photographer knows that they exist.

These cost-cutting strategies also migrated into the SLR market, even for professional-grade cameras. Of course, professionals tire of digging through menus and navigating multi-function controls that change with the camera’s mode. Hence the proliferation of single-purpose buttons on professional SLRs and DSLRs in the 2000s. Ironically, professional conservatism preserved the traditional camera interface the longest on professional SLRs like the Nikon F4 and the Pentax LX. But eventually even the professional cameras moved to the electronics+programmable button form, whose shortcomings spurred rapid evolution to solve their inherent shortcomings. Witness the evolution of the Nikon N90s with completely electronic, modal operation (aperture priority, shutter priority etc.), limited direct button control and a single control wheel, into the Nikon F100 with multiple dedicated buttons and the evolution of the modern dual-control-wheel scheme.

Fujifilm X-Pro1 interchangeable lens camera with a complete set of traditional camera controls and the hybrid optical+electronic finder shared with the X100s. The X-Pro1 has recently been superceded by the X-Pro2. (Photo courtesy Fujifilm Canada Inc.)

Fuji’s control scheme: paradise regained

Fujifilm’s re-embracing of traditional camera controls — aperture ring, shutter speed dial, zoom ring, exposure compensation — reduces the clutter of single-purpose buttons, and reduces the traffic of clicks on multi-function controls. There is no longer a need for mode-based operation; an aperture ring set to “A” is automatic, and set to an aperture number is manual. If the shutter speed stays set to “A”, those manual apertures are, defacto, aperture priority. Traditional aperture rings and shutter speed knobs also allow the photographer to re-engage their “sense memory”, wherein a change of aperture or shutter speed can be made predictably, by a repeatable number of clicks, in a dedicated place on the camera. Fujifilm has rediscovered and repopularized the logic of camera design which was abandoned when camera makers embraced electronic controls without integrating electronic controls into a photographer-centric design. Even Nikon has had to pay attention; after years of ignoring requests for a “digital FM2n,” Nikon introduced the Df, which prominently features a traditional shutter speed dial.

In building the X Series’ traditional interface, Fujifilm carefully selected from modern electronic functionality and preserved optical/mechanical functionality where it made sense. The interchangeable X-mount lenses do not have any mechanical linkages — they are purely electronically connected. Aperture and focus rings communicate with the camera body electronically. Zooming however is mechanical, making it quick to shoot with and providing direct haptic feedback over the throw of the focal length range. Providing optical viewfinders in many of the X Series cameras affords some of the benefits of SLRs over digital point and shoots, i.e. lag-free optical view finding that makes it easy to track moving subjects, but in a smaller and less intimidating form than the SLR camera. By giving up the through-the-lens benefits of an SLR viewfinder, the X Series cameras also gain blackout-free viewing, and allow viewing the scene at full brightness at all times.

Fujifilm X100s with hybrid viewfinder. (Photo courtesy Fujifilm Canada Inc.)

The single most innovative evolution brought to the rangefinder-style camera by Fujifilm is the hybrid optical+electronic finder. Available on the X100, X100s and the X-Pro1, this finder removes the historical achilles heel of the rangefinder/viewfinder camera. With a switch, these cameras allow the photographer to choose between the optical finder, or a high resolution electronic viewfinder, in the same window. By providing an electronic viewfinder, these rangefinder-style cameras can now provide eye-level through-the-lens viewing that does away with parallax error, focussing uncertainty, or imprecise framing inside the viewfinder lines. The ability to shoot by seeing what the image sensor sees is one of the true advantages of digital photography. Neither optical nor electronic viewfinding are completely satisfactory on their own, and the hybrid viewfinder provides a bridge between old and new by comfortably integrating both.

It is possible that the hybrid finder is truly a transitional stage in the evolution of the rangefinder-style camera, given the current state of the art. As Fujifilm continue to evolve the X Series line, the X-E1 does an admirable job convincing the photographer that an electronic eye-level finder may be good enough to shoot with on its own. (This is helped by the improved image quality in the X-E1 finder versus the electronic finder of the X-Pro1.) The challenge of making a good electronic viewfinder is well understood in the realm of broadcast video camera design. But the challenge of making a viewfinder that is both lag-free and high enough resolution for shooting still photos with dozens of megapixels is an order of magnitude more difficult. Certainly the quality of the X-E1 finder proves that EVFs are ready to displace optical finders in many circumstances; whether the optical or hybrid finder will completely fade away as an evolutionary waypoint has yet to be determined.

The Fujifilm X-E1 interchangeable lens camera. A high quality EVF replaces the hybrid optical+electronic finder in this model. (Photo courtesy Fujilm Canada Inc.)

Fujifilm have made some astonishing leaps in evolving novel imaging sensors that perform well while solving common weaknesses in digital imaging (aliasing, or softness introduced by antialiasing filters.) These are notable achievements are well covered elsewhere (www.dpreview.com, www.luminous-landscape.com, etc.) It’s sufficient to say that Fuji’s current sensors are delivering excellent image quality that rivals IQ leaders like Nikon, Pentax and Leica.

The X Series are compelling to a traditional photographer, and also offer uniquely modern advantages (say, the mirrorless digital camera’s ability to adapt most any lens from the past, including Leica lenses.) These cameras are not retro for the sake of fashion; they are compelling cameras on their own. But when attracting an audience, good looks never hurt.

Note: this article is purely my opinion. I have no connection with Fujifilm, other than asking them for the photos which accompany this article.