This video explains it my concerns rather well. I saw this a while ago and agreed with his point of view. Most times having extra stuff on the camera is that many more things to ignore. All this is adding up to me getting the next Leica RF unfortunately. Understanding the Appeal of the Leica M9 - YouTubewell, the camera doesn't force you to fiddle with it!
My E-P2 is permanently in Aperture priority; The only things I ever change are the lens (!), the ISO if it starts to get a bit dim, and the metering occasionally ... mind you most of my pictures still turn out to be snaps but I don;t think if I changed lots of camera options while I was shooting it would turn me into Kertesz ... (unfortunately)
It would fill the niche of a proper manual focus digital rangefinder (which neither of the Fujis is). I love the X100, but it's not a rangefinder camera and the manual focus implementation is crippled by its' necessity to be primarily an AF camera.Not from the way the X-Pro1 and X100 has been selling, as it is.
It's probably not as bad as you think though. Some of my low to extreme low light shots (some of these are much lower in light than what turned out in the photos), some of the darkest shots were best converted to black & white:I was seriously considering picking up the M8.2 but kept holding back on the decision because it just would not be able to produce usable images in bad light.
I appreciate the point you're making. But I'd much rather miss a shot due to my shortcomings than the camera's. There's a greater chance of getting a shot in low light through a fast manual focus lens, than a useless AF. Especially when it comes to this particular camera, making a switch to MF with a proper rangefinder would improve the experience hugely and would probably result in fewer missed shots. Its quite frustrating to wait around for the camera to play catch up while taking portraits. I wouldn't assume for a second that MF is usable for any action photography. None of the Leicas seem to be either. But then I wouldn't take the X100 with it's fixed 35mm out birding or to the stadium. So for what it was designed to do, it fails to deliver, because of it's AF. And that's the change I would love to see addressed.Sorry, I still do not see the point of why do I want to manually focus a modern digital camera. I manually focused for years, it does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy to still do it today. Now if we are talking about shooting with a vintage camera or a view camera I understand it is part of the experience of using one. All sorts of camera companies have tried to make manual focus rangefinders but other than Leica and maybe the Bessa no one has been able to continue making them without losing money.
It fascinates me all the comments from people about this or that camera’s slow AF, who then want the solution to be manual focus. For all the manual focus experts out there I guarantee that most cannot get a high rate of in focus images in low light of a moving subject.
Also on a side note, another famous European brand of camera was almost dead until they partnered with Fuji to make and design their lenses and body. So for anything other than the funky look one gets when shooting with an uncoated vintage lens, I also do not have any desire to shoot “Legacy Glass” on a modern camera either. That is why I still have my old film cameras, too use those lenses on the cameras they were designed for.
This video reminds of the misguided logic that Hasselblad used to speak about at their seminars, defending the 500 series by spinning tales about how much more freedom and creativity the square 6X6 format gave one to capture an image over the ill conceived 6X4.5 or the real trouble maker 6X7. At the time Hasselblad was about to become irrelevant, as almost everybody had switched to 6X7 Mamiya RZs and Pentax 6X7. The best part of the story is the thing that saved Hasselblad was the eventual intro of the H series a 6x4.5 camera system made by Fuji.
I would have missed quite a number of the shots I posted in this thread if I didn't have manual focus because it was dark and the subject was probably moving so the AF would've struggled to even 'see' what I'm trying to photograph. It's not just manual focusing, it's also the rangefinder focusing method itself that makes it happen.Sorry, I still do not see the point of why do I want to manually focus a modern digital camera. I manually focused for years, it does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy to still do it today.