Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

[jsrockit]

I was told anyone who bought a M8 without having the means to upgrade was being naive and my criticism of Leica abandoning people who could not afford the upgrade was unfounded.

Well, there are always going to be those who think people are silly for buying something. Luckily, that is their issue and not yours.

I have to say though that Leica NJ has never had that type of attitude with me regarding repairs on outdated products. I had to have two M8s repaired out of warranty. The first one they did the work half price and the second they did for free. I think they have the attitude that a happy customer of used items might become a lifelong Leica fan who may have excess cash to blow one day.

 

[crispy12]

I didn't have the funds to get an M9 so I got the M8 instead. Now after saving for a year, I do especially with the prices of M9s dropping so I will be getting one in the next few months. I will be selling the M8 to fund the upgrade. In the mean time, I've used the spare money that I had to acquire more lenses that retain their value very well.

I see no loss, instead only benefit as I've been able to shoot with a digital RF earlier rather than later. I suppose if I was one of the unlucky and suffered a premature camera failure, then I would either borrow some cash or just let Leica hold it till I had cash to fund the upgrade. The risk seemed low to me compared to the benefit of using the camera immediately.

 

[kanzlr]

After using the X-Pro1 for a while and being a former M8 and Konica RF owner, I can say: get the M8, it is something completely different.

The X-Pro1 is a nice, lightweight AF digicam with decent sensor and a good lens.
If this is what you want, get it. If you want a great manual camera without fuss and superb tactile feel, forget it.

 

[ed1234]

I haven't own a X-Pro1, but modern cameras....just to many switches, and too much features( that I don't need). So I picked an M8.2, loved to have an M9, but can't afford one. I rather keep the cash in my pocket or use it on something else.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

I find M8 to be just perfect for those internet (Flickr etc) images. If I want to produce images for exhibition, then I go the film route. Focusing with leica lenses (with tab) is "pre focus" you learn to adjust the distance with camera still on your chest, without even rising it to your eye. If the subject is quick to turn away, you still get at least a frame with M leicas.

 

[Trigeek]

I have shot with both, and both are great cameras. Not sure I would pick one or the other as better. File quality is amazing from both. It comes down to ergonomics and size. I love the M system for the small lenses, don't mind the manual focus and LOVE the distance scales / DOF scale printed on the lens for street shooting. The reason that I personally switched to the X-Pro 1 is the hybrid finder. I usually use the OVF, but in the cases where I want critical framing or shooting close, the EVF is a welcome feature.

 

[Kent]

I wanted to have a high-performance compact system cam.
I already had a NEX-3 and wanted another, more sophisticated one. µ4/3 cams were no alternative for me, because of that unfortunate 2x crop.

So, I needed to decide if I wanted a used M8, a used RD-1, a new NEX-7 or wait some more to get an X-Pro1. (The Ricoh M-mount wasn't on the market.)

When I first heard that the AF of the X-Pro was as sluggish sometimes as the one of the X100 (which I had used for two months and generally liked a lot, apart from its occasionally sluggish behaviour), I decided against the Fuji. It would also have been the most expensive way to go.

The RD-1 was way too expensive for what it offfered and I was frightened about a used M8, due to the number of reports about problems.

So, I went for a NEX-7 - and never regretted it.

But, after a while, I realized that it does not give you the genuine rangefinder feeling (which I loved in my film RFcams and in a friend's M9 I was able to shoot for one day), so I also bought an M8 and have been in love with it ever since!

The combination of the NEX-7 and the M8 is just perfect for me and a great complement to my EOS/Pentax DLSRs and compact cams.

At the Photokina this year, I took the chance to "test" the X-Pro1 a little and was confirmed in my opinion.

The new XE-1 might be another thing, though. That seems to be a really nice cam...

 

[lcpr]

X-Pro 1 and a film M for when you lust after a RF. Shooting a digital RF never really chimed for me since I can devleop film myself so easily (and my film workflow is so fast I can have negs scanned and PP'd in less than an hour), so if I have to use digital it would have to have all the conveniences of today. Sadly the M8 and the R-D1 have too many compromises compared to the X-Pro 1 to be really worth it. A few years ago, when the small cam-large sensor-interchangeable lens market was non-existent then yeah, they'd be serious contenders for me, but I'm happy with my M4 and X-Pro 1 now.

 

[Bill Pierce]

This is an awful thing to say on the rangefinder forum, but the outdated part of the rangefinder camera is the rangefinder. Most of the folks I know who depended on the film rangefinder sent new cameras and lenses to an independent repairman who would null-null the rangefinder mechanism or the lens cam, essentially adjusting them or regrinding the lens cams til they were "spot on" as far as such things could be measured. I may be wrong, but I believe Leitz does not provide the tools to independent repairmen to provide this service for the digital cameras. These days when we can flip a digital image up to "100%," slight focusing errors are pretty easy to spot. A magnified Live View is usually a more accurate focusing method. That's a pretty strong argument for the Fuji X Pro.

 

[Eric T]

Bill,
I agree with you completely. Rangefinder focusing is a weak link in rangefinder cameras - as much as I still like them. For me, autofocusing works so much better. The latest firmware on the Fuju X-Pro1 and lenses now makes that system even more attractive compared to Leica rangefinders.
Perhaps this forum should be renamed the "Mirrorless Forum".

 

[zvos1]

Outdated or not, Leica droping rangedinder would equal corporate suicide.

 

[jsrockit]

Outdated or not, Leica droping rangedinder would equal corporate suicide.

I agree. Leica cannot compete with just another mirror less or dslr.

 

[rudingshain]

I have a Ricoh GXR m-mount and a Leica M8.2. What should I say I have far more accurate in focus with the M8.2 than with the GXR focus peaking and so on. 95 % of my picture with the M8.2 are razor sharp. Maybe that I am the only one but I have the GXR for one year now and I have shot may picture with the m-mount.

1. Focussing with any peaking function takes longer time than for focussing with a rangefinder
2. When the rangefinder and the lens are well calibrated you should have nearly every picture in focus
3. Autofokus is not always faster in low light
4. From 75 - 135 Af is far better to focus

For me the rangefinder is not dead but a 0.92 Rangefinder for the digital M is still on my whishlist ;-))

 

[Chyn]

Thank you for sharing your experience. There are many of us contemplating the GXR as a possible backup or cheaper alternative to the M8, so your assessment is most valuable. I may still look towards the GXR for longer focal lengths, however.

 

[semilog]

This is an awful thing to say on the rangefinder forum, but the outdated part of the rangefinder camera is the rangefinder. Most of the folks I know who depended on the film rangefinder sent new cameras and lenses to an independent repairman who would null-null the rangefinder mechanism or the lens cam, essentially adjusting them or regrinding the lens cams til they were "spot on" as far as such things could be measured. I may be wrong, but I believe Leitz does not provide the tools to independent repairmen to provide this service for the digital cameras. These days when we can flip a digital image up to "100%," slight focusing errors are pretty easy to spot. A magnified Live View is usually a more accurate focusing method. That's a pretty strong argument for the Fuji X Pro.

Right on, Bill.

 

[Kent]

A magnified Live View is usually a more accurate focusing method. That's a pretty strong argument for the Fuji X Pro.

It's perhaps more accurate but much slower!
And the Fuji does not offer a peaking mode. That's a major drawback!

 

[NicoM]

I'd go with the Fuji. It'll certainly outperform the Leica in every aspect. If you want the Leica RF experience, I'd ether go for a film body or save a little bit more for an M9.

 

[one90guy]

Would like either but pocketbook says no way:^(

 

[lhotse]

owned both and sold the x-pro1 - never really bonded with it like the M8
HTH

 

[hepcat]

I am a long time film M body user. I bought the X-Pro1 with the expectation it would fill my need for a digital M body. It was an awesome camera with great potential, but the "process" was much different than what I was expecting and ultimately what I could deal with. I sold the X-Pro1 and now have an M8.