Fuji X-Pro 1 vs Ricoh GXR-M for M lenses?

[Archiver]

Hey folks, I've already got a Ricoh GXR with numerous modules, including the excellent M-mount module. I've been extremely happy with the images I've taken with it, particularly with the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 and Voigtlander 35/1.4. The only issue I have with it is buffer clearance and shot to shot time, which is slow as buggery.

(Not that buggery is always slow. Buggery can happen very quickly, but it should be taken slow, especially in the beginning. But I digress.)

So I've found a secondhand X-Pro 1 in good condition, and I want to know how M-lenses work with it, and if it's a significantly better M-lens shooter than the Ricoh GXR. Any thoughts?

 

[B-9]

Hmm. Might be quicker? Sort of doubtful.

If you get the Fuji brand adapter compatibility is not a issue.

I’ve owned two Xpro1 and I liked shooting my LTM glass on them as well as Nikon F lenses.

I say grab it and compare. You either love or hate the Xtrans.

 

[Archiver]

Hm, I'm thinking I'll take a few lenses to the shop and try it out, take some sample images home as well. I've only handled a X Pro1 once, back when it was first released. It was nice, but I felt like I wanted to manually focus the lenses, haha. Jpegs at ISO 3200 were so good, I thought they were at ISO400 or lower. X-Trans might bother me if I can't get a decent raw converter, though (Windows). I'm running Lightroom 4.4 for almost everything.


I've just read that M lenses can get smeary corners with the X-Pro1, which may bother me. If anything, I suspect I'm trying to justify an urge to get into the X system. Start with M lenses so I don't have to spend much money. Then maybe a X lens. Or two. Then the slippery slope begins.

 

[dourbalistar]

I've never used either the GXR or any Fujifilm X-trans, but just to play devil's advocate... if you're extremely happy with the GXR output but for the buffer, why not just stick with the GXR? Treat its slow buffer like you would a film camera (where normally you're only limited by how quickly you can throw the advance lever, excluding motor drives), but with the convenience of digital. That way, you have a measure of slowness that helps with shot discipline, and you also stay away from that very slippery slope...

...towards a faux snakeskin M-Monochrom "Drifter" edition. 😉

 

[nightfly]

If you like what you've got, I'd stick with it unless the shot to shot buffer issue is making you miss photos.

Why complicate things?

 

[jsrockit]

Why complicate things?

Because that’s what we do here on a RFF!

 

[narsuitus]

I was using an X-Pro1 for my Leica M mount lenses until I could purchase a Leica digital. I finally purchased a Leica M10 digital body but was so dissatisfied with its performance that I returned it.

I have since replaced the X-Pro1 with an X-Pro2 and replaced my three Leica manual focus lenses with a Fuji auto focus APS-C equivalent. I replaced the 35mm f/1.4 with a 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon; the 21mm f/1.4 with a 16mm f/1.4 Fujinon, and the 90mm f/2 with a 56mm f/1.2 Fujinon. I was able to make the replacements for less than the cost of the one Leica M10 body.

 

[B-9]

If you get on the with the Xpro.

The 23/2 - 35/2 -50/2 are all pretty affordable slopes to slip down!

Unfortunately I was out of the Fuji ring when those lenses dropped.. they look nice!

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I have used my XT30 with Leica M, M42 and R lenses, which have been straightforward and easier to focus than like glass on my Sony A7s. I haven't used the Ricoh. I have been told that the Xpro1 is a bit slow with AF, not an issue with manual glass, but if you do take to the Fuji system the lenses are excellent in every way.

 

[BCMielke]

I love my GXR! The X-Pro will do fine with a 50 and 35 m mount lenses. However if you go wider than that then you will see smeared corners. The images won’t be as nice as the GXR however IMO. The best photos I have found with m lenses are with a dedicated m camera.

 

[rhl-oregon]

I’ve owned both—I left GXR for an X-E1, later an X-Pro. I doubt you’ll see any difference in IQ, and the larger GXR modules, like the 33/2.5, are perfectly matched to the sensor. Also, Ricoh built its M module with experience building its own ltm/m lenses. The M sensor is in there. That’s not going to be the case with the old X-Trans sensor.

*If* you do not have the Ricoh EVF (you did not mention VF in the OP), and you can’t find one in good shape, then the Fuji has an advantage with its OVF/EVF. I assumed you do have the Ricoh EVF and use it, in which case the Fuji advantages are *its* XF lenses, and the analogue aperture/speed controls.

If you have the money to play with, enjoy the experiment. I would not expect a big change (and in my case, after a few years I left Fuji (which had displaced GXR) for FF Sonys with Kolari sensors, then Leica digital). If you want a big change from APSC with your M lenses, try an A7 with a Kolari sensor, or use an M camera. M8s seem to be enjoying a sentimental renaissance with RFF users who once found fault with them, and they’re about as affordable as M2/3/4/5s.

 

[Archiver]

Thank you to everyone for your input. I used the GXR again over the last few days, and although it is slow and I miss the occasional consecutive shot, the image quality is lovely, and I'm reading about corner smearing with the X-Pro 1 and M lenses.


My only real gripe with my M9 is just a function of the camera itself - no liveview. The ability to use liveview to compose and expose is something I find really useful, so I hoped that a X-Pro1 with its faster shot to shot time, rangefinder handling and liveview might be a good solution. Seems not, if GXR images are qualitatively as good or better. Thanks again to all of you.