Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

  • Total voters
    470
Dunn

Dunn

Well-known
Local time
4:40 PM
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
258
With the X-Pro coming out soon and with a price around that of a second-hand M8, I'm curious as to what you would rather put your money into.

If you would opt for another similar system like the NEX 7, please specify.
 
I will ge the X-Pro 1 and the 35 1.4. Next the 60 and maybe the 28 equivalent, although the X100 can do duty there. The idea of some auditorium shots with the 60 (90mm 135 equivalent) and all the high ISO cleverness of the Fuji sensor is very attractive.
 
i'm thinking that the fuji is gonna make a big difference in the life of many an rf diehard...i know that i'm looking forward to playing with one up close and personal.

the x100 had the nicest look to 1600/3200 images and that combined with interchangeable fuji lenses could make some forget rf focussing and embrace af...especially old guys like me.
 
With the Nikon lenses I have for the digital and analog Nikons, add the rangefinder lenses, read Nikon, Leica, Contax.....no more room for another mount. I feel Leica will continue to plod in the right direction regarding digital photography for M series lenses. In the meantime I can be assured of getting state of the art digital results from the other camera system in my bag.
 
Xpro.

The M8 might cost $1600 to buy and another $1600 to repair 3 months later. The Xpro has far superior sensor performance and has a warranty.

I'd take a M9 over an Xpro right now (price difference aside), but not even a M8.2. The low light is just too poor to be useful to me.
 
I shoot an M on film, but I would never consider an M8 or M9. Holding them put the choice in stark terms. The M3-M7 are just right in the hand. The M8 and M9 are just... wrong.

I will reserve judgement on the X1 until I hold one, and see how it does WRT shutter lag and focus speed/accuracy. The X100 was darned close -- the finder is simply amazing -- and the files it produces are remarkable. The X100's out-of-camera B&W files just crush the B&W I've seen out of the M8 and M9. They have a recognizable tonality that looks absolutely fantastic, like well-exposed ACROS developed in XTOL.

There's every reason to think that the X1 will be as good or better.

And the work I'm seeing done with the X100 is generally (though not always) much better than what I'm seeing done with the M9. This suggests that while the M and X100 may have slightly different limitations, the X100's limitations are not more practically significant than the M9's limitations. Note that I don't own either camera (again, I shoot mainly film, mainly with an M6).

The only compelling argument I can think of for an M9 is that it's FF, but at that price I'd rather just get an APS-C body and adjust my lens line-up correspondingly.
 
I never thought of the comparison but I think I'd rather have the X-Pro than the M8. Either way you're dealing with a crop but the X-Pro has a lot more advantages.
 
I just enjoy photography more then I shoot in manual focus with a true rangefinder. Image quality is second to this great user experience. I grab my Nikon S2 over a Fuji X100 for this precise reason. I'm sure the X-1 Pro will blow the M8's image quality out of the water - but I can't seem to shake my love of using an RF.
 
Sorry to be the odd one out (Im used to it though) but I would never pass up my Leica M8 for a Fuji. I shoot in B&W mostly though and really enjoy the B&W images from the M8. I have owned and sold the X100 and the X10 I have no desire to shoot with an AF Rangefinder. I own a Canon 1Ds2 for that kind of thing. I own a Leica RF because it gives me a feeling, & a certain Image that no other camera can ever give me.

Of cause, this is just my opinion, I would rather spend the money on an M6/7
 
I voted for the M8. Despite its detractors it is a fine and reliable camera - as much as any digital. It holds its value and still produces the superb images that it did when it was new. I find the high ISO results to be far better than others seem to, with no great issues over noise at 640 or high (at least, in comparison to the results I get from film which is my reference point rather than a newer digital camera model).

I'm sure the Fuji will be a fine camera but the M8 is too good to be dismissed as readily as some correspondents seem willing to do. It seems that even in its post-production twilight the M8 is still the object of controversy over its technical abilities when the truth is that it is still (and always was) a fine camera in its own right.
 
I know what the M8 does. It provides the focusing and framing functionality that works for me, and I'm very happy with the image quality. The X-Pro I have neved handled. It may turn out a great camera. It's however vaporware to me until I have an opportunity to hold one in my hands.
 
Neither, I'd rather spend the pennies on maybe an MP or go back to Zeiss Ikon and a great lens. If I had to choose though, I'd get the M8. The X-Pro looks nice, and is probably a great camera, but I don't need high ISO performance. I'd also prefer a camera which is a bit more manual, with fewer buttons. The X-Pro does look nice though, and kudos for Fujifilm for keeping the optical finder, a lesser company would have saved some money and just done the EVF.
 
I've been thinking about this for the last 2 months and have decided on the M8. Between my Bessa and my x100, I much prefer the process of MF on a rangefinder and knowing the exact focus point. I still get the occasional missed shot on my x100 due to missing focus, something I've never had on my Bessa. Just need a digital RF as I have less time to develop and hunt for film nowadays.

I'd think a little bit harder about the Xpro if it had focus peaking, but that's still entirely different than optical MF. Also 1.5x crop vs 1.3x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom