Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

[cosmonaut]

Get the NEX 7.

 

[semilog]

Fuji, by a mile.

 

[thegman]

If I were to spend those sorts of pennies on a digital camera, I'd do the unthinkable and get an Sigma SD-1 Merrill. The image quality from the Foveon is great, and high ISO performance does not concern me.

If I had to go with a camera which looked like a range finder or was a range finder, I'd probably look at the Fuji, the optical finder looks nice. I'd also check out the GXR, as I'd imagine prices are coming down. But I might just go with the M8, as it's the only range finder of the bunch.

 

[crispy12]

No, the XPro isn't a real rangefinder. If you want the RF focusing mechanism in a digital camera, your only option is the M8, M9 or the Epson RD1.

 

[jsrockit]

Who gives a F if it is a real rangefinder? (well, sometimes I do) However, in the case of these cameras... if you want a great digital camera with an OVF that isn't shaped like a DSLR, at least Fuji was cool enough to make one for us.

 

[Ryan1938]

I sold my M8 and first got a Nex 7. The output of the Nex was great, but I just didn't like the feel of the camera... It's not very tactile and the menu system made it feel more like a contraption than a camera. It just wasn't for me. So I returned it and got a X Pro 1 with the 35mm. So far, I am really happy with it. It feels right and the output is simply fantastic. I haven't had an issue with the autofocus yet. For what I do, it's perfectly adequate.

 

[chris00nj]

Jeez, I can't believe this is still being debated. If the X Pro-1 had a red dot (and cost $3,500), everyone would be swooning about how wonderful it is and how moderately priced it is.

Eric T had a great list. I'd also like to add:

1. The 35/1.4 close focuses in macro mode to about 4", which is better than any RF lens. Even in non-macro mode the min distance is 11 inches, which even best the Summicron DR's 19 inches.
2. The X Pro-1 shoots video (not usually used but its nice to have).
3. The Leica M8 is $2200 used, while the Fuji is $1700 new

The Leica M8 is still a fine camera, but I can't imagine wanting to pay MORE for it than the Fuji.

I own both cameras and to me, it is no contest. The Fujifilm X-Pro1 is vastly better than the Leica M8. Several years of technology separate the two, so this makes sense. But let me list a few of the X-Pro1 advantages over the M8:
1. No lens coding needed.
2. No IR filters needed.
3. Automated sensor cleaning.
4. Autofocus.
5. Much quieter shutter.
6. Much, much better low light sensitivity.
7. Higher resolution sensor.
8. Vastly cheaper prime lenses.
9. Live view.
10. Much better LCD screen.
11. Mugh lighter weight of camera and lenses.
12. More accurate automatic white balance.


The few advantages of the M8 over the X-Pro1:
1. Slightly larger sensor.
2. 1/8000 sec shutter speed.
3. Rangefinder focusing.
4. Many lenses available in the M-mount (but all of them can be used on the Fuji with an adapter.

 

[Lss]

But I hear some guy on the Internet says they are both rubbish.

 

[hteasley]

Jeez, I can't believe this is still being debated. If the X Pro-1 had a red dot (and cost $3,500), everyone would be swooning about how wonderful it is and how moderately priced it is.

Because clearly, everyone shoots the same way and wants the same thing from all cameras....

It is a pointless debate. Use what makes you more comfortable and happier, while giving you images you're satisfied with.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Jeez, I can't believe this is still being debated. If the X Pro-1 had a red dot (and cost $3,500), everyone would be swooning about how wonderful it is and how moderately priced it is.

Eric T had a great list. I'd also like to add:

1. The 35/1.4 close focuses in macro mode to about 4", which is better than any RF lens. Even in non-macro mode the min distance is 11 inches, which even best the Summicron DR's 19 inches.
2. The X Pro-1 shoots video (not usually used but its nice to have).
3. The Leica M8 is $2200 used, while the Fuji is $1700 new

The Leica M8 is still a fine camera, but I can't imagine wanting to pay MORE for it than the Fuji.

I own both cameras and to me, it is no contest. The Fujifilm X-Pro1 is vastly better than the Leica M8. Several years of technology separate the two, so this makes sense. But let me list a few of the X-Pro1 advantages over the M8:
1. No lens coding needed.
2. No IR filters needed.
3. Automated sensor cleaning.
4. Autofocus.
5. Much quieter shutter.
6. Much, much better low light sensitivity.
7. Higher resolution sensor.
8. Vastly cheaper prime lenses.
9. Live view.
10. Much better LCD screen.
11. Mugh lighter weight of camera and lenses.
12. More accurate automatic white balance.


The few advantages of the M8 over the X-Pro1:
1. Slightly larger sensor.
2. 1/8000 sec shutter speed.
3. Rangefinder focusing.
4. Many lenses available in the M-mount (but all of them can be used on the Fuji with an adapter.

And one more advantage: If you want to shoot a telephoto zoom using the EVF, Fuji is working on it.

 

[JHutchins]

Jeez, I can't believe this is still being debated. If the X Pro-1 had a red dot (and cost $3,500), everyone would be swooning about how wonderful it is and how moderately priced it is.

Eric T had a great list. I'd also like to add:

1. The 35/1.4 close focuses in macro mode to about 4", which is better than any RF lens. Even in non-macro mode the min distance is 11 inches, which even best the Summicron DR's 19 inches.
2. The X Pro-1 shoots video (not usually used but its nice to have).
3. The Leica M8 is $2200 used, while the Fuji is $1700 new

The Leica M8 is still a fine camera, but I can't imagine wanting to pay MORE for it than the Fuji.



And one more advantage: If you want to shoot a telephoto zoom using the EVF, Fuji is working on it.

Of course, you can't actually use use Summicron DR on an M8, though you can on the Fuji...

I would really like to have an actual rangefinder to use when focusing M lenses. The electronic viewfinder works fine -- well, it works somewhere from quite well in bright light to not well, but fine in dim light -- but a rangefinder is often faster. This is an advantage of the M8. But it is the only meaningful advantage I see. Over every other dimension I can think of, the Fuji is not just a little better, but a lot better. Well, there's one thing I haven't tested yet -- I did not find the M8 a particularly cold-hardy camera. It died quickly in the cold up in the mountains & icefields here. I've not yet had the Fuji out in extreme cold yet so I don't know if it's better or worse/

 

[randomm]

What a silly thread. People defending their shopping choices and rationale.

At the end of the day, yes they both are cameras with an optical viewfinder, but in other terms they aren't really comparable: AF vs MF, RF vs no-RF, M mount vs XF mount etc etc.

 

[JHutchins]

What a silly thread. People defending their shopping choices and rationale.

At the end of the day, yes they both are cameras with an optical viewfinder, but in other terms they aren't really comparable: AF vs MF, RF vs no-RF, M mount vs XF mount etc etc.

Damn near anything can be compared. And when differences are discussed and described (i.e. defending shopping choices and rationale) one can review the discussion of those differences -- including things less obvious than AF vs MF, RF vs no-RF and decide what those differences mean in the particular circumstances you contemplate and whether they imply that one choice is better than another in those circumstances. That is, however silly an exercise the rest of the thread is some value can be identified such that contributing by saying the thread is silly seems quite a bit sillier.

Sorry, seem to be cranky today...

 

[Paul T.]

What a silly thread. People defending their shopping choices and rationale.

At the end of the day, yes they both are cameras with an optical viewfinder, but in other terms they aren't really comparable: AF vs MF, RF vs no-RF, M mount vs XF mount etc etc.

Of course they're comparable. IN the past for most of us it's been an M8/9, or an SLR. This has blown the whole thing wide open.

 

[randomm]

Of course they're comparable. IN the past for most of us it's been an M8/9, or an SLR. This has blown the whole thing wide open.

Sure one can compare apples and oranges, but to what end (other than "what camera should I buy" -type enquiries)? I also don't quite understand why this particular camera is such a game changer, compared to, lets say, E-P2 few years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that Fuji has had the balls to release a line of cameras with a real optical VF, but given one can only use the EVF to focus and compose with legacy glass (which do not all work very well around the edges of the sensor I've read from here), then how is this a revelation compared to the M8.

(hey, JHutchins, I'm the cranky one!) 🙂

 

[huntjump]

Of course they're comparable. IN the past for most of us it's been an M8/9, or an SLR. This has blown the whole thing wide open.

I wouldnt say it has, I'd should reserve a hyperbole like that for a R-D2 or Cosina putting out a DRF etc..., though I do agree the fuji x series has added a very stellar camera into the market and will attract former/potential m8 customers to its camp. But without the actual RF, it does matter for people.

Forums are essentially open discussion boards for anyone to discuss and compare anything they well please, and considering the interest of this thread, there is certainly an audience. If there wasnt, it would die like many threads and be buried.

 

[jarski]

voted M8 but never had Fuji in my hands. and feel like bananas today, not apples or oranges 😛

 

[jsrockit]

What a silly thread. People defending their shopping choices and rationale.

Sure, because we all know you never buy anything... nor do you ever talk about cameras. 😉

 

[randomm]

Sure, because we all know you never buy anything... nor do you ever talk about cameras. 😉

Never and then some more letters 🙂

 

[semilog]

I also don't quite understand why this particular camera is such a game changer, compared to, lets say, E-P2 few years ago.

Did the E-P2 have classical manual controls, an optical viewfinder at least as bright and clear as a Leica's, IQ similar to an M9, and low light capability comparable to a D700?

No, it did not.

You could field a pair of these with two lenses for the cost of an M9 body alone — and the 35/1.4 is by most accounts similar in quality to the 50 Summilux ASPH.