elmer3.5
Well-known
The more i know my m9 the more i love the m8...
The fuji is impressive, but read recelntly taht in poor to medium light the AF is not so good...
With a rangefinder you get focus at once...of course needs for training...
tyhe shortcomming of the m8 is the lenses available and the price...because the 50´s are not the most expensive around but when you look for 50mm fov you´ll have to get yourself a 35mm or shorter and then prices come up...
But there´s an iexpensive but supèrlative answer the rollei sonnar or the nokton 40mm that are extermly nice performers and give you shallow dof and 53 FOV.
To me the best thing is to have AE...
Bye
The fuji is impressive, but read recelntly taht in poor to medium light the AF is not so good...
With a rangefinder you get focus at once...of course needs for training...
tyhe shortcomming of the m8 is the lenses available and the price...because the 50´s are not the most expensive around but when you look for 50mm fov you´ll have to get yourself a 35mm or shorter and then prices come up...
But there´s an iexpensive but supèrlative answer the rollei sonnar or the nokton 40mm that are extermly nice performers and give you shallow dof and 53 FOV.
To me the best thing is to have AE...
Bye
Shade
Well-known
Both are excellent cameras, but despite having both, I would choose the Fuji for its versatility and easeness of use when you hand it over to someone to take a picture of you and your spouse.
randomm
Well-known
I'm _still_ not discrediting the x-pro1 as a camera. From what I've read, it appears to be a wonderful AF camera system with pretty nice lenses to boot. I'm certainly hoping to use/lease/buy one somewhere down the line.
... but is it a rangefinder camera, no. Will I be able to use its optical viewfinder with my legacy glass, no. Thus for me, its not a digital camera to use M-glass with. Over two years ago I was able to use the EVF on top of my E-PL1 to shoot with my M-glass. Compared to that, I don't see what else than an updated sensor the xpro1 brings. My question remains: how is it a game changer for a Leica shooter with M-glass?
kbg32
neo-romanticist
After seeing the X Pro1's poor AF, though fantastic IQ, I'd go with the M8. I still believe it is quite an impressive camera.
I wonder why my X-Pro1's autofocus isn't poor?
huntjump
Well-known
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Depends what you shoot with it. Check out the video of the Olympus and Fuji both taking low light video on Steve Huff's site. The Olympus OMD is spot on while moving, while the Fuji keeps hunting and refocussing. The Fuji is not for fast moving subject matter, even if the camera moving and the subject is still!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I have to confess, I don't understand the fixation on Leica glass. I've ditched mine for ZM glass and if I go digital I'll ditch that for something else. Leica glass is not (heresy!) magic. The Fuji lenses are practically as good as current Leica lenses and better than old Leica lenses, at a fraction of the price.
If you want to shoot digital, and you don't want to buy into an M9 or M10, why on earth would you shoot Leica lenses? The M8 does not use their image circle efficiently, it doesn't deliver particularly good resolution, and its performance at high ISO is worse than pedestrian.
Maybe this is a "head vs. heart" thing. In which case arguing on the merits is sort of pointless anyway.
randomm
Well-known
I don't own a single Leica lens, my old FSU and Canon LTM lenses together with some VC and Minolta glass is certainly a good enough package for my photography.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
You do realise you are comparing a 6 year old camera with a brand new camera... the fact that people are having this arguement is a testament to the M8.
Lax Jought
Well-known
Very true.
Spyro
Well-known
Lax Jought
Well-known
I've never been able to work out how zone focusing works. I get it in principle though. I've always just manually focused.
Spyro
Well-known
individually focusing every single shot with a manual focus camera will do your head in, or will simply make you slow. There's not much science to zone focusing, essentially you stop down as much as possible, but making sure you still maintain a good working shutter speed. Then you eyeball at what distances your subjects will most likely be for the next few shots, you translate that to a range (or zone) in your mind and set focus somewhere in that zone, preferably not dead in the middle of it but a bit closer to yourself*
Then you dont touch your focus ring again and let depth of field take care of the rest. Perfect for street, sports and hyperactive kids. Bad for low light or longer lenses.
Eg you are street shooting on bourke street, it's sunny, you shoot 400 film and you know all your subjects will be from 1m to 10m from you. Set aperture to f11 and focus to 4m. Done, shoot away.
*depth of field regardless how big it is, it is always 1/3 in front of your focus point and 2/3 behind it.
edit: LOL reading through this made me realise it sounds much more complicated than it is... it's like bicycle, do it once or twice and it will all make sense.
Lss
Well-known
Depends on the person, their skill, experience, technique, preference, the lens used, etc. Unless I shoot continuously, I practically always zone focus between frames. And then use the rangefinder focusing for majority of shots.
Lax Jought
Well-known
In all seriousness, this is exactly why I've never really understood it!
I love it though. I think I'm able to get a vast majority of my intended shots and really the only times I feel I've missed a shot has been when my camera was not switched on and/or still in the bag (my M8.2 seems marginally faster switching on than my 7D), or when both my hands were too busy shovelling bratwurst gourmet hotdogs into my mouth to whip out the camera in time.
Sometimes I anticipate the shot and pre-focus, that helps.
Many cameras are not good at this... not only the Fuji. I think what gets me is that people simply say the X-Pro1's AF is poor, when it is only poor in certain situations. The OMD's AF is good though... but I'm sure it fails in some other category.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Hmm, my Ricoh GRD, GX100 is good at this. My Lumix LX1, G1, GF1, and G3 are good at this. My Leicas are good at this. Even the Contax G2 and that is over 12 years old. I'm knocking the Fuji. I think it is quite surprising that this is one area that the Fuji should not be weak given all that Fuji is striving for. For $700 less, Olympus really nailed the auto focus.
Listen Jsrockit, some people buy with their hearts hoping it will all be ok, but knowing there are short comings. Some people buy with their heads, hoping to get that warm fuzzy feeling, but knowing it won't ever really exist. I admit I've done both. The cameras that never fail to get me what I want, don't it for me emotionally when I pick them up. The cameras that I have an emotional attachment to, make me work, hard, and sometimes don't deliver.
Kind of like human love and relationships.