Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

[kbg32]

I knew rangefinder. The rangefinder was my friend. The Fuji X Pro-1 isn't a rangefinder. The M8 and Fuji are going to offer two completely different working experiences. Comparing these cameras are like apples to oranges. A better comparison and choice might be the Sony NEX-7.

 

[Spanik]

but hey, for all practical purposes the marginal cost involved is zero,

No, the marginal cost is far from zero. You may now have a "nice free 75" but you're out of a very expensive 35. So unless your taste run into the long end, a crop sensor isn't cheap because good bright wides aren't cheap at all.

 

[uhoh7]

I review a lot of images on the net. At web resolution, I generally can't tell the M8 and M9 stuff from things shot on a Canon 50D. But the X100 stuff -- particularly in B&W -- routinely jumps out at me. It's just exceptionally good.

Fuji simply understands how to make a JPEG engine better than most other manufacturers do. And their JPEG engine makes nicer JPEGs than a large majority of the people who shot RAW on an M8 or M9 do, too.

How do you know when images were shot raw or jpeg--during your web reviewing?

no doubt the x100 is every bit as good or better than nex w/ a 35.....well maybe it depends what 35. The nex loves CV 35/1.2--all of them do. Summilux 35 ASPH seems to be very good also.

x100 is also one of the most hamstrung cameras I can think of: one lens and not great MF--am I wrong in that?

 

[tbarker13]

I knew rangefinder. The rangefinder was my friend. The Fuji X Pro-1 isn't a rangefinder. The M8 and Fuji are going to offer two completely different working experiences. Comparing these cameras are like apples to oranges. A better comparison and choice might be the Sony NEX-7.

I suppose it depends on how wrapped up you are in the rangefinder focusing.
I've shot with an RD-1, M8 and an X100. For me, they offer only slightly different working experiences. Negligible, really.
"Completely different" for me would be something like the transition from a rangefinder to a large format camera. Or from film to digital.

 

[gdi]

Obviously some people understand that without ever going into LF, but LF can help people get over their fixation on optimality.

Every time a crop camera is brought to market somewhere you have some unhappy complainers ("My 50 is now a 75 and I can't get over how half the image circle goes to waste"), and some people who see that the lens you have is still useful ("Isn't it nice that my 50 now duplicates as a free 75 for this new system I got"). I find that having shot LF at some point is one of the most efficient tools for getting people out of the first camp into the second.

Is this a standard service you offer to those afflicted with the described malady?

Well IMHO the latter is not really important (because the size advantage of lenses for smaller formats has to do with the optics of the lens, not the mechanics of the mount), and thanks to the former you get things like shift adapters for Leica lenses on m4/3.

I wasn't talking about the mechanics of the focus mount, rather, the size, it should be obvious that having an integrated mount requires an increase in size over simply mounting the lens to the board; this reduces the value of your comparison between LF and small to nil. And if a shift adapter on 35mm negates the need for a view camera's movements, you simply are not taking advantage of the later.

I am not arguing that using 35mm lenses on cropped sensors is wrong, I use them myself. But implying that wanting to use the lens on the format it was designed and optimized for is a deviant "fixation" that must be cured is nonsense.

 

[Spyro]

And we are (or at least I am) talking about reusing existing lenses that people already have.

Ah ok sorry, now I realised this. I was talking more about selecting a system from scratch, or getting far out of your way just to accomodate a crop sensor that doesnt have native lenses. This can get quite ridiculous at times, like being forced to buy something excruciatingly expensive that blocks your VF and changes the form factor of your kit, eg the leica 21/1.4, just because you need a fast wide for your crop sensor. Whereas both m4:3 and xpro1 offer tiny f2 lenses @ 28mm FOV for $600-$700. This is the type of economy that can be achieved with smaller image circles, and in my book it's significant enough to swing me in favour of a system.

 

[wafflecakee]

How was the AF response? The VF?

It feels like a toy because it is lighter than an M?

AF was faster than the x100 but still not all that fast. The VF was nice, I do like the hybrid, I just wish they'd make a fake digital RF patch. It also shifts to do macro shots.

Here we go again... first the X100 was supposedly a toy, now the X-Pro1 will be too? 😱

The x100 feels more solid.

 

[kbg32]

I suppose it depends on how wrapped up you are in the rangefinder focusing.
I've shot with an RD-1, M8 and an X100. For me, they offer only slightly different working experiences. Negligible, really.
"Completely different" for me would be something like the transition from a rangefinder to a large format camera. Or from film to digital.

No one said anything about being wrapped up one way or another. I would think a manually focusing a rangefinder would be much different than autofocus. The handling experience would be different. No?
Negligible. I'm not sure. Why compare?

 

[rxmd]

No, the marginal cost is far from zero. You may now have a "nice free 75" but you're out of a very expensive 35.

No, you're not. You bought your expensive 35 to use with some camera. That camera isn't going away because you just bought another one.

 

[rxmd]

I wasn't talking about the mechanics of the focus mount, rather, the size, it should be obvious that having an integrated mount requires an increase in size over simply mounting the lens to the board; this reduces the value of your comparison between LF and small to nil. And if a shift adapter on 35mm negates the need for a view camera's movements, you simply are not taking advantage of the later.

Regarding mounts - by the same line of argument you could say that while the lens is the same, a 5x7"-capable camera is bigger than a 4x5", so if you want both formats you need to live with a size disadvantage or carry two bodies. So I simply think that constant lens size is not really an argument.

Regarding movements, I think you know that this is not what I was saying. You mentioned that one of the things that switching to a smaller negative give you in LF is added movements, and I basically only mentioned that some people are taking advantage of this on crop sensors as well. It would be a pretty pointless argument that an APS-C camera with shift adapter gives you an anything near a view camera, but again, that's not what I was saying.

 

[gdi]

Regarding mounts - by the same line of argument you could say that while the lens is the same, a 5x7"-capable camera is bigger than a 4x5", so if you want both formats you need to live with a size disadvantage or carry two bodies. So I simply think that constant lens size is not really an argument.

Uhmm... I'll have to take you word on that ....

Regarding movements, I think you know that this is not what I was saying. You mentioned that one of the things that switching to a smaller negative give you in LF is added movements, and I basically only mentioned that some people are taking advantage of this on crop sensors as well. It would be a pretty pointless argument that an APS-C camera with shift adapter gives you an anything near a view camera, but again, that's not what I was saying.

It looked like you wrote that in response to my mention of movements; so, yes, it seemed like your intent. Glad we can agree on the pointlessness of the argument. Enjoy that 5x7!

 

[tbarker13]

No one said anything about being wrapped up one way or another. I would think a manually focusing a rangefinder would be much different than autofocus. The handling experience would be different. No?
Negligible. I'm not sure. Why compare?

Why compare? I was just responding to your comment about them being two completely different working experiences.

I've used Leicas long enough that manual focusing isn't something I think about. I look through the viewfinder and my fingers just sort of take care of focusing.
With the Fuji, I'll look through the viewfinder and my fingers will take care of the focusing - but by pushing a button instead of rotating a lens barrel.
Either way, my brain is going to automate the focusing process. I'll decide what I want to have in focus. And it will happen.

Obviously everyone is different. But, I just didn't find that much difference between shooting with an M8 and an X100. I found it to be more jarring (though that's probably too strong of a word) to switch back and forth between my Nikon DSLRS and the smaller cameras (Leica or Fuji).

 

[Cyriljay]

I knew rangefinder. The rangefinder was my friend. The Fuji X Pro-1 isn't a rangefinder. The M8 and Fuji are going to offer two completely different working experiences. Comparing these cameras are like apples to oranges. A better comparison and choice might be the Sony NEX-7.

This is the fact!! 😀 and I own M8u . I love Negative M cameras. since I had M8 and had the upgrade and I love the quality of it . Yes . It is very expensive in terms of using the basic lenses as for M analog camera due to the Crop factor. But produce marvellous quality photos compared to the other cameras. Of course if i have money I buy the Fuji .

 

[Lss]

Either way, my brain is going to automate the focusing process. I'll decide what I want to have in focus. And it will happen.

Same here, which why I prefer manual focusing anyway.

 

[jsrockit]

The x100 feels more solid.

I find that hard to believe... anyone else can confirm?

 

[Avotius]

Having had a M8 for a year....I would say X Pro. The Fuji is interesting, the M8, as much as I loved it, is not so interesting anymore.

 

[Strangeluv]

I think I will have a go with both.
Very happy with my M8 at the moment, but I do miss AF from time to time and looking at the specs of the Fuji I see no reason not to try it out.

 

[efirmage]

If the GXR had the evf and focus peaking of the NEX7 I'd get it.

If the NEX7 had the microlens sensor of the GXR, or the sensor of the NEX5n I'd get it.

If the NEX5n had the evf of the NEX7 I'd get it.

If the XPro1 had the focus peaking of the NEX7 I'd get it.

For the moment I'm sticking with my M2 and Portra.
Pete

Boy that sums it up nicely. Hopefully over the next year we can check some of those boxes off. Until then I'll also be shooting Portra with my M6.

 

[cosmonaut]

Get the one you think you would have the most faith and trust in that means a lot and is a very personal choice. Certainly anyone owning an M8 is going to tell you that's what you need.

 

[kbg32]

Why compare? I was just responding to your comment about them being two completely different working experiences.

I've used Leicas long enough that manual focusing isn't something I think about. I look through the viewfinder and my fingers just sort of take care of focusing.
With the Fuji, I'll look through the viewfinder and my fingers will take care of the focusing - but by pushing a button instead of rotating a lens barrel.
Either way, my brain is going to automate the focusing process. I'll decide what I want to have in focus. And it will happen.

Obviously everyone is different. But, I just didn't find that much difference between shooting with an M8 and an X100. I found it to be more jarring (though that's probably too strong of a word) to switch back and forth between my Nikon DSLRS and the smaller cameras (Leica or Fuji).

Tim,

Maybe you don't find a difference, but a lot of people here do. Hence this thread. Hence, a lot of threads on RFF, comparing this or that, should I buy X or Y. Personally, I find these threads ridiculous. How on earth can someone answer what you need? Buy a camera based on popularity in a poll, or buy because it fits your style? One should choose the tool that fits the situation. The Fuji and M8 represent two totally different working experiences. One is a rangefinder, one is not, but pretends to be, and tries to offer that experience. When you are truly familiar with your equipment (😉), working differences become second nature.