back alley
IMAGES
the reality of the crop factor is that a 35mm lens still behaves and looks like a 35mm lens on a cropped sensor...only the pov changes...like moving 1.5 times closer with your 35mm lens.
Joe AC
Well-known
As the owner of 4 M cameras (three of them being Leicas) I had been thinking of an M8.2 or possibly an M9, but after everything that I've read in terms of performance, and when you consider the cost of the Fuji lenses....for me, I just can't seem to justify the digital Leicas. My vote and my money will go to the X-Pro 1.
Thanks
Joe
Thanks
Joe
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I voted for the Fuji
The Fuji has great high ISO performance. It's own crop-lens lineup partially offsets the crop factor for wider angles. Their 18mm f/2 is equivalent to 27mm. The M8, you would need to get a 21mm f/2 to be equivalent. The 21/2.8 Zeiss is $1300.
The M8 has poor high ISO performance (it is 6 year old technology, lightyears in digital), an annoying need for IR filters, known issues (black banding), but it has a real rangefinder. Of course, Fuji issues are waiting to be seen.
I thought long and hard about going for broke with the M9, but it isn't perfect (poorer high ISO performance than Fuji).
The Fuji has great high ISO performance. It's own crop-lens lineup partially offsets the crop factor for wider angles. Their 18mm f/2 is equivalent to 27mm. The M8, you would need to get a 21mm f/2 to be equivalent. The 21/2.8 Zeiss is $1300.
The M8 has poor high ISO performance (it is 6 year old technology, lightyears in digital), an annoying need for IR filters, known issues (black banding), but it has a real rangefinder. Of course, Fuji issues are waiting to be seen.
I thought long and hard about going for broke with the M9, but it isn't perfect (poorer high ISO performance than Fuji).
chris00nj
Young Luddite
My initial hesitation toward crop sensor systems is the loss of potential for thin DOF at "normal" focal lengths.
One great thing about the Fuji is that the wider apertures of their lenses partially offset this. Looking at the DOF master, the DOF of the 35mm at f/1.4 is equivalent to a 50mm at f/2 on a M9.
Compare this to the Sony NEX and Olympus Pen who have launched with a soccer mom kit zoom and a slower pancake lens.
santino
FSU gear head
I'd go M8, it really takes M lenses and is capable of great picture quality (I don't count pixels btw. and ISO 800 is just right for me).
Conclusio: No need for a new mount here.
Conclusio: No need for a new mount here.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Yeah, I'd love to a true 50/1.4 lens on the fuji. But I think I can be happy with 35/1.4. I think I can still get the isolation I want on some portraits, etc.
I'm a little more worried about the fuji 60/2.4. Until I see it in action, I'm holding onto my D700+Sigma 85/1.4 combo for portraits.
Gid
Well-known
X1 Pro, if the IQ, ISO and AF are at least as good as the X100. I sold my M8.2 (acquired last August) recently because (for me) the X100 is a better fit. IQ is at least as good in good light and streets ahead when light is poor. Another factor was that I struggled with RF focusing in low light. However, if you want to use RF lenses, then, IMO, there really is no substitute for a digital M (8, 8.2, 9 or RD1).
semordnilap
Well-known
I've been enjoying shooting the M8 alongside the NEX 5n, as the manual focusing is rather well implemented, I think. 28/2 on the M8 and 50/1.4 on the 5N makes for a perfect combo for me. I don't need, nor do I want, an AF camera, and the M8 still produces the same files that made, and still make, fine prints.
I think we're really at the beginning of the mirrorless wave, and as evf tech from other companies catches up with sony's, we'll have a lot more to play with. For me it's all about seeing and focusing, as I think a lot of the IQ differences aren't enormous when you're showing pictures on the web or making 8x10s, even 13x17s.
Now, I do wish someone out there would hack the M8 firmware to deliver uncompressed, full bit depth dng... that would be swell.
I think we're really at the beginning of the mirrorless wave, and as evf tech from other companies catches up with sony's, we'll have a lot more to play with. For me it's all about seeing and focusing, as I think a lot of the IQ differences aren't enormous when you're showing pictures on the web or making 8x10s, even 13x17s.
Now, I do wish someone out there would hack the M8 firmware to deliver uncompressed, full bit depth dng... that would be swell.
semordnilap
Well-known
Best answer!!!
celluloidprop
Well-known
Weirdness such as owning a 35mm f/2 Biogon and preferring to shoot at a 35mm FOV. The lens you own is now a 45mm lens - if you'd like to retain a roughly 35mm FOV and equal aperture, you need to find a 28mm f/2 lens, of which there are two on the market. One 4x as expensive as the Zeiss you already owned, one cheaper but not known to be as sharp or distortion-free.
That's weirdness.
If you're dead set on using legacy lenses on mirrorless crop sensors, the same issues come up - but I'm perfectly happy using m43 or X-mount lenses designed for the cameras I might buy.
NickTrop
Veteran
In the electronics/digital realm, you go with the newest technology/most recent sensor you can afford. Ya just do. The Fuji will have the latest/greatest sensor, firmware tricks, etc. Not in the market - won't be buying either, but if I had to choice between the two? Gotta go with the Fuji. No brainer. Only way you go with the M8 is if you have Leica glass you refuse to part with - a very legit reason, and the only reason that makes sense.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Other Manufacturer's Digital.
boomguy57
Well-known
I guess it's all just speculation, really, until we have it in hand and get some real solid reviews and feedback. It is likely going to be similar to my X100, but that's just a guess.
However, the fundamental differences are AF vs. MF, since they are both crop sensors. The Fuji sensor is head and shoulders above the M8 sensor (that's not saying that it's BAD, just that since it is 5-6 years newer, the Fuji WILL be BETTER). If you fel repulsed by AF or anything that doesn't have the big red dot on the front, better stick with your M8. Otherwise the Fuji seems to make more sense for most people.
But we don't even have a SHIP DATE yet, and Amazon pulled their pre-orders today Did anyone else notice that?
However, the fundamental differences are AF vs. MF, since they are both crop sensors. The Fuji sensor is head and shoulders above the M8 sensor (that's not saying that it's BAD, just that since it is 5-6 years newer, the Fuji WILL be BETTER). If you fel repulsed by AF or anything that doesn't have the big red dot on the front, better stick with your M8. Otherwise the Fuji seems to make more sense for most people.
But we don't even have a SHIP DATE yet, and Amazon pulled their pre-orders today Did anyone else notice that?
chris00nj
Young Luddite
For longer focal lengths, I'll just use my Leica/Voigtlander glass. My 50/1.5 Nokton will make a great portrait lens
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Actually, it's simpler than that - with lenses from 24mm to 90mm, the framelines automatically show the correct field of view. You only have to remember that a 12 is a 15, a 15 is a 21, and 21 is a 28. And/or take two steps backward.
The "crop factor" thing is the chorus of a contingent that is tied to a 24x36mm frame.
Dante
The "crop factor" thing is the chorus of a contingent that is tied to a 24x36mm frame.
Dante
uhoh7
Veteran
all i can say is that fuji marketing is GOOD.
To my mind an M8 at around 2300 is a far better deal than the Fuji. They are about the same size.
Sure the high ISO of the fuji will be cleaner----that's why we have VC35/1.2s If you like M or LTM glass the M8 just reams the fuji on focusing and more important the crop. 1.3 is a major step forward from 1.5.
To my mind an M8 at around 2300 is a far better deal than the Fuji. They are about the same size.
Sure the high ISO of the fuji will be cleaner----that's why we have VC35/1.2s If you like M or LTM glass the M8 just reams the fuji on focusing and more important the crop. 1.3 is a major step forward from 1.5.
Spyro
Well-known
Well thats correct, but the fact is that we're tied to the 24X36 thingo for a very good reason: it has a squillion lenses to choose from. Give me a format that has a good lens lineup designed specifically for this format and I'll happily consider it on its merits. M4:3 already has it, Fuji X looks promising, but Leica M lens lineup simply kicks ass.
I dont want to use lenses with an image circle bigger than the sensor I'm using because this means that the lens is not as small, or as cheap, or as fast, or as wide, or as corrected as it could have been. Or all of the above. It's just a waste at many levels.
uhoh7
Veteran
Lss
Well-known
Not the only reason. The usability is the big factor for me. Of course, you can argue that at least one Leica mount (M or LTM) lens is needed to achieve any usability.
I wouldn't disrespect the Fuji's IQ yet. The X100 is very capable and I think we'll see the X-Pro1 surpass it once it gets in capable hands.