Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

[Adanac]

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.

I actually prefer the focus peaking - Mode 2 - on the GXR. My in-focus rate is higher with the GXR than with the NEX.

Re "microlens", the definitive difference between the GXR and NEX is that the former doesn't have an anti-alias filter. Zeiss in a white paper points a finger at AA filters, in conjunction with the short back focal distances found in RF cameras and mirrorless compacts, as causing astigmatism which shows up as reduced/smeared detail in the corners and at edges.

The hope is the XPro-1, having no AA filter, won't suffer so, but who knows until we see images produced with a variety of M lenses. The Fujifilm lenses themselves have rather large exit elements, certainly much larger than any of my M lenses. They've designed their lenses to reduce the angle of the light path meets the sensor edges; how will our M lenses fare?

As the X-Pro1 currently offers no focus peaking or other focus assist for manual focus lenses, my interest in the camera is greatly diminished.

The X-Pro1 probably is the best fit for someone who intends to buy into their X mount lenses. It *might* be a good fit, in the future, for manual focus lens users, we just don't know for sure. What I do know for certain is that magnify alone is unsuitable for me for regular use of manual focus lenses.

 

[georadu]

Not that I like Fuji's approach to upgrade cameras every year or so.... or to forget about the ones they have released (maybe they will remember X100 owners) but M8 is an old camera.
I think X-pro1 will be better in the long run. M8 is not even listed on Leica's website anymore. I don't say they won't offer support, but from my point of view a 2 years warranty card is better than expensive replacements if one is not so lucky with the M8.

The problem is how you feel, AF/rangefinder, new lens system/proven M quality (expensive), as IQ doesn't seem to be the problem.

Right now I would go for the X-pro1, or wait if you already have a good camera and see what happens.

My ideal camera would be a FF sensor in a AF camera that is small and compact. Don't care if it's Fuji or Leica as long as it is near the 5dMK2 price tag, after this I cannot afford.

 

[celluloidprop]

1.3 is a major step forward from 1.5.

How so? The smaller sensor there has (it seems) the advantage in noise, dynamic range and possibly apparent sharpness. What advantage does the M8's crop factor confer over contemporary APS-C designs?

 

[dreilly]

The problem is that too many people are looking to AF cameras to solve their MF fix.

Yep, which is why I find the fascination with the X-1 pro so...fascinating. A digital rangefinder is not the same thing as a rangefinder digital. Actually calling the X-1 pro a rangefinder at all is completely inaccurate. It's an AF camera with a window. I've seen the X100's window and it's nice, certainly.

Having shot between the Ricoh GXR, which is a great platform for Leica glass and does manual focusing right, and an R-D1 AND an M8, I stand by the assertion that there is NO SUBSTITUTE for an optical rangefinder system. That's the only reason to buy an M8 or M9, since image quality is comparable on something like the GXR or even the Nex 5N (which I've used extensively).

If you want a rangefinder digital camera, you've got three choices. Four if you count the M8.2. The X-1 pro ain't it. They won't add a rangefinder in firmware.

So the choice is easy. Want a great AF system with a window (optical viewfinder) that's pretty cool? X-1 pro promises a lot. Want an MF digital camera with a rangefinder? Get one. It's like asking if you want to either: own a cat, or eat at Indian buffet at lunch today.

 

[willie_901]

I didn't embrace mechanical RF cameras because of the finder. It was the ease of manual use and the ability to conveniently take a RF camera with me where ever I went.

I find using a AF system manually (focus and recompose) gets the job done. In principle I focus my DSLRs similarly to how I focused my Zeiss Ikon M. The same goes for the X100 and the Lumix G1 - 20/1.7 it replaced. Operationally the process is quite different. Bottom line: I don't need to turn a lens barrel with my hand to enjoy the process.

 

[kanzlr]

I actually prefer the focus peaking - Mode 2 - on the GXR. My in-focus rate is higher with the GXR than with the NEX.

seconded. Having owned both, the GXRs Mode2 is vastly superior. You notice that as soon as you stop down the lens to focus, or use a lens with larger DoF like a 28/2.8.

 

[celluloidprop]

Yep, which is why I find the fascination with the X-1 pro so...fascinating. A digital rangefinder is not the same thing as a rangefinder digital. Actually calling the X-1 pro a rangefinder at all is completely inaccurate. It's an AF camera with a window. I've seen the X100's window and it's nice, certainly.

Who's calling the XP1 a rangefinder, though?

 

[tbarker13]

If you want a rangefinder digital camera, you've got three choices. Four if you count the M8.2. The X-1 pro ain't it. They won't add a rangefinder in firmware.

But that's only if you frame this as a pure rangefinder debate. Which I get, considering this place is still called Rangefinder Forum.
Many of us don't care about the rangefinder focusing mechanism. We care about the form factor. I never picked an M3, M4, M6, M8, etc, because it had rangefinder focusing. I picked them because I like the size and feel of the cameras - and the quality of the images produced.

So if you frame it as a debate over small cameras with interchangeable lenses, you have a much wider range of options, including the M8, M9, RD-1, X-Pro1, etc. etc.

When I think of it that way, it's quite easy for me to pick the Fuji over the M8.

 

[tbarker13]

For longer focal lengths, I'll just use my Leica/Voigtlander glass. My 50/1.5 Nokton will make a great portrait lens

The one piece of rangefinder glass that I've held onto (since selling my M8.2 kit) is my excellent Jupiter 3. I'm eager to see how it can be used with the fuji.

 

[uhoh7]

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.

No disrespect to the FUji IQ--I think it is and will be fantastic. So is the nex-7, but images from the M9 still stand out even in cropped net form.

How so? The smaller sensor there has (it seems) the advantage in noise, dynamic range and possibly apparent sharpness. What advantage does the M8's crop factor confer over contemporary APS-C designs?

To my mind and experience the body is simply a platform for the glass. From ISO 640 and below images from the M8 stand out from any aps-c camera I've seen.

On the M8 a 28 is 36, which is not ideal, but on our aps-c cameras it's 42 with utterly different behavior of DOF and speed--though overall rendering is similar.

Add to this that the Fuji is basically a autofocus viewfinder camera which can take M lenses but will not focus them remotely on the level of the M8.

Its just a matter of priorites--fair enough. I don't own either camera , but I know I would take a M8 over a xpro and 200 in cash. Other guys who are better shooters than me and know more might take the Fuji.

But the M8 is one of the most bashed cameras in history--to the point the membership here was gleened a bit. The updside is that it is a fantastic value in the used market right now--it seems to me 🙂

The one piece of rangefinder glass that I've held onto (since selling my M8.2 kit) is my excellent Jupiter 3. I'm eager to see how it can be used with the fuji.

The 50s are great "portraits" on the APS-C cameras, no doubt about it.

 

[jsrockit]

So the choice is easy. Want a great AF system with a window (optical viewfinder) that's pretty cool? X-1 pro promises a lot. Want an MF digital camera with a rangefinder? Get one. It's like asking if you want to either: own a cat, or eat at Indian buffet at lunch today.

I'm not so sure it's quite that different! 😀 I mean, they are both cameras and all...

 

[Bill Pierce]

I saw some raw files from the Fuji at ISO 2500 and 3200. They were impressive by any standards. As high ISO's are one of the weaknesses of the M8 and M9 and one of the reasons that "available light," once the world dominated by the rangefinder, is now dominated by the DSLR, folks interested in a smaller available light camera may want to look at the Fuji.

 

[seakayaker1]

Voted for the M8. I previously owned the M8.2 and only sold it to support the purchase of a used M9. I loved the M8.2 and love the M9. Also have two M film cameras. Just not interested in adding a new autofocus camera, I do have a GF1 for that purpose at the moment.

. . . . . I did recently add a Rolleiflex 3.5F to take care of a GAS attack.

Will look forward to reading about the Fujifilm X100 Pro performance from all that go that route.

 

[tbarker13]

I saw some raw files from the Fuji at ISO 2500 and 3200. They were impressive by any standards. As high ISO's are one of the weaknesses of the M8 and M9 and one of the reasons that "available light," once the world dominated by the rangefinder, is now dominated by the DSLR, folks interested in a smaller available light camera may want to look at the Fuji.

+1. This is such a great point. When I think about what originally drew me to Leica rangefinders, this was another of the key selling points. Fantastic for low-light use.
It was one of my biggest disappointments when I started using the M8 and M8.2. And one of the big reasons that I ended up selling mine in favor of a Nikon D700-based kit.

 

[dreilly]

I saw some raw files from the Fuji at ISO 2500 and 3200. They were impressive by any standards. As high ISO's are one of the weaknesses of the M8 and M9 and one of the reasons that "available light," once the world dominated by the rangefinder, is now dominated by the DSLR, folks interested in a smaller available light camera may want to look at the Fuji.

Or the Ricoh GXR or the Sony Nex 5N (or the Nex 7 for that matter, whose noise is actually comparable to the 5N's given the boost in resolution). All three of these cameras seem like better bets for people swapping lenses between their digital or film rangefinders and a smaller available light camera than the X-1 Pro, which we still don't know much about in regards to focusing and framing with legacy glass. If the X-1 pro doesn't deliver on a reasonable way to focus MF lenses, then I really can't see it existing in a mixed kit with digital rangefinders. Especially since a reduced kit in terms of shoulder pain is one of the common motivations for people to shoot RF.

 

[rxmd]

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.

This kind of fixation (that lenses are made for a specific format and only for that format) is typical for people who've never shot large format, where the idea that it's somehow wasteful to shoot 4x5" behind a lens that would also cover 5x7" just seems patently and completely absurd. Or who've never shot a medium format lens on 35mm. Did I mention that that 180/f2.8 Sonnar is actually a really nice tele lens?

 

[kanzlr]

This kind of fixation (that lenses are made for a specific format and only for that format) is typical for people who've never shot large format, where the idea that it's somehow wasteful to shoot 4x5" behind a lens that would also cover 5x7" just seems patently and completely absurd. Or who've never shot a medium format lens on 35mm. Did I mention that that 180/f2.8 Sonnar is actually a really nice tele lens?

+1

and the Mamiya 200/2.8 APO is one of the nices lenses ever to meet my (ex) Nikon D700. It is not much bigger than a 135 format 200 lens anyway.

regarding lens size: yesterday I saw the Zeiss 35/1.4 in Canon EOS mount...ridiculously huge, compared to a CV35 or a Summilux. And both are 135 lenses.

 

[wafflecakee]

m8.

Played with the xpro1 today, it's nice but the mf is dull and the camera feels like a toy in the hands. The upside, it looks good. I've already invested in Leica glass so my answer would be simple, but my main selling point is Rf coupling.

 

[gdi]

This kind of fixation (that lenses are made for a specific format and only for that format) is typical for people who've never shot large format, where the idea that it's somehow wasteful to shoot 4x5" behind a lens that would also cover 5x7" just seems patently and completely absurd. Or who've never shot a medium format lens on 35mm. Did I mention that that 180/f2.8 Sonnar is actually a really nice tele lens?

And of course people who have shot large format understand that the reasons for shooting a lens that covers 5x7 with a 4x5 include the ability to accomodate greater movement and the fact that there is little size disadvantage between the two formats since the lenses do not require focusing mounts.

 

[Spyro]

This kind of fixation (that lenses are made for a specific format and only for that format) is typical for people who've never shot large format, where the idea that it's somehow wasteful to shoot 4x5" behind a lens that would also cover 5x7" just seems patently and completely absurd. Or who've never shot a medium format lens on 35mm. Did I mention that that 180/f2.8 Sonnar is actually a really nice tele lens?

🙄
the LF analogy is irrelevant and you know it. Do you often shoot your LF camera handheld in low light, or do you try to shove it in a jacket pocket? I dont think so.
And even in the LF world if you search long enough, you will find some some people who will tell you they absolutely do not want a bigger image circle than they can get away with, because it would add a few grams to their carefully selected and expensively paid 5 kilo kit, and they intend to carry it on their back to the top of a mountain.

Obviously in small formats the considerations are different. If I want f2 on a wide lens for my crop camera I can pay thousands for a fast M mount ultrawide.
Or I can pay $600 for the tiny fuji 18mm f2, thanks.

The Sonnar 180/2.8 is a bazooka of a lens. I have one and I have a 35mm camera I can use it on with an adapter.
But I bought a Pentacon 6 for it because I thought if I'm going to lug a bazooka around I may as well use all of it.