Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

[noimmunity]

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.

How was the AF response? The VF?

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

 

[jsrockit]

Played with the xpro1 today, it's nice but the mf is dull and the camera feels like a toy in the hands.

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

 

[Mcary]

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

Well that's what happens when wishfully thinking meets reality

The reality of course being that the X-1Pro is an APS-C Auto-Focus camera and not a FF 36x24mm manual focus camera. So of course anyone that's looking to use it as anything other what it is needs to be willing to accept some/a lot of compromises or face some serious disappointment.

 

[kanzlr]

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

From what I read it is 300g heavier than the M8.

 

[jsrockit]

M8:

Dimensions 139 x 80 x 37 mm (5.5 x 3.1 x 1.5 in)
Weight (no battery)545 g (1.2 lb)
Weight (inc. batt)591 g (1.3 lb)

X-Pro1:

Weight: Approx. 450 g / 15.9 oz. (including battery and memory card)
Approx. 400 g / 14.1 oz. (excluding battery and memory card)

 

[kanzlr]

Thanks jsrockit, must have misread that.

 

[jazzwave]

Vote for M8


Use X-Pro1, GXR,4/3,NEX never get feel same as when use Leica M.
Simmiliar story when Canon, Nikon,Olympus,Konica Zeiss release RF in 1950-1970, but Leica M still have many fans (untill now).

 

[Ronald M]

The M8 takes really nice pictures after I bought the uv/ir filters of each lens and coded the lenses so the camera can make corrections.

Image quality is on a par with D7000 for sharpness, but not for low noise at high ISO. Nik Define 2 cleans up noise pretty well.

I bought because I had a bunch of Leica lenses already.

 

[RealXenuis]

It is lighter than an M8 so it's cheaper and crappier. It's not formed out of two solid hunks of brass (a space-age light metal) and magicnesium alloy. Instead, it's made out of pressed tin and plastic. It is MUCH cheaper to buy, so it's technically inferior. It uses toy lenses, and it's sensor is still currently in production - by a company that is financially solvent - which means it hasn't had time to age and is thus lacking the unique patina of the M8. If the x-pro 1 ever sells for 4 or 5 times it's cost of production, it may achieve it's own unique patina, but you'd still have to use Leica glass. So say we all

 

[Gid]

It is lighter than an M8 so it's cheaper and crappier. It's not formed out of two solid hunks of brass (a space-age light metal) and magicnesium alloy. Instead, it's made out of pressed tin and plastic. It is MUCH cheaper to buy, so it's technically inferior. It uses toy lenses, and it's sensor is still currently in production - by a company that is financially solvent - which means it hasn't had time to age and is thus lacking the unique patina of the M8. If the x-pro 1 ever sells for 4 or 5 times it's cost of production, it may achieve it's own unique patina, but you'd still have to use Leica glass. So say we all

Now, that is funny

 

[Spanik]

Went for "other". I was waiting for this Fuji because of what the X100 was and expected they would go for changable lenses and the whole way for mechanical focussing. Or even better some kind of USM where the motor is always coupled but you can overrule it. Or FF.

But this can't just convince me. For that price I would have expected "more", whatever that is (FF, or mechanical focus, or real rangefinder). At half the price I would take one but now I'd rather pay more to get a FF or second hand MF back. Find it a bit odd to compare a brand new camera to one that is already years old. A new one would just way over budget.

Still waiting for a digital Praktica MTL3.

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.

Amen.

 

[Beemermark]

M8. I'd like to play with the Fuji, but if I get the cash I'm going for the M9. I love my M film bodies and I have a lot of LTM & M lenses. The ability to shoot film and digital with two bodies that are almost identical in form and function is too great an incentive to go with another system.

Maybe if I was buying my first camera system I'd go with the X-por, but not now.

 

[Spyro]

Ι'm probably the exception here, but I love everything about rangefinders except for the actual focusing process. So fuji gave me a camera that has all the RF benefits that I love (camera and lens form factor, big bright OVF, seeing outside the frames, no mirror black out) and replaced the RF focusing process with mid-range AF. I'm not to keen on either but can live with both. Ideally I'd want active infrared AF to eliminate low light hunting.

On the other hand Fuji is adding high ISO and an interesting sensor that I'm keen to use, a better pricepoint, closer focusing distances, a distance scale inside the VF and a crappy EVF which is just great for occasionally checking accuracy in framing and composition when this is required. Lastly, Fuji is adding a capable repair centre which is actually located in my hemisphere and so far has been great at returning my broken cameras within a month, charging nothing and answering my annoying phonecalls.

pretty clear choice in my mind.

 

[f6andBthere]

The M8 may be a cheaper choice once the M9 becomes the next victim of Leica's progression up the digital ladder.

I don't have a problem with the crop factor of the M8 but the IR problem would cramp it's appeal once this happens IMO.

 

[Eric T]

I am looking forward to the Fuji X-Pro 1. Fuji really listened to our concerns. So I ordered one. The M8 is great. I enjoy using mine. But it does have limitations: the IR filters, no sensor cleaning, very loud shutter, and sub-par high ISO performance by contemporary standards. Nevertheless, the M8 can produce great images. But I am looking forward to the Fuji with no need for IR filters, sensor cleaning, and excellent high ISO performance. I don't know about the shutter sound but I can't imagine that it is louder than the M8. I am also looking forward to AF on the Fuji lenses.

I just think the new Fuji will be a great tool. So is the M8. Enjoy the one you have! Enjoy both if you can.

 

[custom875]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TOk_0kITBg

Interesting hands on. Answered a lot of my questions.

 

[semilog]

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.

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.

And no, I don't own a Fuji, or a Leica digital.

 

[rxmd]

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.

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.

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.

I see what you mean, but that argument is just as irrelevant and you know it, since your point was not about low light and jacket pockets. Your point was about how you consider it wasteful to have a bigger image circle than absolutely necessary. And here the LF analogy is actually quite relevant.

I've been shooting a 90 Super Angulon a lot. It covers 5x7 but most of the shots were on 4x5 for a number of reasons - the angle on 5x7 was nice for some situations, but a bit too extreme for many shots, 4x5 was easier to get colour processed, series that were shot on 4x5 etc. By your logic that would be wasteful because a bit of the image circle goes unused. By my logic, however, it would be more wasteful to buy another lens even though that lens might be marginally more optimal. The added shift reserves etc. are just a side benefit, I didn't even shift most of the time.

If you're going to reuse your Leica lens anyway on a different body, the fact that a bit of your lens' image circle hits plastic instead of silicon may be technically wasteful, but IMHO only if people get hooked on technical parameters more than is good for them. By that logic, we might just as well complain that our sensors are rectangular, because if they were circular less of the image circle would go to waste. However, in effect you get a free third-party lens for your new body, and all that people complain about is how their free lens isn't wide or cheap or small enough.

 

[Spyro]

I see what you mean, but that argument is just as irrelevant and you know it, since your point was not about low light and jacket pockets.

but it was, because this is precisely what the cameras we're discussing here are all about: jacket pockets and handheld low light. Did I need to clarify? These are the reasons people are attracted to smaller systems, therefore it makes sense to economise as much as possible on both size and aperture and the most efficient way of doing this is by economising on the image circle.

On the other extreme your typical LF shooter would normally shoot on a massive tripod, and would need something that looks like a suitcase to pack his gear if he ever ventured outdoors. Which means that he could select a rocket launcher for a lens and it would make little to no practical difference to his shooting.

Not to mention movements which require bigger image circles anyway, or the difference in percentage of total cost in the 2 systems that the lens represents due to the huge overall costs of running an LF system (consumables, tripod etc)

I still dont see how LF shooting and the mentality that goes with it is relevant to the RF shooter.

 

[rxmd]

but it was, because this is precisely what the cameras we're discussing here are all about: jacket pockets and handheld low light. Did I need to clarify? These are the reasons people are attracted to smaller systems, therefore it makes sense to economise as much as possible on both size and aperture and the most efficient way of doing this is by economising on the image circle.

I think this argument is bogus for two reasons. Rangefinder lenses are already pocketable; people choose 35mm rangefinders today for their nice pocketable lenses and low-light handholdability, and nobody complains about their unwieldy Summicrons or Skopars. And we are (or at least I am) talking about reusing existing lenses that people already have. They may be marginally suboptimal for a spec-sheet-minded person, but hey, for all practical purposes the marginal cost involved is zero, while they're still nice and pocketable. It's hard to beat that on efficiency. I guess you can design a marginally more optimal lens, but I'm pretty sure it will cost more than $0.

I still dont see how LF shooting and the mentality that goes with it is relevant to the RF shooter.

I agree with you completely. After all the reason I brought up large format is not the "mentality" (it's obvious from the whole process and shooting style), but its value as a visual teaching tool. One of the things it teaches people is to get over the idea that a lens is good for only one sensor size. 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.