Leica/Fuji

[Frontman]

"... when other cameras start getting close to Leica`s lens quality. For practical purposes almost completely irrelevant but designing lenses with highest performance from large apertures is where Leica is leading and why they are the yardstick."

The differences in the end result (the print) are so small as to be negligible, but the differences in prices, unfortunately, are not.

I don't have a Noctilux, but I do shoot with various Summilux/Summicron lenses. My entire collection of Fuji lenses (18, 35, and 14) cost less than my 50mm Summilux, but I have to say that I think the Fuji 35/1.4 is a better lens. Just my opinion, of course. I don't plan to sell off my Leica kit anytime soon.

 

[tomtofa]

The difference is largely theoretical. The Fuji 35/2 on the X100 (yeah, I know it's a 23...) is very very good, for example. As are a lot of other manufacturer's lenses. The reality is if you print full-truck you won't see any difference between many of the top offerings at the pro level.

There's nothing wrong with loving your Leica. But comparing MTF and other specs is only a small part of the picture, so to speak. If we were solely interested in technical image quality, we'd all be shooting large format, but we don't - for reasons other than what will be revealed by abstracted data.

+4 (just because how often do 4 people agree with a comment on a forum 🙂)

I love the quick focusing and intimacy of a good rangefinder window, but I probably couldn't go back to the weight, crude shutter, and limitations of the digital Leicas. The X100 has a decent window, enough quirks to demand engagement, and the files are a great base for post processing. And I can look forward to what an X-Pro 2 may offer.

 

[shadowfox]

I'm sorry, all of these is still just counting leaves.

 

[noisycheese]

"... when other cameras start getting close to Leica`s lens quality. For practical purposes almost completely irrelevant but designing lenses with highest performance from large apertures is where Leica is leading and why they are the yardstick."

The differences in the end result (the print) are so small as to be negligible, but the differences in prices, unfortunately, are not.

I don't have a Noctilux, but I do shoot with various Summilux/Summicron lenses. My entire collection of Fuji lenses (18, 35, and 14) cost less than my 50mm Summilux, but I have to say that I think the Fuji 35/1.4 is a better lens. Just my opinion, of course. I don't plan to sell off my Leica kit anytime soon.

Last I heard, Leica glass has not spontaneously gotten worse with the advent of the Fuji X lenses - or any other lens maker's glass.

If/when a lens maker creates a line of lenses that equal or surpass new Leica M glass in terms of longevity, durability, reliability, craftsmanship, speed and image quality at 1/2, 2/3 or 3/4 the cost of comparable Leica glass, that is when Leica will have a problem - in terms of new lens and camera sales.

I am not sure how the above scenario would affect the used Leica M market, as it is a different animal altogether. I would not expect much of a problem on the used side of the Leica market. Used Leica M gear will always have its adherents due to the price/performance/reliability balance that can be had with used M gear.

JMHO/YMMV.