albertospa
Established
I would ask those who have used both the Fuji XPro that the Leica M9 what differences have you noticed in the photo made, except of course the noise at high ISO. I want to replace my M8 with M9 but it attracts a lot of the Fuji.
Thank you. Alberto
Thank you. Alberto
cosmonaut
Well-known
I own the Xpro but not the M9. The ergonomics of the Xpro might not suit you coming from the M8. It is a bit quirky.
albertospa
Established
Thanks Cosmo, but I was referring exclusively to the photographic quality of the file.
Thank you. Alberto
Thank you. Alberto
cosmonaut
Well-known
Ok Alberto. You might check Flickr for examples. Also I bought an Xpro from a member here, hepcat, He bought an M9P I am sure he could tell you. Maybe send him a PM. I know the examples he showed me I much prefered the M9P as the colors are amazing.
goffer
Well-known
I had the xp1 for around a month and had to return it. This was before the latest firmware updates, but my main issue was with the AF speed/accuracy and the overall quirkiness which also warranted me selling the x100 a year prior. I didn't adapt any of my M glass to it so I cannot report on that. A few months later I ordered an M-E and am very pleased.
As for the image, it's hard to say as I was using Lightroom which doesn't fully support images from x-trans sensors. In good lighting I like my M9 files better, anything over ISO 1600 and the XP1 had the advantage.
As for the image, it's hard to say as I was using Lightroom which doesn't fully support images from x-trans sensors. In good lighting I like my M9 files better, anything over ISO 1600 and the XP1 had the advantage.
doncraig
Member
I'm gathering samples from both cameras and shot at the same location. Hope to post later today.
I've owned and used both... they are both great regarding IQ. Not sure what you expect to hear. Perhaps clarifying your concerns will help us help you?
The one thing that comes to mind is your PP software... some do not like what the X-Pro1 files look like in certain programs.
The one thing that comes to mind is your PP software... some do not like what the X-Pro1 files look like in certain programs.
albertospa
Established
Ok, guys. What I can say is that the files that use the M8 until now are really very beautiful and switch to Xpro1 could be a leap in the dark.
cosmonaut
Well-known
Well mine looks ok with LR4. I don't know what the dynamic range is one the Leica but it's the Achilles Heal of the Xpro. Street shots are ok. If landscapes is your game the Xpro is no where near my other cameras. But with that they are full frame.
GaryLH
Veteran
I have been able to play w/ around two stops of dr in raw mode under RPP and the beta version of c1. Right now I cannot remember how much I could get out of LR, since I only use LR for special situations like Pano stitch.
I do not normally use auto dr..
Someone did an analysis of the dr range of several cameras compared to the Fuji, what their results showed that in at least w/ newer sensors, overall dynamic range was pretty close, but the Fuji and another camera did better in the darker part of the spectrum than the lighter by around two or more stops. The other cameras in the test did much better than the Fuji in the lighter part of the spectrum. They also compared ff dslrs w/ the Fuji, the dslr did well in both the lighter and darker parts. I cannot remember at this time where I saw this report... Hopefully my memory is not too far off, please correct if anyone remembers the report.
Hope that helps
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
For the op, is it possible to keep the m8 and still get the xp1 body w/ m adapter or even the basic setup w/ one lens? Jsrock ended up buying back a m8 because he missed the rf experience if I remember correctly..
Also the rumor of the xp2/xp1s announcement this year will start to drive the price of xp1 new prices down when places like b&h photo are given their warnings from Fuji.
Gary
Ps.. Forgot to mention that so far I have not found the rf lenses including Leica to be any better than the native Fuji lenses.. In terms of overall iq. My mention of using body w/ adapter was this would be cheapest way for u to decide for yourself hopefully w/o being forced to sell your m8.
Also the rumor of the xp2/xp1s announcement this year will start to drive the price of xp1 new prices down when places like b&h photo are given their warnings from Fuji.
Gary
Ps.. Forgot to mention that so far I have not found the rf lenses including Leica to be any better than the native Fuji lenses.. In terms of overall iq. My mention of using body w/ adapter was this would be cheapest way for u to decide for yourself hopefully w/o being forced to sell your m8.
Last edited:
edge100
Well-known
I find the exact opposite. The X-Pro1 has, in my experience, terrific highlight retention. And more importantly, it seems to roll off the highlights very nicely; not nearly as harsh as many digital cameras.
To be fair, though, I'm not a landscape photographer, and thus my needs in the DR department are not overly demanding.
Yes, that's true. However, I rarely use the M8 because the Fujis work for me and my photography. It's an emotional connection these days, the M8. It'll get sold one day when I need the cash for something else.
What you are seeing in landscapes is exactly why people are avoiding LR for processing the X-Pro1 / X-E1 files. Some are having better luck in other software.
willie_901
Veteran
Mt personal experience with regard to dynamic range is:
XP1 is equal to the D700 (but different), these are approximately 1 stop better than the X100.
The X100 beats the D300.
Everything, including the D200, decimates the first generation m4/3 sensors.
The D700 looses highlights well before the XP1 while the D700 shadows hold up better. I use a more exposure with the XP1. My speculation is the XP1 and D700 have almost identical dynamic range, but the useful range is spread over different EV values scales.
The overall noise performance of the XP1 with the 35/1.4 is very close to the D700 with the Nikkor 50/1.8 G when both lenses are wide open. The D700's increased surface area is offset by the larger aperture of the Fujinon. The total number of photons recorded with optimum exposure is similar... as is the noise. The newer sensor design probably compensates for the 1/3 stop difference between the lenses.
XP1 is equal to the D700 (but different), these are approximately 1 stop better than the X100.
The X100 beats the D300.
Everything, including the D200, decimates the first generation m4/3 sensors.
The D700 looses highlights well before the XP1 while the D700 shadows hold up better. I use a more exposure with the XP1. My speculation is the XP1 and D700 have almost identical dynamic range, but the useful range is spread over different EV values scales.
The overall noise performance of the XP1 with the 35/1.4 is very close to the D700 with the Nikkor 50/1.8 G when both lenses are wide open. The D700's increased surface area is offset by the larger aperture of the Fujinon. The total number of photons recorded with optimum exposure is similar... as is the noise. The newer sensor design probably compensates for the 1/3 stop difference between the lenses.
edge100
Well-known
This is my experience too; the XP1 holds highlights very well. It's shadow performance is a bit better than the 5D Mark II, though that camera is not renowned for its good shadow retention
I don't follow. f/1.8 is 2/3EV slower than f/1.4, which implies a 2/3 slower shutter speed to maintain equivalent exposures. Given the same light and the same shutter speed and ISO settings, if f/1.8 on the D700 is giving you the same noise as f/1.4 on the XP1, that implies that the D700 is 2/3EV better than the XP1, since the image is underexposed by 2/3EV but retains the same noise.
Not saying this isn't true (I don't have a D700, so I have no way of knowing), but I've not heard noise comparisons put this way before. If you stop the 35 1.4 down to 1.8, and shoot both cameras the same, which one has lower noise?
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I get along better with the X Pro's white balance.
albertospa
Established
I thank all those who responded to my question. The dynamic range of the D700 and other cameras I'm not interested but thanks anyway.
ShinX414
camera geek
well, these aren't very good examples but it's night time right now and i'm in the middle of my stressful exam period (so as you can see my desk is in a total mess ) so i just decided to make these few snapshots for you to see.
plz don't kill me for these examples xP i'll take these cameras out in 2 weeks and make some better comparison shots, until then here they are:
Used cameras and lenses:
XP1 + 35/f1.4 @ ISO400 f2.8 1/60s (4M size, jpg)
R-D1 + CV 40/f.14 @ ISO400 f2.8 1/60s (sry i don't have a 35mm lens in return i shot this shot at full resolution)
M9 + Summicron 50/f2.0 @ ISO400 f2.8 1/60s (4.5M size, jpg)
I know that jpegs are not the real thing and i should rather use RAW but as you all know there hasn't been a decent RAW converter for the XP1 yet so i figured that i should use them all in jpg.
) so i just decided to make these few snapshots for you to see. plz don't kill me for these examples xP i'll take these cameras out in 2 weeks and make some better comparison shots, until then here they are:
Used cameras and lenses:
XP1 + 35/f1.4 @ ISO400 f2.8 1/60s (4M size, jpg)
R-D1 + CV 40/f.14 @ ISO400 f2.8 1/60s (sry i don't have a 35mm lens in return i shot this shot at full resolution)
M9 + Summicron 50/f2.0 @ ISO400 f2.8 1/60s (4.5M size, jpg)
I know that jpegs are not the real thing and i should rather use RAW but as you all know there hasn't been a decent RAW converter for the XP1 yet so i figured that i should use them all in jpg.
