eleskin
Well-known
My M8 has served me well since 2007, but alas, it is not full frame and suffers greatly from very poor high ISO (decent ISO 3200 is not a big in 2013). I skipped the M9 because although full frame, performance wise it was too close to the M8 to justify blowing $7K. I briefly used the NEX 5n and became disappointed with the results. Too digital the files looked and a lousy camera layout. I did like the focus peaking though. Enter the X-Pro 1. In the beginning, I was amazed by the files, and still am. White balance is incredible, the lenses are great (the Fujinon 35mm f1.4 puts my Leica and Voigtlander glass to shame) the layout of the camera is great, and the viewfinder is incredible. What is not that great is that for some reason, I believe the mechanical rangefinder is more responsive and accurate. I have a full collection of used but great Leica M glass (Noctilux f1.0 included) and I feel bad that stuff is not being used to full potential. The M Monochrome seems great (80% of my stuff is Black and White) especially with the high ISO and film like tone and grain structure. What is not great is it is still Leica M9 technology with its inherent faults (short battery life, small LCD, etc,,,), the extreme price tag, and its limitation to only black and white. Enter the new M. From what I have seen, the Black and White seems 95% close th the MM. ISO 3200 seems to be more than adequate. With fast glass, any higher is not needed (strike against the MM). It can shoot color, and since I have a Noctilux, that is a big issue. It is weather sealed, better battery life, and EVF if I want. So
I am leaning toward purchasing the new M in that I believe for the money, it is a better value. I have thought this out hard, and $7K does not come easy to me. If it did, I would be one of those who always changes cameras like the weather, but I cannot. I could not afford to go from M8 to M9 and the Fuji is holding me over. The new M is now calling my name and it may be time for me to get one. Anyone else have a similar buying pattern (M8, skipped M9, jumped to Fuji and now looking to a new M)? I would like opinions and thoughts!
I am leaning toward purchasing the new M in that I believe for the money, it is a better value. I have thought this out hard, and $7K does not come easy to me. If it did, I would be one of those who always changes cameras like the weather, but I cannot. I could not afford to go from M8 to M9 and the Fuji is holding me over. The new M is now calling my name and it may be time for me to get one. Anyone else have a similar buying pattern (M8, skipped M9, jumped to Fuji and now looking to a new M)? I would like opinions and thoughts!
N.delaRua
Well-known
I can relate to some of the uncertainties that you are having. I love using rangefinders, and I love my DR summicron.
There is just no way I could ever justify spending the money on a new digital M. It seems to me that image quality in normal ISO ranges has converged in the digital realm so that resolution and IQ are very similar across many systems. In other words, there does not seem to be that much of a difference in a practical sense between Fuji X series files and the new Leica. I am sure some out there will tell me I am insane and blind...
The limiting factor often seems to be the lenses. The Fuji seems to have great optics with more coming in the future. For being a 1st generation camera the X series sure did to get it right with some quirks. People love them. For the performance, them seem reasonably priced with respect to the current market. That can't be said for Leica glass.
To me your issue seems centered around a brand. You want to own Leica and shoot Leica glass. If that is important to you, then I think the new M is the best choice for you. If that is not important to you then the Fuji makes much more logical sense. Especially if 7K is hard to come by...
There is just no way I could ever justify spending the money on a new digital M. It seems to me that image quality in normal ISO ranges has converged in the digital realm so that resolution and IQ are very similar across many systems. In other words, there does not seem to be that much of a difference in a practical sense between Fuji X series files and the new Leica. I am sure some out there will tell me I am insane and blind...
The limiting factor often seems to be the lenses. The Fuji seems to have great optics with more coming in the future. For being a 1st generation camera the X series sure did to get it right with some quirks. People love them. For the performance, them seem reasonably priced with respect to the current market. That can't be said for Leica glass.
To me your issue seems centered around a brand. You want to own Leica and shoot Leica glass. If that is important to you, then I think the new M is the best choice for you. If that is not important to you then the Fuji makes much more logical sense. Especially if 7K is hard to come by...
I went M8 to M9 to X-Pro1 and now I think I'm done with Leica... unless the M9 comes down to stupid cheap prices in the future.
back alley
IMAGES
bottom line for me is that leica is now strickly a luxury item and i don't own ANY lux items in any area...not my car or my coffee maker...
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I own and love my Monochrom, I see logic in your thinking, but I will say if you didn't need color for 20% of your work, I say the Monochrome would be the way to go.
Cal
Cal
theno23
Established
Sounds like you have to decide if the ergonomics of the M are worth 7k to you. It's a really nice camera in the hand, and some prefer the viewfinder over the M9/MM - to me they're pretty similar (finder lines are better positioned and brighter, but that's it). The shutter action, noise, and speed of operation are worlds apart though.
I don't the sensor is significantly better than the Fuji, probably better DR, but not much else.
It's a tough call, I think you really need to shoot with an M for an hour. Be patient and wait until your local dealer has one they can lend you for a bit to try?
I don't the sensor is significantly better than the Fuji, probably better DR, but not much else.
It's a tough call, I think you really need to shoot with an M for an hour. Be patient and wait until your local dealer has one they can lend you for a bit to try?
David_Manning
Well-known
It'll be good that you hear opinions from people who have done both...or all three (M9/MM, M, X-Pro 1). It'll lend perspective.
I was going to buy an M-E, but since I have no existing M-mount glass I wasn't tied into that proposition. I ended up going X-Pro 1, and haven't looked back.
My reasoning is that the XP1 will take better images in a wider variety of shooting situations than the Leicas (higher frame rate, lower light, longer lenses, availability of zooms). As far as the MM, it won't solve your 20% color issue. The nice thing about the XP1 viewfinder is that it'll give you 100% accuracy if you need it.
The new M looks sexy, but in all honesty I have pretty much everything it'll do with a 5DmkII...so now the mkII PLUS the X-Pro 1 combined, plus glass, are less expensive than a new M without glass.
I'm not fixated on manual focus and don't have a legacy M-mount lenses. I do, however, own the Kipon M adapter for the Fuji, and I shot a friend's 21mm Elmarit, and it worked great. To tell the truth, I prefer the Fuji glass and autofocus...it's all meant to work together perfectly for metering, focus, etc. obviously.
I also shoot about 80% b&w, and have no problems with the b&w output of the X-Trans sensor...in fact, once the files ingested into Silver Efex Pro 2, I tend to crush blacks, increase contrast, and add grain anyway...so an MM's dynamic range would be wasted.
Let me know if you're interested...I'll post a few examples. I don't want to hijack your thread with my pictures.
I was going to buy an M-E, but since I have no existing M-mount glass I wasn't tied into that proposition. I ended up going X-Pro 1, and haven't looked back.
My reasoning is that the XP1 will take better images in a wider variety of shooting situations than the Leicas (higher frame rate, lower light, longer lenses, availability of zooms). As far as the MM, it won't solve your 20% color issue. The nice thing about the XP1 viewfinder is that it'll give you 100% accuracy if you need it.
The new M looks sexy, but in all honesty I have pretty much everything it'll do with a 5DmkII...so now the mkII PLUS the X-Pro 1 combined, plus glass, are less expensive than a new M without glass.
I'm not fixated on manual focus and don't have a legacy M-mount lenses. I do, however, own the Kipon M adapter for the Fuji, and I shot a friend's 21mm Elmarit, and it worked great. To tell the truth, I prefer the Fuji glass and autofocus...it's all meant to work together perfectly for metering, focus, etc. obviously.
I also shoot about 80% b&w, and have no problems with the b&w output of the X-Trans sensor...in fact, once the files ingested into Silver Efex Pro 2, I tend to crush blacks, increase contrast, and add grain anyway...so an MM's dynamic range would be wasted.
Let me know if you're interested...I'll post a few examples. I don't want to hijack your thread with my pictures.
eleskin
Well-known
ergonomics
ergonomics
Yes, ergonomics seems to me a major issue. The Fuji is very close, but only if it had a real rangefinder. If Fuji made a full frame X style camera with an M type rangefinder for $2500 or so with M mount I would not even be having this debate. It is really too bad the cost of using a rangefinder digitally has to be so damn high. We should have a few choices but we do not. Leica if you have the cash or a Fuji rangefinder or something like that if we have to watch our money.
ergonomics
Yes, ergonomics seems to me a major issue. The Fuji is very close, but only if it had a real rangefinder. If Fuji made a full frame X style camera with an M type rangefinder for $2500 or so with M mount I would not even be having this debate. It is really too bad the cost of using a rangefinder digitally has to be so damn high. We should have a few choices but we do not. Leica if you have the cash or a Fuji rangefinder or something like that if we have to watch our money.
LCT
ex-newbie
Not exactly. R-D1, M8.2, M240. No regrets i'm still using each of them. The M240 is perhaps the first digital M reaching the level and sometimes outperforming the best film M cameras. Still misses a top LCD and an efficient thumb rest for me and the EVF is useless for focussing on moving subjects but otherwise, aside from financial considerations, it is difficult to criticize this body in good faith IMHO.
David_Manning
Well-known
Fuji seems to have committed to APS-C by producing it's XF-mount lenses, which have imaging circles designed for APS-C/X-Trans sensors.
I'm not sure ergonomics would be the problem...I think lots of Leica shooters like manual focus OR have large M-lens collections.
If you don't have either of those mandates, the Fuji is I think the better, more flexible shooter, especially for the $$. Even without considering cost, I really think the Fuji is the better image-making machine. It'll never have the cachet of Leica though...that's an itch that won't get scratched by any other camera.
I'm not sure ergonomics would be the problem...I think lots of Leica shooters like manual focus OR have large M-lens collections.
If you don't have either of those mandates, the Fuji is I think the better, more flexible shooter, especially for the $$. Even without considering cost, I really think the Fuji is the better image-making machine. It'll never have the cachet of Leica though...that's an itch that won't get scratched by any other camera.
GaryMulcahey
Member
Fuji has made great lenses for decades. I had an old Fuji 6x9 system that I used in tandem with my Blads in the film days. There is no reason that Fuji couldn't ramp up production of full frame glass for full frame rangefinder.
The first company (Zeiss, Voigtlander, anybody?) to put out a full frame rangefinder that takes M mount lenses for a reachable price will put Leica M cameras into the history books. I bought an MM for b&w because I like the look of the images I've seen and I shoot a ton of B&W. When the new XPro comes around I will give it a good look for colour work.
The first company (Zeiss, Voigtlander, anybody?) to put out a full frame rangefinder that takes M mount lenses for a reachable price will put Leica M cameras into the history books. I bought an MM for b&w because I like the look of the images I've seen and I shoot a ton of B&W. When the new XPro comes around I will give it a good look for colour work.
Not so sure of this... they may lose some photographers (and not all), but the collectors and brand whores who want a luxury camera for show won't jump ship.
In 80 years, nobodys been able to get rid of Leica depsite cheaper prices.
GaryMulcahey
Member
I don't think Leica will go anywhere. They make the best glass on earth for the most part and not just for cameras. I'm just talking camera. I don't believe digital cameras carry the same collectibility as film cameras did. Leica's digital offering for the most part are nothing all that special in image quality. The only thing that has impressed me about Leica in digital is the MM. It has a feel to it that is close to film that I like. If not for the MM I wouldn't have got a Leica. Too many quality control issue for the price.
willie_901
Veteran
Life Is Short
Life Is Short
Buy what will makes you happy.
Life Is Short
Buy what will makes you happy.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Fact #1: You've been wanting one of the FF digital RF cameras for a really long time. Fact #2: You've had the excellent Fuji now for quite some time, too. You'd know already if it is enough to lay to rest that pang for the FF digital RF.
I'd say you have to get a FF digital RF.
If money is such a concern, why rule out the M9? If you can make the stretch, my vote would be for you to get the MM and use the Fuji system for color.
Otherwise, sell your M glass, exit the M system, and never look back.
I'd say you have to get a FF digital RF.
If money is such a concern, why rule out the M9? If you can make the stretch, my vote would be for you to get the MM and use the Fuji system for color.
Otherwise, sell your M glass, exit the M system, and never look back.
Fraser
Well-known
Seems a bit of a waste having a Noctilux and not a full frame Leica, I would have sold that bought an M9 and a 50mm summilux. As much as I liked the M8 (sometimes think about getting another one as an extra body) I think the M9 is well worth the extra.
GaryLH
Veteran
+1.
Life is too short.. If u want it and can afford it, get it.
That being said... My perspective on Leica M. I still have a lot of my Leica lenses from my film days. I had an urge at one time for the m8. But by the time the m9 rolled around.. Not really... For me Leica had never really been about the rf experience anyway.
I use the old lenses on the Ricoh gxr m-module mainly and sometimes the xp1 and omd.
The only Leica that has gotten my attention is the monochrom... The only reason I still use film is mainly for b&w and medium format work w/ some 35 occasionally just for fun. If I were to ever to buy a Leica it would be the monochrom. Right now, I am happy w/ what I get from the sigma dp Merrill cameras in monochrom mode that my monochrom gas is almost non-existent.
Good luck w/ your decision
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
W/ all of Fuji rich history in film rangefinders and their first foray back into serious digital cameras since the Fuji s series dslrs (Nikon bodies).. Not going the traditional rf route... I really don't c them ever going there. I think the closest we will c is the split image evf of the x100s.
FF Fuji in the near future, I have my doubts for anything in the near future. I suspect they may sit back and c/ how it really plays out. That does not mean that they are sitting the not doing anything. They could be like Apple, w/ a lot of r&d work already done but waiting for the right time for all we know.
Gary
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The Fuji? Not full frame, not a rangefinder, not a competing camera, unless you are unable to look past a retro design. Still, the XPro 1 is a pretty good camera in its own right, but for me could never replace an M9 or even M8, let alone an MM or M. Buy what works best for you - that is the way to get the best images. The name of the maker is the least important part of any camera. In the end I would advise against any purchase in any hobby that overstretches you financially.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Epson RD-1, M8, M8.2, Fuji XPro 1, Fuji X100.
I just won't ride the Leica digital train any longer. The cost - to me - isn't justified by the end product. Some will, obviously disagree, but I see the Leica digital offerings as little more than luxury/status items. Hell, I'm not even sure the company would disagree with that characterization.
My kit now consists of an M3, 50 rigid summicron and 90 elmar. And I have a X100 for my digital needs. Really, I'm sort of taking a bit of break from shooting for the time being. So those two cameras do everything I need.
If I were to get back into heavy shooting, I'd likely look again at the Fuji X Pro series and/or a Nikon DSLR.
I just won't ride the Leica digital train any longer. The cost - to me - isn't justified by the end product. Some will, obviously disagree, but I see the Leica digital offerings as little more than luxury/status items. Hell, I'm not even sure the company would disagree with that characterization.
My kit now consists of an M3, 50 rigid summicron and 90 elmar. And I have a X100 for my digital needs. Really, I'm sort of taking a bit of break from shooting for the time being. So those two cameras do everything I need.
If I were to get back into heavy shooting, I'd likely look again at the Fuji X Pro series and/or a Nikon DSLR.