eleskin
Well-known
After looking at the new Leica M digital, I am leaning towards buying the X-Pro 1. Why?
1. X Pro 1 files are close if not equal to the M9's with much better high ISO.
2. EVF better on Fuji than Leica.
3. Display on back better than Leica.
4. Fujinon lenses excellent value, and the 35 f1.4 has Summicron sharpness with Summilux performance in low light.
5. Price: Leica M $7,000, Fuji X-Pro 1 with 35mm f1.4 $ 2,000 or so.
6. Layout similar to M (Dials and Knobs) and simple menu to navigate.
7. M adapter works. My Noctilux was a dream to focus using the back LCD.
1. X Pro 1 files are close if not equal to the M9's with much better high ISO.
2. EVF better on Fuji than Leica.
3. Display on back better than Leica.
4. Fujinon lenses excellent value, and the 35 f1.4 has Summicron sharpness with Summilux performance in low light.
5. Price: Leica M $7,000, Fuji X-Pro 1 with 35mm f1.4 $ 2,000 or so.
6. Layout similar to M (Dials and Knobs) and simple menu to navigate.
7. M adapter works. My Noctilux was a dream to focus using the back LCD.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Apples and oranges - APS-C vs full frame... A bit of a waste of the subtle nuances on Leica lenses imo.
finguanzo
Well-known
If you don't care about rangefinder focusing.. Sure.. why not..
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
While I agree that comparing a full frame to APS-C sensor really is a bit of a stretch, I'm not sure I understand the "subtle nuances on Leica lenses" thing.
Can anyone quantify "subtle nuances" for me?
Thanks,
Dave
f16sunshine
Moderator
The xpro is a very different tool and as we know not a rangefinder. That said if your goal is image output then yes, grab a fuji. The M is not here yet. We don't even know how the output is going to stack up. There is no way to compare something that exists with something that does not yet exist.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'll just say that I am interested in photographs of things and people, not in explorations the subtle nuances of lenses. That's true whether I'm shooting my XF 35/1.4 or my 35 Summilux ASPH.
They're different goals, I guess. For my goals, the X-Pro is an absolutely superb tool.
larmarv916
Well-known
I get the issue of "subtle" lens nuances....lens thumbprint. A subject shot with two or more lenses of the exact same rating.... as in 35mm F1.4 lenses all made by different companies...really do produce a different thumbprint or signature. I have done some similar tests a few years back. Shooting at same f-stops....chose F/4 Found a wide range of changes in the image. SO if you can see it and can use it for a creative benefit. Go for It...and use it to your advantage.
eleskin
Well-known
Creativity is the point
Creativity is the point
Well, I am 47 and wear bifocals, and although my rangefinder skills are still good, I feel the need for autofocus as I get tired in the eye at times. I still want something like a rangefinder (direct optical view but not a screen image) , and something not weighing more than my M8. Big pro DSLR's are hediously large and in many cases, heavy. The Fuji X series seems to fit the bill.
By the way, I downloaded some proofs from Fuji's web page and at 100% they blow away the M8 and approach the M9 in resolution. For $1,700 that is hard to beat. I converted some to Black and White too and I have to say I cannot for the life of me see why I would want to buy the M Monochrome (I have been using the darkroom since 1987 and am a fine art printer), this Fuji is quite capable in the right hands, just my opinion.
Off track a bit, but yes, I am looking at the Fuji based on how I see photographically and I need a tool I can literally connect with. I chose Leica because I hate DSLR LCD multi function stuff (menu confusion) and want traditional knobs, dials, and aperture rings. I need to just take photos and not be bothered by this mode and that mode and treating my camera like an Iphone!!!
Creativity is the point
Well, I am 47 and wear bifocals, and although my rangefinder skills are still good, I feel the need for autofocus as I get tired in the eye at times. I still want something like a rangefinder (direct optical view but not a screen image) , and something not weighing more than my M8. Big pro DSLR's are hediously large and in many cases, heavy. The Fuji X series seems to fit the bill.
By the way, I downloaded some proofs from Fuji's web page and at 100% they blow away the M8 and approach the M9 in resolution. For $1,700 that is hard to beat. I converted some to Black and White too and I have to say I cannot for the life of me see why I would want to buy the M Monochrome (I have been using the darkroom since 1987 and am a fine art printer), this Fuji is quite capable in the right hands, just my opinion.
Off track a bit, but yes, I am looking at the Fuji based on how I see photographically and I need a tool I can literally connect with. I chose Leica because I hate DSLR LCD multi function stuff (menu confusion) and want traditional knobs, dials, and aperture rings. I need to just take photos and not be bothered by this mode and that mode and treating my camera like an Iphone!!!
__--
Well-known
My problem is with the OVF/EVF combination. I have very good long vision, which means that I can look through an OVF without needing a diopter, but since I use reading glasses I need a diopter for the for using an EVF. If I get a diopter for the Fuji X-Pro 1, I'll see through the EVF fine but will have a blurred view looking through the OVF. That is what found when I tried out the X-Pro 1 in a store. The other thing I found was that view through the X-Pro 1 was too dim.
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)
This is exactly right. I had the M9 and once I bought the X-Pro1, I decided I didn't need the M9 anymore. However, I love rangefinders and am not really into film anymore. Well, what happened? I still love the X-Pro1, but I bought a M8 to curb my rangefinder lust because I missed RF focusing. However, the M8 is kind of antiquated and now I want the M9 again. Long story short, I wish I never sold it. I have an emotional attachment to the M.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
You are comparing two totally different cameras:M is not a M9. It is a beginning of a totally new concept: a studio tool ( with its grip/bottom with all the needed contacts for strobes, image transfer, future video capabilities) A DSLR with the add on viewfinder, Still it is a basic rangefinder camera when used just as it is. You should study the "M" before making comparsions... Besides the sensor in M is of a totally new concept, not available anywhere else.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
While I agree that comparing a full frame to APS-C sensor really is a bit of a stretch, I'm not sure I understand the "subtle nuances on Leica lenses" thing.
Can anyone quantify "subtle nuances" for me?
Thanks,
Seems to me to be the reason people splash out vast sums on Leica lenses...
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I got my X Pro thinking I'd use Leica lenses on it, but I'm very pleased with Fuji's 35 and 18mm lenses. I say go for it.
Richard G
Veteran
I went through this exercise in March. Yes, the X-Pro 1 would have been cheaper, with all its lenses, than buying the M9-P. But, I would want those first three lenses. And then I would want the new ones they would bring out after that and my total outlay would soon have been greater and I would then still have been looking always at doubling my investment by going on to get the M9 anyway. With the M9 I didn't need to get any more lenses at all. Although I have got two more....I now feel I have no justification to move into the Fuji intchangeable system, but I still have the X100 with its fantastic finder. Buying the M9 with the prospect of an M10 being announced within months was a considered choice with which I am still happy. The new M offers more, but I still think the choice is similar to the choice I made this year: spend comparatively less early, with the need to spend some more as the new system (Fuji) expands, or spend comparatively more early, with the prospect of limited further expense in the immediate or intermediate future.
But this leaves me missing out on some obvious superiorities of the X-Pro 1 which I have chosen to accept. For now. If you went with the new M you would be likely to be missing little if any advantage of the X-Pro 1 except a very important one: weight.
But this leaves me missing out on some obvious superiorities of the X-Pro 1 which I have chosen to accept. For now. If you went with the new M you would be likely to be missing little if any advantage of the X-Pro 1 except a very important one: weight.
IEDEI
Well-known
The only reason to get an X-Pro 1 is money....otherwise, there is really no comparison between these 2 very different devices. I would much rather have a GXR than an X-Pro as a backup camera....and would also much rather have an M8 (or even an R1DS) over an X-Pro 1.
hausen
Well-known
I went through the exercise of wondering if I should exit my M9 for XP1 when it was released but never liked the feel of it. This is always a subjective call and will always be that way I think. Gotta do what is right for you and for me getting what I want straight away rather than getting something because it is cheaper always ends up costing me money selling for a loss. Can't wait for the new M now. Looking forward to seeing some files from M though.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
So there is no quantifiable figure for "subtle nuance" as it relates to Leica lenses (or any lenses for that matter).
The closest anyone has come so far has been Larmarv916.
The Leica lenses are what they are. They are not some sort of magical item made by "The Gods" from diamond dust and spun gold. One can easily say that it's a waste to buy an expensive lens to mount on an inexpensive body but then one could also say "If it's not your lens or your money; why should you care?"
(I learned that as a corollary of sorts from Roger... I owe him some sort of royalty for using that I'm sure )They are good - yes - but that should not disqualify their usage on any other camera body. Perish the thought anyone actually mounted a Leica lens on a body other than an Leica branded/made one lest the lens become soiled and/or "unclean"
Now..back to this M vs Fuji thing
Cheers,
Dave
jarski
Veteran
Am also wondering, after half dozen or so threads from eleskin, why new Leica's are still even considered as alternatives. on the table have been M9, MM and now M, none of which have been sufficient. why bother with Leica at all?
joetothphoto
Member
I always find these threads interesting as I am going to invest in the new M and lenses in a few months. I also have the backing of my wife who said I was always happiest as a photographer when I had my M6 and just snapped away. So I guess I am fortunate to be moving to a desk job in the photo field and can sell all my large DSLRS and buy into a Leica M.
But I have to agree with some of the other people that you are comparing apples and oranges when looking at the Leica and Fuji X Pro 1. A few people even suggested I go that route, but it doesn't appeal to me. I know it's a great camera but its still to digital for me. And the reason I like the Leica is because of the craft that goes into the bodies and lenses and feeling knowing someone has taken time to create such a tool that I want to do it justice by taking my time to make, not take, photos. Yes this is a very silly way of looking at it, but I think there is something to be said about using something that has been very well crafted.
But I have to agree with some of the other people that you are comparing apples and oranges when looking at the Leica and Fuji X Pro 1. A few people even suggested I go that route, but it doesn't appeal to me. I know it's a great camera but its still to digital for me. And the reason I like the Leica is because of the craft that goes into the bodies and lenses and feeling knowing someone has taken time to create such a tool that I want to do it justice by taking my time to make, not take, photos. Yes this is a very silly way of looking at it, but I think there is something to be said about using something that has been very well crafted.
douglasf13
Well-known
I'm an owner of an X100, NEX-7 and M9, and I wouldn't choose the X-Pro1 over the NEX-7, let alone the M9 or M 240, because I don't shoot much in very low light.
Aside from the handling differences between an M and an Fuji X camera, in terms of focusing and build, the image quality of the Fuji X-trans sensor, while being fantastic in lowlight/high ISO, leaves something to be desire in good light compared to other, standard bayer aps-c sensors out there, let alone the M9 or M 240.
The CFA of the X-Pro1 has chroma smoothing inherent to the design, which is a good thing at high ISO, but maybe not so great at lower ISO. Of course, current raw converters aren't doing a great job at converting files, and that will get better, but it will always be a trade off compared to regular bayer filters.
If you want AF and great high ISO, the X-Pro1 is a good option, but, if you want the rangefinder experience and better performance in good light, the M9 (and likely the M 240) will be a better choice. It's just a matter of what suits you. Of course, the M 240 may be better in both good light and low light than the X-Pro1. That remains to be seen.
I personally shoot the M9, because I enjoy using it as a camera, even over the Fuji Hybrid viewfinder, which is still pretty cool.
p.s. That is all not to say that the X-Pro1 is terrible in good light, nor is the M9 terrible in low light. I'm just talking comparatively. Tons of X-Pro1 users don't notice the low ISO issues at all, so it may not be an issue for you.
Aside from the handling differences between an M and an Fuji X camera, in terms of focusing and build, the image quality of the Fuji X-trans sensor, while being fantastic in lowlight/high ISO, leaves something to be desire in good light compared to other, standard bayer aps-c sensors out there, let alone the M9 or M 240.
The CFA of the X-Pro1 has chroma smoothing inherent to the design, which is a good thing at high ISO, but maybe not so great at lower ISO. Of course, current raw converters aren't doing a great job at converting files, and that will get better, but it will always be a trade off compared to regular bayer filters.
If you want AF and great high ISO, the X-Pro1 is a good option, but, if you want the rangefinder experience and better performance in good light, the M9 (and likely the M 240) will be a better choice. It's just a matter of what suits you. Of course, the M 240 may be better in both good light and low light than the X-Pro1. That remains to be seen.
I personally shoot the M9, because I enjoy using it as a camera, even over the Fuji Hybrid viewfinder, which is still pretty cool.
p.s. That is all not to say that the X-Pro1 is terrible in good light, nor is the M9 terrible in low light. I'm just talking comparatively. Tons of X-Pro1 users don't notice the low ISO issues at all, so it may not be an issue for you.