New Leica M may cause me to buy X-Pro1

[raphaelaaron]

I also own a NEX-7, a Leica M8.2, and now an M9.

I have mounted the leica lenses on the NEX-7, and I feel the lenses do not get justice in the look of an image from the NEX.

I love the NEX, don't get me wrong. It serves as my fast camera when going out shooting.

But I kept going back and forth comparing images I shot using the same Summilux but with different bodies. I think having the M's sensor specifically made for these lenses creates a world of difference. You could see the difference, or at least I could.

And I chose the NEX-7 over the Fuji XPro1. I simply was not impressed with the images the Fuji was producing. As someone mentioned previously, it was too digital. For me, instead of the feel being digital, it was the image itself (maybe the way the files were rendered) that made it look too much like a digital image to me.

The other part I didn't like about the Fuji was its focusing, both manual and auto. Too fidgety and reliant on tech. I know just having it on me, I would lose shots easily just trying to deal with it.

 

[Lss]

I still want something like a rangefinder (direct optical view but not a screen image)

I wish there was an alternative cheaper than Leica, and I wouldn't mind an alternative to the traditional coupled rangefinder. For my needs (I want to both view and focus), there however is no such thing.

One can slap a brightline finder on top of any old camera, and it can be a workable solution if there is reasonable focusing means provided. Obviously this is a more limited approach. Something like the original Sigma DP1 (slow, wide angle lens and a simple MF focus wheel with distance scale) was quite nice, but that approach was lacking the precision usually needed for longer lenses. Hence, I never considered the Sigma DP2, athough ideally I could have achieved a lot with just that two camera combo. One of them however never had the focusing performance I need. The Fuji goes one better having the OVF integrated. In current market that alone is a feat. However, the fast and easy MF solution (especially for wide-open use) is completely lacking. (Anyone's MMV.)

Back to square one. Cheaper than Leica would be nice. A real alternative to rangefinder would be interesting. No such thing yet.

 

[Lss]

I was thinking of people getting into photography. Tabula rasa like...

Sure, anyone who has not yet found out what they like in a camera (or whether they even like doing photography and therefore have a need for one) would be ill-advised to get a Leica M. This is after all a fairly limited system (before the new M) and an expensive one to boot. But it is a stretch to define that group of people as all the sensible ones.

 

[jaapv]

Now..back to this M vs Fuji thing 😀

Cheers,
Dave

My post was about this M vs Fuji thing 😉 Or at least about sensor size..

 

[jsrockit]

And I chose the NEX-7 over the Fuji XPro1. I simply was not impressed with the images the Fuji was producing. As someone mentioned previously, it was too digital. For me, instead of the feel being digital, it was the image itself (maybe the way the files were rendered) that made it look too much like a digital image to me.

You must great eyes... and the NEX-7's results don't look digital? 🙄

 

[douglasf13]

You must great eyes... and the NEX-7's results don't look digital? 🙄

I agree with his conclusion, although I wouldn't say it's a matter of looking more or less "digital," just different. The chroma smoothing inherent to the X-trans cfa layout leaves images with a certain smoothness that some prefer, and others don't.

Either way, I prefer my M9 to both my NEX-7 and X100 because of the method of working and feel more than anything else. I'd imagine that most cameras these days have more than acceptable IQ for my uses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sure, anyone who has not yet found out what they like in a camera (or whether they even like doing photography and therefore have a need for one) would be ill-advised to get a Leica M. This is after all a fairly limited system (before the new M) and an expensive one to boot. But it is a stretch to define that group of people as all the sensible ones.

But how do you find out without trying?

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

I for one thank my lucky stars I was born ignorant, uncultured, and indifferent to artistic and aesthetic achievement.

It seems these deficiencies have saved me thousands of dollars since I admire the results from my Fujinon lenses. I can spend these savings printing and enjoying my photographs and will never know what I'm missing.

Rock and roll, man. I totally agree.

 

[semilog]

And I chose the NEX-7 over the Fuji XPro1. I simply was not impressed with the images the Fuji was producing. As someone mentioned previously, it was too digital.

I'll simply disagree. I've shot with both cameras and spent significant time looking at both RAW and JPG output. The files out of the Fuji are a lot more to my taste.

 

[semilog]

I agree with his conclusion, although I wouldn't say it's a matter of looking more or less "digital," just different. The chroma smoothing inherent to the X-trans cfa layout...

...is largely a myth. It depends enormously on how you do your RAW development.

 

[jsrockit]

I'll simply disagree. I've shot with both cameras and spent significant time looking at both RAW and JPG output. The files out of the Fuji are a lot more to my taste.

I agree. There is alot of hate directed towards the Fuji cameras that is unwarranted. Great cameras for those who appreciate their uniqueness.

 

[borge]

...is largely a myth. It depends enormously on how you do your RAW development.

Yes, there are ways around the issues. But the issue is still there. The current raw converters are not up to a decent standard, except the latest Silkypix versions. If you learn to use Silkypix and actually do some decent post-processing in Silkypix and then try to replicate this post-processing in Lightroom on the same file and then compare the files - the LR version will look like a downscaled SD version compared to what Silkypix is able to produce.

The X-Trans sensor and CFA layout is great, however, I have about 15000 X-Pro1 raw files here that I wish I could develop according to their full potential in Lightroom (Silkypix produces great results, but it's a PITA to work with - the settings are easy but there are no cataloging functions).

There will probably be better support for the X-Trans sensor in ACR 8.x / LR5 whenever they ship. That sensor layout requires so much reworking of the entire raw engine that it will not be applied to a point (.5) release.

So no, it is definitely not a myth. I know of every sharpening "secret" there is, and sure you can get a better result by applying non-conventional routines to the files but the files still don't look NEARLY as good or crisp (especially at the pixel level) compared to what Silkypix is able to generate from the same files.

 

[jsrockit]

My solution is to ignore what all other raw processors can do and use lightroom... all of my photos that are worth bothering with look great to me in lightroom and I don't know any better because I don't do comparisons. 😉 Sometimes, it's just not worth letting techical stuff get in the way.

 

[borge]

My solution is to ignore what all other raw processors can do and use lightroom... all of my photos that are worth bothering with look great to me in lightroom and I don't know any better because I don't do comparisons. 😉 Sometimes, it's just not worth letting techical stuff get in the way.

Technical stuff like decent print quality without visible artifacts / digital looking files at reasonable sizes for example?
Printing through LR with X-Trans files is a disaster compared to if you process the files in Silkypix instead.

I'll quote you on that once LR5/ACR8 ships with better X-Trans support!

I'm not saying anything bad about the X-Trans sensor or the IQ that the gear is able to produce by the way. But saying that Lightroom's raw conversions of the X-Trans files is good is just pure BS to be honest. You loose so much effective resolution - you might as well use a X100 instead, as it will result in sharper and more natural looking files through lightroom's raw conversion.

By currently using Lightroom on the X-Trans raw files you are cheating yourself of a lot of what the X-Pro1/X-E1 actually can deliver.

 

[Griffin]

Just some issues I have:

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.

M or M9?

2. EVF better on Fuji than Leica.

Better as in faster or higher resolution? Which is better?

3. Display on back better than Leica.

How is this going to hinder your picture taking?

4. Fujinon lenses excellent value, and the 35 f1.4 has Summicron sharpness with Summilux performance in low light.

Yes, f1.4 is always f1.4

5. Price: Leica M $7,000, Fuji X-Pro 1 with 35mm f1.4 $ 2,000 or so.

Not so surprising, is it? If you're even considering an M, this isn't an issue. Oh, M or M9?

6. Layout similar to M (Dials and Knobs) and simple menu to navigate.

Yup

7. M adapter works. My Noctilux was a dream to focus using the back LCD.

Many lenses will not fit however, which is a shame.

 

[jsrockit]

Technical stuff like decent print quality without visible artifacts / digital looking files at reasonable sizes for example?
Printing through LR with X-Trans files is a disaster compared to if you process the files in Silkypix instead.

I'll quote you on that once LR5/ACR8 ships with better X-Trans support!

I'm not saying anything bad about the X-Trans sensor or the IQ that the gear is able to produce by the way. But saying that Lightroom's raw conversions of the X-Trans files is good is just pure BS to be honest. You loose so much effective resolution - you might as well use a X100 instead, as it will result in sharper and more natural looking files through lightroom's raw conversion.

By currently using Lightroom on the X-Trans raw files you are cheating yourself of a lot of what the X-Pro1/X-E1 actually can deliver.

I'm just saying I'm satisfied...and I use (have used) Leica M8/M9, X100, X-Pro1, Canon 5d MKII, and the Sigma DP2m... I can't see anything that makes me feel bad about using the X-Pro1's files in lightroom vs. any of the other cameras I use (have used). I actually prefer them. Perhaps I just am not pixel peeping as much or don't expect as much.

 

[raphaelaaron]

You must great eyes... and the NEX-7's results don't look digital? 🙄

Well my mistake, I never said I bought the NEX because it looked film.

But I bought a Leica as opposed to Fuji because of the film look. Hence, the actual topic of this thread.

the NEX was thrown in there because it was more user friendly in my opinion as opposed to the Fuji. Faster focusing, and the ability to shoot more discreetly with a flip out LCD (like a waist level finder), among other characteristics. I wanted to like the Fuji, and was excited when it came out, but was very much let down and opted for another mirrorless alternative. And as I mentioned, the images being produced from it did not fit to my liking.

 

[JeffNYC]

What can't be overlooked is that the Fuji X-Pro 1's dimensions feel so similar to the M9.
As trivial as it may seem (to some), the familiarity is important.

 

[borge]

What can't be overlooked is that the Fuji X-Pro 1's dimensions feel so similar to the M9.
As trivial as it may seem (to some), the familiarity is important.

The size is similar, but the way you use and operate the camera doesn't feel similar at all. The similarity is only in the size - not feel or how it actually works.

 

[jsrockit]

The size is similar, but the way you use and operate the camera doesn't feel similar at all. The similarity is only in the size - not feel or how it actually works.

Well, they both have dedicated shutter speed dials and aperture rings... in the digital camera world, that is rare. Both have optical viewfinders. Outside of that, I agree.