Testing the Leica M and the Fuji X-T1

T

tokyoshooter

Established
Local time
3:39 AM
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
69
For the past week, I've been using both the Leica M Typ240 and the new Fuji X-T1.
Here are my first impressions:

1- The Leica (with a Thumbs-Up) handles much better than the Fuji X-T1. I have small hands but the Fuji feels too small to hold comfortably.

2- The Fuji is a remarkable camera for the price. It feels much more mature than the old X-Pro1. Image quality is surprisingly good and autofocus is actually quite good.

3- The new Fujinon lens are very nice (I have the 23mm and the 56mm). They are quite large in comparison to the Leica lenses but are light and produce nice bokeh.

I will use the Fuji as the backup to the Leica.
Here are a couple of shots - taken handheld, so this is in no way a scientific comparison ;-)

If anyone wants some info, please let me know.


Taken with the Leica M and the 35mm Summilux Asph at f1,4:
https://flic.kr/p/mMBjWc

Taken with the Fuji X-T1 and the 23mm Fujinon Lens at f1,4:
https://flic.kr/p/mMBj4v
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I need/want AF due to aging eyesight, so I'm looking at the X-T1 (and Sony's A7). I like the lens support from Fuji, can imagine running with the 18-55 and 2-3 primes.

Re the pics, one obvious difference is the apparent DOF, more than I'd expect taking into account the X-T1's APS-C sensor, I guess, assuming your focus point was the same in each shot.
 
Yes, the depth of field difference was a surprise for me too. I knew the 23mm (x1,5) would have more depth of field than the 35mm full frame, but I was surprised to see the difference. The point of focus was the same for the 2 shots.
 
tokyoshooter said:
Yes, the depth of field difference was a surprise for me too. I knew the 23mm (x1,5) would have more depth of field than the 35mm full frame, but I was surprised to see the difference. The point of focus was the same for the 2 shots.
Click to expand...

A 23mm is a 23mm regardless of the size of the sensor behind it. That optical physics don't change is one of the facts of life with smaller sensors.

It's interesting to see that in play in real life. Thanks for the comparison.
 
Thank you for posting.
Will you be comparing the 56 on fuji to 85/90 on Leica?
The portrait length I'm very curious about.
Cheers!
 
in this comparison I prefer the warmer colors of the leica. Actually I mostly just prefer the signature of a 135 sensor over apsc.
 
whited3 said:
in this comparison I prefer the warmer colors of the leica. Actually I mostly just prefer the signature of a 135 sensor over apsc.
Click to expand...

Given the 2 samples the Leica/Lux seem to have a more open exposure and more true to life Jpeg.
The Fuji is fully capable of a the same accuracy from experience.

I agree with you though about the 135 signature. In this close range the Lux looks much less "compressed" compared to the 23.
Another step back would even things out in that regard to a certain extent but never completely. A 23mm is not a 35mm no matter the sensor x-factor.
 
SausalitoDog said:
Thanks for the comparison.

Both look great, but AF is extremely important to my aging eyes...
Click to expand...

Y'know that's interesting that you say that. I switched back to Leica because I find the coincident rangefinder is so much easier to focus than an SLR. I had an X-Pro1 that, at its worst, would miss focus on two out of three shots all the while showing the focus confirmation light in the OVF. And I still detest EVFs.
 
Never had that many miss focus using the ovf.. Not sure what the difference in technique would be.

I went from film slr to rf due to bad eye issues...as it got worst switched to film af systems then to dslrs and finally to mirrorless af systems.

Compared to dslrs, the xp1 is slow when using certain lenses, just ok w/ others and close to m43 speed w/ some others. My af miss rate w/ the xp1 using ovf is about 2-5 % range which is about same as my contax g2. Dslr is not perfect either, I was getting about the 1-2% miss rate. But there was about another maybe 3% which were what I called close but no cigar types that I was never sure what it was due to.

Gary
 
My experience with the X-Pro 1 focus-keeper rate mirrors Gary's.

The updated lens and body firmware has made a difference.
 
f16sunshine said:
Thank you for posting.
Will you be comparing the 56 on fuji to 85/90 on Leica?
The portrait length I'm very curious about.
Cheers!
Click to expand...

Well, I don't own an 85mm or a 90mm lens for the Leica, but I do have a 75mm Summicron Asph. And I also have the 56mm for the Fuji.
So here are a few comparison shots (again: I am aware that I am not comparing apples to apples).
All shots were taken at f2,0 (which is the widest aperture of the Summicron).

My key learnings were:
-The Fujinon lens handles flare very well
-The Leica M has, I believe, slightly more dynamic range
-At close distance, I found it much easier to focus with the autofocus of the Fuji than with the manual focus of the rangefinder (this may be telling me something about my own vision, though...)

All shots are viewable on Flickr at full resolution.
Hope this helps!

Fuji shots with the 56mm Fujinon @ f2:
Into the sun:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfv7x

Flowers:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfrjx

Trees:
https://flic.kr/p/mPhbW9

Bokeh:
https://flic.kr/p/mPh9Pd

High contrast:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfvE4

Street:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfuJr

Tulips:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfsuM

And with the Leica M and the 75mm Summicron Asph @ f2:
Tulips:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfubK

Trees:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfAKK

Flowers:
https://flic.kr/p/mPhatj

Into the sun:
https://flic.kr/p/mPftMB

Bokeh:
https://flic.kr/p/mPfs96
 
GaryLH said:
Never had that many miss focus using the ovf.. Not sure what the difference in technique would be.
Click to expand...
There need not be difference in technique per se, just the requirements (speed of shooting, scene content, etc). You may miss focus also using EVF depending on the situation. OVF simply adds some uncertainty about the position of the focus point. This may significantly increase the miss rate in complex scenes.
 
Thanks for the added comparos of the 56 f/1.2 vs the 75AA - much appreciate your time and effort.

Even with the focal length difference, I'm surprised at the DOF difference the two rigs, just as with the earlier comparison. I'm also impressed by how well the 56 stacks up against the 75AA, a lens I own and think is extremely good. Yes, there are contrast and saturation/warmth differences, but these can be handled in post.

I'm closer to getting off the dime and trying a X-series camera with the X-T1's form factor, nice price, lens lineup, solid firmware policy, and now LR shortly to offer support for X-trans sensor RAW.
 
Tokyoshooter thank you. These caparisons are very helpful.
I love the look from both lenses/cameras.
Sharpness and detail is superb ..OOF area looks superbly smooth and calm.
Any portrait shooter would be stoked with either set.

The M240 AA75 does seem to provide more "roundness" and depth which I'm guessing is from PP most of all.
Are you using Jpegs out of Camera for these samples or cooking up your own RAW files?


BTW... in comparing DOF. The 56 at f1.2 on a 1.5 sensor would compare to 85 at f1.8 on a 24x36 sensor if I understand correctly.
 
tokyoshooter said:
On the Fuji, I used the Jpegs from the camera.
On the Leica, they are Raw conversions done in Aperture. (No complicated settings / just a simple conversion)
Click to expand...

Ok thank you.. that is telling.
I have not found a jpeg setting from Fuji I like yet. The Fuji ooc Jpegs have a signature some may like but I find them a bit flat with some details smoothed out in lower tones.
Aperture3 seems to provide plenty of control for most of my Fuji-X Conversions so far. Retaining all the details of the original files.

Thanks again !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom