lcpr
Well-known
One way to get around the lack of focus peaking on the Fujis is to shoot in RAW and set the camera mode to black and white. That way the image in the VF is also in black and white, so it's easier to pick out the most contrasty bits (i.e the bits in focus).
Michael Markey
Veteran
Any thoughts on how the GXR is on higher ISO resolution ?
I currently use the first version GRD and find that it noisy above 400.
Just wondering if the sensor in the M module had improved any on that .
Yes, the GXR is usable all the way to 3200. However, this is subjective and depends on what you expect. It's a lot better than the original GRD with regard to noise.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Thanks for that.
Caveats understood ....that`s still a useful assessment for me.
Caveats understood ....that`s still a useful assessment for me.
aleksanderpolo
Established
I have no problem using GXR at ISO 3200, people speculated that it is using the sensor of D90, which is still a very capable sensor. The RAW is much much better than the jpg though so shooting raw is a must to get the most out of the sensor - if it is relevant to your consideration. 
aldobonnard
Well-known
I have used the X-Pro1 for a month.
Once the manual focus is practised, it becomes much more accurate than with a M digital and its tiny 0.68 magnification.
In really low light, the EVF is better.
I'd say that only my ZM viewfinder is nicer to use. Even the Leica x0.85 MP viewfinder is not as precise. Costs me a bit to admit, but it's how it goes !
Image Quality wise, the Fuji has no competition I am afraid : no AA filter, no Bayer filter, super sharp and no noise up to ISO 3200. Even ISO 6400 is better than ISO 640 on the M9.
I have not tried the Sony though, only read review so cannot provide a "real life" comparison. Just saying I am sold to the Fuji. What a camera !
Once the manual focus is practised, it becomes much more accurate than with a M digital and its tiny 0.68 magnification.
In really low light, the EVF is better.
I'd say that only my ZM viewfinder is nicer to use. Even the Leica x0.85 MP viewfinder is not as precise. Costs me a bit to admit, but it's how it goes !
Image Quality wise, the Fuji has no competition I am afraid : no AA filter, no Bayer filter, super sharp and no noise up to ISO 3200. Even ISO 6400 is better than ISO 640 on the M9.
I have not tried the Sony though, only read review so cannot provide a "real life" comparison. Just saying I am sold to the Fuji. What a camera !
Kent
Finally at home...
The M-version? That would be one of two lenses below 28mm which work without colour shifts in the corners on the NEX-7 sensor. The other one is the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21.
Yes, it cannot be generalized, but most superwide rangefinder lenses (not the SLR versions!) produce violet corners on the NEX-7. That is not too bad, because CornerFix helps, it still can be an argument against the "7".
But, as I said, the "peaking" is such strong argument for a NEX, that I would always go for a NEX instead of a Fuji again.
The combo NEX-7 and Leica M8 are perfect for me!
Bille
Well-known
I never use peaking on the NEX, I rather zoom in (one button to magnify, shutter to return back to full image).
"What I need is a digital camera which can be used seamlessly with my film M."
Wouldnt that be an M8 / M9?
aleksanderpolo
Established
What is given by the AAless sensor is taken away by the Xtrans filter I am afraid, check out the sample from IR to see it for yourselves:
XPro1:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/FULLRES/XPRO1hSLI00100NR3D.HTM
XE1:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-e1/FULLRES/XE1hSLI00100NR3D.HTM
An AAless 16MP K5IIs with Bayer layout
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k5-iis/FULLRES/K52ShSLI00100NRAD.HTM
Michael Markey
Veteran
peter_n
Veteran
Yes the M version. What I haven't seen is anyone else say this, and I've read several reports of the 16/18/21 being good on the NEX-7. So it does make me wonder if I have a weird copy of the lens.
aldobonnard
Well-known
This is a bit of an exaggeration.
Actually yes, I meant M8
Basically the Fuji delivers a cleaner image than the Leica M9, but at 2 stops higher. But a clean image is not all of what makes the character of a picture...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Ricoh GXR has both of those in one body.
Seems the Fuji XE1 applies some fuzzy logic to render an image
I wonder how the GXR would have fared in that test...kutitta
Well-known
Another +1 for the focus peaking with NEX cameras - I have been using NEX 5N for around three weeks now, and the focus peaking is I think just perfect!
crispy12
Well-known
I've been thinking about this for a long time and got the M8 early this year. I can't even remember how many times I've been to the store to get a hands-on of the Fuji and NEX cameras... I bet the salesmen avoid me like the plague now!
I settled on the M8 because I fell in love with the simplicity of operation and the incredible image quality. It's so good that I've been using film less and less. The usage is also so similar to using my film M cameras. Last week I sold my M8 (for more than I bought it even) in anticipation of getting an ME or M9. My only bugbear on the M8 is the crop factor and resolution, hence wanting to upgrade. It's expensive but having a camera that's fun to use lets me enjoy the photography process even more; I think it's a worthwhile investment for me.
I settled on the M8 because I fell in love with the simplicity of operation and the incredible image quality. It's so good that I've been using film less and less. The usage is also so similar to using my film M cameras. Last week I sold my M8 (for more than I bought it even) in anticipation of getting an ME or M9. My only bugbear on the M8 is the crop factor and resolution, hence wanting to upgrade. It's expensive but having a camera that's fun to use lets me enjoy the photography process even more; I think it's a worthwhile investment for me.
aleksanderpolo
Established
Seems the Fuji XE1 applies some fuzzy logic to render an image
IR didn't test GXR-M, but from my experience it is very similar to how the K5IIs draw, both without AA filter, both have a pixel level crispness and clarity that I am not seeing from Fuji's sample. Fuji's base ISO sample almost looks like someone apply a generous amount of chroma noise reduction to the image, which I guess comes from demosaicing 6x6 x-trans sensor layout.
Fuji does have great color and contrast, which gives an impression of great sharpness when one is not looking at the full size image.
bwcolor
Veteran
The Fuji provides higher resolution and better high EI than the NEX-6 and better high EI than the NEX-7, but lack of focus peaking and the inferior EVF are a real downside. The NEX series also plays better when shooting video. NEX-7 doesn't handle Biogons well, but I've yet to test the Biogons on the 6.
aleksanderpolo
Established
Here are the samples from IR:
XE1:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-e1/FULLRES/XE1hSLI00100NR3D.HTM
NEX6:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-6/FULLRES/NEX6hSLI00100NR2D.HTM
From IR's comparomater:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
roundg
Well-known
Here is the happy ending of the story. I got a X-E1 with the Fuji M adapter 1 week ago. I use only Leica lens on it and find it's a real pleasure to use. OK it doesn't have the peaking and even the EVF is very good I have to use the 3X magnify almost every time. But the location of the wheel is so perfect that it's so easy -- much easier than any of my Micro 4/3 camera.
The IQ from the X-E1 is very impressive. I use the standard film mode and find the color is very pleasing.
I prefer the interface of the X-E1 to the NEX camera. And it's also slightly bigger and fit better in my hands. I have to purchase a Half case to rest my little finger.
The IQ from the X-E1 is very impressive. I use the standard film mode and find the color is very pleasing.
I prefer the interface of the X-E1 to the NEX camera. And it's also slightly bigger and fit better in my hands. I have to purchase a Half case to rest my little finger.