Why i left Fuji for Leica M.

[Ko.Fe.]

I could afford Fuji, but not digital Leica. So, I'm using Film M and DSLRs for digital. DSLR, this is where no lag is and AF works for real. 🙂

i wonder if autofocus will ever be good enough to replace scale and zone focusing for instant snapping...

If I go on the street on bright day, it is film M and zone focusing, because AF will fail on busy street on me.

But tonight we went to see some Christmas lights. I din't bothered to load my film Leica. It is useless in the dark. I took DSLR with fast AF lens instead.
Instant focusing on face under low light.

And once a year I took pictures of hundred or so kids riding on bicycles. It is about thousand or so pictures with about dozen or so OOF. Taken with AF in servo (tracking) mode. MF is not an option for snapshots like this.

 

[rhl-oregon]

I have no quarrel with Rikard's experience or values or conclusions, but I wish to reinforce what Andreas observes in #10: native AF lenses are optional on Fuji and Sony. Like Andreas, I've been using M- mount on Ricoh, XE, and A7 (and on film M still, of course), and like Andreas--and as argued in #18 by UhOh7--using them to make an image that requires as little PP as necessary.

The pleasure and discipline of manual focus is available on these cameras. The instant result from zone focus as well. The same technical skills required in film are just as applicable and will be rewarded to practitioners willing to make the most of their gear. AsP aul Klee wrote, You adjust your technique to the contents of your paintbox.

Below are a few images with ZM 50's to support this.


XE1, ZM 50 1.5, iso 200 probably f4 (tracked & focused via VF)

A7, ZM 50/2, zone focus walking shot f4-5.6

ditto while driving 35mph, maybe f8

As for Fuji/Sony etc. with native lenses, that's a different technique and discipline where speed and results are concerned--and a different subject, too. Focusing by barrel-twisting is simply not the way to do MF there.

 

[willie_901]

Hi!

...Even if i shoot manual there is a lag where the camera adjust the aperture blades or something.

... The x100t is also slow and have a shutter lag at fully manual.
/Rikard

I really don't care what cameras people enjoy using.

For the record, these statements are simply incomplete. With some menu settings there is a lag in full manual mode. With other settings the lag is similar to many other cameras.

Here's some X100T data from Imaging Resources:

"Shutter Lag (manual focus):0.030 seconds
Shutter Lag (prefocused):0.014 seconds"

They report the X-Pro 1 is slower:

"Shutter Lag (manual focus):0.176 seconds
Shutter Lag (prefocused):0.053 seconds"

And here's a qualitative (and ambiguous) assesment form PhotogrpahyBlog

"Shutter lag is virtually non-existent on the X100T, so once you have set the focus, you'll never miss the moment because the camera can't fire the shutter quickly enough.

I do not question your shutter lag experience with these cameras. In fact, the shutter lag during full manual operation can be significant with sub-optimal menu settings.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I have an X100 and an XPro1 as well as a DSLR and I find myself using the M9 more often than all the others combined. It's the PICTURE. I get the sharpest most detailed images from the CCD sensor. The Fujis are easier to use, do a fine job but the IQ of the M9 meets my needs the best. I don't think I'll be interested in an M(240) or anything in the new Leica line, but a Monochrome might be a temptation.

 

[mdwsta4]

Guess I'm the odd man out in liking (and preferring) my Fuji x100t. Then again, I never used my old M9 as a machine gun where I needed speed. It was an extremely slow camera as well regardless if you zone focused.

To play devil's advocate, you could throw any manual lens on the XP1, zone focus, and get the same 'speed' as you could with your ME, but with better dynamic range, and higher ISO.

 

[ellisson]

"What best meets my shooting style/needs" is a decisive factor. And getting nice images straight out of the camera is nice. But it is not the whole story. Post processing, whether in the digital darkroom or at the film enlarger and analog darkroom, is a tradition in photography and a big part of the art. Ansel Adams may be best known for his darkroom processing work. Cropping, dodging, burning, toning, contrast adjustments.....its part of the art. And part of the fun.

 

[aizan]

To play devil's advocate, you could throw any manual lens on the XP1, zone focus, and get the same 'speed' as you could with your ME, but with better dynamic range, and higher ISO.

i can't put up with the crop factor!

 

[Out to Lunch]

I recently did the same thing: bought a Leica M-E for a good price. I also use an Epson R-D1x and Fuji. My take: the Leica and Epson produce comparable results in good light even though it's harder to get there with the Leica. Both cameras produce special photos...what some call a signature look. This said, I've often used the Fuji x-100 or T in low light situations where both the Leica and Epson would have been useless. Instead of ditching one option for the other, I am happy to use both. Cheers, Peter

 

[KM-25]

Without wanting to sound snarky, doing digital photography without going to the trouble of proper postprocessing is worse than dropping off your film at the local drugstore for an el-cheapo develop and print. You'll never get the real quality of the camera, not even close by a mile. If one is not prepared to accept that half the making of a digital photograph is computer work - and there is nothing wrong with not wanting to sit in front of a screen- one is far better off using film.

To a point I guess. I find the M240 files need very little out of camera. I only shoot it in raw for when I get a request to have it go super huge. Otherwise my skills in making things right in camera are the biggest factor in how much work is needed in post.

As for why I parted with Fuji, that was easy, all I ever used was the X100 series and since they botched up the menu viewing on the X100T to where I could not even use the damn thing, well that marked the end of my use of Fuji digital camera products.

 

[Darthfeeble]

i can't put up with the crop factor!

For the life of me, I can't understand this. You look in the VF and you take a picture. The picture is what you saw in the VF, not a cropped version thereof. How does crop factor inhibit you? If anything, it allows you to use more of the sweet spot of a given lens.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Without wanting to sound snarky, doing digital photography without going to the trouble of proper postprocessing is worse than dropping off your film at the local drugstore for an el-cheapo develop and print. You'll never get the real quality of the camera, not even close by a mile. If one is not prepared to accept that half the making of a digital photograph is computer work - and there is nothing wrong with not wanting to sit in front of a screen- one is far better off using film.

I don't much care for sitting in front of a computer either, but I can get far more, and equally good prints, in less time by sitting in front of that computer than I ever could in my darkroom.

 

[aizan]

For the life of me, I can't understand this. You look in the VF and you take a picture. The picture is what you saw in the VF, not a cropped version thereof. How does crop factor inhibit you? If anything, it allows you to use more of the sweet spot of a given lens.

a 1.6x crop factor sucks the life out of full frame lenses. to get an extremely basic kit like a 28/2.8 and 35/2, i'd have to get an 18/2.8 and 24/2. have fun with that!

 

[CameraQuest]

The three most famous and successful photographers I know have all left Leica.
All 3 were fabulously successful shooting Leica M.
Two are iconic photographers (not an exaggeration).
The third probably has higher yearly image sales, but is not an icon - yet.

Two switched to the FujiX system from Leica M and are very satisfied with the move. The third appears likely to complete a switch from Leica M to FujiX next year.

Obviously camera choices vary with everyone. As a long time camera enthusiastic, I was surprised and pleased to find the FujiX system competitively competing against Leica M for photog's hard earned dollars.

All photogs win with more and better equipment choices.

 

[olakiril]

Indeed there is a lag when shooting fuji glass not at its brightest aperture.
But there is no lag with Fuji and manual glass. Xpro1 is a bargain for zone focused shooting.
Xpro2 will allow focusing such a glass within the OVF.
I lIke where Fuji is going and having a camera that I don't mind loosing/damaging makes shooting a much more fun experience for me.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

I zone/scale focus so it is instant.

I can zone focus with either camera....so I'm still not certain what the beef is.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Who are those photographers you referenced, Stephen?

 

[Pablito]

I really don't care what cameras people enjoy using.

Or to put it another way, whatever floats you boat.

Support and reliability are the issues with the Leica, FWIW.

 

[jloden]

First let me say I'm glad you're happy with an M, and I very much feel photography is a "to each their own" pursuit. In the camping and hiking world we have a saying "hike your own hike" - in other words whatever works for you, and no judgment 🙂

That said, I do have to add two points as someone that previously owned several iterations of Fuji X cameras (and still owns an X100T):

1) Any lag that's not due to AF should be surmountable with menu settings as willie's post pointed out above. Using manual focus with appropriate settings you should not be experiencing noticeable lag.

2) Focus by wire is no match for M lenses for tactile feedback and zone focusing, for sure. But if you shoot entirely zone focused, then you were really missing out in the Fuji system by not using the clutch focus enabled lenses (e.g. the 23mm f/1.4 or 14mm f/2.8) which have an actual zone focus scale.

That said, I sold off my Fuji gear also and have recently moved over to the Leica camp myself, just for different reasons. I was already part way there so perhaps I should say it's more like putting both feet in the camp instead of just one 😀

For me it wasn't so much being unhappy with anything about the Fuji X system. It was more that I was really wanting to use my M lenses without a crop factor and I was interested in true a rangefinder experience, especially after shooting a film M for a while.

 

[borge]

The three most famous and successful photographers I know have all left Leica.
All 3 were fabulously successful shooting Leica M.
Two are iconic photographers (not an exaggeration).
The third probably has higher yearly image sales, but is not an icon - yet.

Two switched to the FujiX system from Leica M and are very satisfied with the move. The third appears likely to complete a switch from Leica M to FujiX next year.

Obviously camera choices vary with everyone. As a long time camera enthusiastic, I was surprised and pleased to find the FujiX system competitively competing against Leica M for photog's hard earned dollars.

All photogs win with more and better equipment choices.

The three most famous and successful photographers I know have all left Fuji.
All 3 were fabulously successful shooting Fuji X.
Two are iconic photographers (not an exaggeration).
The third probably has higher yearly image sales, but is not an icon - yet.

Two switched to the Leica M system from Fuji X and are very satisfied with the move. The third appears likely to complete a switch from Fuji X to Leica M next year.

See what I did there?
My information is just as credible as yours. I have nothing to back up my claims, and neither do you. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Oscuro]

Without wanting to sound snarky, doing digital photography without going to the trouble of proper postprocessing is worse than dropping off your film at the local drugstore for an el-cheapo develop and print. You'll never get the real quality of the camera, not even close by a mile. If one is not prepared to accept that half the making of a digital photograph is computer work - and there is nothing wrong with not wanting to sit in front of a screen- one is far better off using film.

Unless you come from a Kodachrome background. Then you might choose to select the camera which produces the best (or at least the one you like the most) SOOC jpeg. I have the luxury of two card slots. One jpeg one raw. In the last five years I have used less than ten raw files. Nobody's complained yet.