squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Why i left Fuji for Leica M.
Wait, really?? Where has this been reported? If so, that would be great.
Wait, really?? Where has this been reported? If so, that would be great.
uhoh7
Veteran
Photographers switch systems all the time. There is no shortage of great photographers using Leicas.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence.
Obviously each of the systems has it's strengths. Most serious shooters use more than one for this reason.
The Leica M would really be killing it if they would get back to the form factor of the M6 or even a little smaller. But as it is, they are doing fine. They could not make enough M240s for a very long time.
What's great is the M9 is so cheap now. When you factor in film, it's really the same as a M6 if you shot it all the time. Nothing at all wrong with the Fujis. But it's not the same in basically any respect. The M9 is the closest anyone ever came to a classic film camera with digital guts. Plenty of people tried one and hated it
Today they say 18mp is not enough, and the ISO is too weak.....well you might say the same about film cameras, but they are not dying.
Here the M9 with v4 50 cron at f/2; again little post:
Old wood by unoh7, on Flickr
Well my framing could have been better, and I missed the focus a bit, but I love the shot. That's what you want: a camera that makes images you love. Others may find all sorts of problems with them. Who cares?
Outdoors, overcast, with the 28 cron:
On track by unoh7, on Flickr
The rig just kills me over and over
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence.
Obviously each of the systems has it's strengths. Most serious shooters use more than one for this reason.
The Leica M would really be killing it if they would get back to the form factor of the M6 or even a little smaller. But as it is, they are doing fine. They could not make enough M240s for a very long time.
What's great is the M9 is so cheap now. When you factor in film, it's really the same as a M6 if you shot it all the time. Nothing at all wrong with the Fujis. But it's not the same in basically any respect. The M9 is the closest anyone ever came to a classic film camera with digital guts. Plenty of people tried one and hated it
Today they say 18mp is not enough, and the ISO is too weak.....well you might say the same about film cameras, but they are not dying.
Here the M9 with v4 50 cron at f/2; again little post:
Old wood by unoh7, on Flickr
Well my framing could have been better, and I missed the focus a bit, but I love the shot. That's what you want: a camera that makes images you love. Others may find all sorts of problems with them. Who cares?
Outdoors, overcast, with the 28 cron:
On track by unoh7, on Flickr
The rig just kills me over and over
KM-25
Well-known
Yeah, well it's pretty easy indeed. Kind of like putting a Hungry Man dinner in the microwave....easy does not equal gourmet, lol! I'll take my darkroom and the commensurate prints sales over the "enter / return" key variety any day of the week.
KM-25
Well-known
David shoots with Leica, Nikon, Fuji and sometimes a Mamiya 7, so he is not totally out of the Leica game. In Leica he is currently shooting the Monocrom and 35mm FLE.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Started in the seventies. Learned on LF. switched to 135, shot Leicas for a while then dove fully into SLRs. Now, semi-retired, virtually everything is shot with an SLR. Digital. Personal work is done on SLRs, X100(s), and iPhone.
So, did I give up Leica for a cellphone?
So, did I give up Leica for a cellphone?
B-9
Devin Bro
I had my process down to two chemicals and a few odds that would fit inside a trunk in my spare room when I packed it away for digital...
Still have lots of chemisty...
Maybe I should evaluate if a digital M really is for me.
Edit: I did just clean and pack away my enlarger two months ago (adding a Nikkor 50/2.8 at the last minute, it was part of a trade) so its not buried yet.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was going to bash on you, looked at the picture and ... you aren't. I never seen color fringing as bad.
And I see the point Head Bartender made here.
As much as I like and want digital RF in terms if OVF, ORF and FF, IQ of M9 pictures posted here doesn't match the current price for this camera. Sorry, to be the real jerk.
mretina
Well-known
Interesting thread.
In my case I shoot film (lots of options) when I go out to "take photos" and 5d mkII when I need images (i.e. dslr is needed for when it is so convenient and "beyond" film capabilities: big tourism, sport, family events - and it also make very good photos).
When shooting film, m2, spotmatic and xa are my preferred cameras.
About two years ago I started shooting X100 (bought used and replaced a canon S90 as light digital option: I cannot shoot with the iphone). I was looking for a digital rangefinder experience.
I have been really pleased with the results, but I could not really successfuly zone/AF or shoot street.
Happy with fuji, last year I added an XE-1, just a body initially to try and use Leica and other glass on it. Again I could not really successfully manual focus, shoot street or use Leica lenses with adapters at a satisfactory combination of speed and pleasure. I quickly bought a 18mm f2, and I started to use XE-1/18 for travelling with a light body as I like the 28mm. I would probably never take XE-1/18 (or X100) when I go out, just for the pleasure of taking pictures, but it is now my "go to" camera when travelling light and I do not want to carry the bulk of 5d and a couple of primes.
Because 18mm it is a bit wider and maybe AF faster I managed to shoot some street, but not as I would with an M2. It is also very plasticky.
Now I am tempted again by a monochrome or an M9.
In my case I shoot film (lots of options) when I go out to "take photos" and 5d mkII when I need images (i.e. dslr is needed for when it is so convenient and "beyond" film capabilities: big tourism, sport, family events - and it also make very good photos).
When shooting film, m2, spotmatic and xa are my preferred cameras.
About two years ago I started shooting X100 (bought used and replaced a canon S90 as light digital option: I cannot shoot with the iphone). I was looking for a digital rangefinder experience.
I have been really pleased with the results, but I could not really successfuly zone/AF or shoot street.
Happy with fuji, last year I added an XE-1, just a body initially to try and use Leica and other glass on it. Again I could not really successfully manual focus, shoot street or use Leica lenses with adapters at a satisfactory combination of speed and pleasure. I quickly bought a 18mm f2, and I started to use XE-1/18 for travelling with a light body as I like the 28mm. I would probably never take XE-1/18 (or X100) when I go out, just for the pleasure of taking pictures, but it is now my "go to" camera when travelling light and I do not want to carry the bulk of 5d and a couple of primes.
Because 18mm it is a bit wider and maybe AF faster I managed to shoot some street, but not as I would with an M2. It is also very plasticky.
Now I am tempted again by a monochrome or an M9.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I come from Kodachrome. I have yet to see any digital photograph that looks like Kodachrome. Most cameras can record raw+JPG on the same card.
olakiril
Well-known
I had the x100,x100t and both had the closing aperture delay.
Here is a more detailed old thread about the issue:
http://www.*****************/threads/shutter-lag-in-bright-light.673/
*edit: forum blocked the link. Replace stars with: fujix-forum dot com
Nothing in the menus could fix it but if you have a solution I would love to hear it.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I love Nikon and I love love Leica. Made my living for over 35 years on them. That being said I have transitioned to Fuji X for about 80% of my needs. The X-T1 and new 35/2 kit is about as close to my M3 and 50mm "Cron. Except now no lab work. Still spooking this Fuji thing out, but the more I fiddle with it the more I am sucked in. No matter what, my very used Nikon F and Leica M3 will never leave me. I think the Fuji X series is a serious, but not perfect, rig as I see it.
aizan
Veteran
is the 35/2 fast enough to make a strong, qualitative difference over the 35/1.4? thinking i might get it along with the fuji x-pro2 and 18/2, and throw in the next x100 later on. it'd have to be able to go from a full length shot to a half portrait in the blink of an eye, and not just at f8.
stephen.w
Established
Here the M9 with v4 50 cron at f/2; again little post:
Old wood by unoh7, on Flickr
Well my framing could have been better, and I missed the focus a bit, but I love the shot. That's what you want: a camera that makes images you love. Others may find all sorts of problems with them. Who cares?
The rig just kills me over and over
Lovely. What ISO was this shot at?
I do sometimes wish that I had a higher ISO platform to shoot my M lenses with, but the M shooting experience and philosophy is simply not replicated with a 3rd party EVF camera and those lenses.
David_Manning
Well-known
David Alan Harvey has worked with the X100, and most recently the X-T1 and the X-T10 (he's in Miami Beach right now working on a new project called BeachGames, shooting with the X-T10...I'm following him on Instagram).
The "icon" is Bruce Gilden, with a version of the X100.
The "icon" is Bruce Gilden, with a version of the X100.
Landberg
Well-known
Thats great! I'm not using leica because of anyone else. Or thats not true, a teacher i had 10 years ago had one and i borrowed it. Long before i knew of any magnum photographer.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I began moving to Fuji X nearly 2 years ago, wanting greater focal length capability in a relatively small form factor. I've done club work, travel, portraits, interiors, long exposure, and street with a couple XT1's and several fast primes and zooms. I'm considering reducing my M gear to a film body and a lens or two. Fuji X works for me. I was skeptical in the beginning and, since I'm a slow learner, took time to assess carefully.
I really don't have brand loyalty, it's all about how and what I shoot. If everything I shot fit a 28-75m FL and I never felt the need for AF, an occasional high frame rate, OIS, and a few other SLR-like features, I'd stay w/Leica. No gear is more fun, sexy, cool, and effective within its limits.
Beautiful shot, moody, well-processed chiarascuro. Btw, I think your framing is good (me, I wouldn't crop camera right or top - subject looks quite good centered I think).
"Anecdotal" isn't evidence, but it is life (as long as it's reported truthfully). Sometimes more useful than evidence in making gear decisions, properly considered.
I really don't have brand loyalty, it's all about how and what I shoot. If everything I shot fit a 28-75m FL and I never felt the need for AF, an occasional high frame rate, OIS, and a few other SLR-like features, I'd stay w/Leica. No gear is more fun, sexy, cool, and effective within its limits.
Beautiful shot, moody, well-processed chiarascuro. Btw, I think your framing is good (me, I wouldn't crop camera right or top - subject looks quite good centered I think).
"Anecdotal" isn't evidence, but it is life (as long as it's reported truthfully). Sometimes more useful than evidence in making gear decisions, properly considered.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Well, I'm impressed you can make that distinction reliably. I can't, and none of the editors, including some old-timers, for whom I've worked can make that assessment with 100% accuracy either. There have been some hilarious exchanges over prints and coffee...
But that's not the point. The point was about the process. The point is there is no post-production (normally) when you shoot slides. Similarly, if you commit to shooting jpegs and using a yes/no process as opposed to a "this will be good if I do x, y, and z, and then a, b, and c..." As you know, other than supervision of printmaking from a slide, typically editing slides is a no/yes process.
I, and it would seem some others, prefer to work the same way with jpegs. A yes/no process. So I've over the years selected cameras that render colour the way I like. Just like we selected film types to do the same thing.
As we are all subject to the medium chosen, this requires learning how to "drive" (in digital) the camera to where it will do what you like. Yes, you sacrifice some hypothetical sharpness, some hypothetical colour accuracy, some hypothetical, "x-ness", but what you gain is time. More time to shoot, more time to look at photographs, more time to make love to one's wife/husband/cook/poolboy/dominatrix etc....
As you also know, the trick with Kodachrome, if you wanted a specific kind of saturation, was underexposure. Of course, being off by a third of a stop was, under some lighting conditions, the same as being off by five stops.
So, everybody I knew back then, myself included, bracketed the snot out of a job.
For most of us, a photography-forced reshoot was more than a budget, or more importantly a reputation, could bear. Nobody cared how much film you shot as long as you came back with the shot(s).
For some jobs, compared to the cost of talent, location, fixers, transport, and support, film was the smallest line item on a budget.
I leave out batch processing for specific output requirements or the hijinks performed to make art camera/press-ready.
Also left out are the situations where the lighting is so egregiously bad that there is nothing left but to go to the raw file. But even then I would argue that it would depend on how you are seeing your subject.
There are many ways of working. For me, in semi-retirement, I prefer shooting and looking at the final result either in a print on a wall or in a book. I hated the darkroom, and unless I'm writing, about the only use I have for a computer is getting the file to one of my printers, storing, and administering. I spend enough time in front of a screen as it is.
I will admit, Jaap, that as my activity transitions to mostly personal work, I use eye-fi technology to get the files to the printers, eschewing the computer altogether except for access to storage.
That was the point about not spending time working with raw files and instead using the onboard jpeg engine to do its thing.
Takes time, though. You need to be with a camera for a substantial time before it comes together. You can use a lot of different cameras but you still need to internalize each. Jumping from system to system to the exclusion of previous systems delays the process.
For a while I was doing a lot of travel work for smaller out-of-the-way destinations and I wanted to ditch the big single-digit Nikons. A zoom is a necessity. Enter m4/3.
I stumbled into DAH and he was shooting a Panasonic GF1 alongside some other stuff. I had one too and we grinned at the little solution. I wound up with a GX1 (as a "logical" upgrade) but I hated the jpeg colour cast (unpredictable and only sometimes) and the fact that I couldn't trust the rear screen to tell me if I was in the ballpark. A problem not present on the GF1 or G1.
So I started shooting raw and jpeg with the GX1 going to the raw file when I wound up with a select that had that stupid magenta cast. Drove me nuts. Went back to the GF1 and G1. Abandoned them when I discovered that the Fuji stuff was a great companion to the Nikons. I still have the "big Niks" and they get used a lot. But the Fuji is groovy and the jpeg is stellar.
My prints are ready so I'm ditching this screen.
Have fun!
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
eujin
Member
I tried out the 35/2 in a store recently. I briefly owned the 35/1.4 a while back and I think that the 35/2 is awesome value for money...I don't think you'd be giving up any image quality. The small gain in speed is marginal and the 35/2 locks focus much faster, IMHO. If a 50mm field of view is your thing, this the lens I'd pick up. Personally, I like the 23/1.4 best but that thing is huge.
I also own the 18/2...not that big a fan of the lens. It tends to hunt in low light and you can't manual focus it. It's good for a walkabout lens due to the small size.
Richard G
Veteran
Wonderful statement from a smart guy. I shoot the X100 like this.