Why i left Fuji for Leica M.

[Jamie Pillers]

I also prefer to set up my Fuji cameras in jpeg mode, taking care to set up everything as if I was still using film. I do this partly because I trust Fuji engineers with color more than I do my skills in post production. And I just like 'pretending' I'm using film... takes me back to 'the good old days'.

 

[aizan]

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.

can you clarify what you mean by not being able to focus it manually? and what's this about it hunting in low light? haven't heard that before.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I'm with Jamie & mdash;I love the Fuji jpegs and rarely shoot raw, unlike with any other digital camera. I actually find it quite fun to pretend to be using film.

 

[nightfly]

I have not used any of the Fuji X cameras although they look tempting.

I basically went from a film M4-P to an M9 (with a brief stop along the way with some Ricoh GRs which I still use on occasion).

To me there are two extremely compelling reasons for using an M9.

1) Is is the only digital I've ever used that I could pick up and use right away without even turning on the screen. One I knew what the initials on the on/off switch meant (basically "S" is on for my purposes, I probably knew and forgot what the other settings do), I could shoot photos the way I like and the camera completely got out of my way. So much so that my thumb went for the film advance after my first few photos. Even now the only time I turn on the screen is to check the battery and occasionally chimp. You can use the thing all day and never look at the back.

2) The out of camera RAW output is very close to what I want. Before I bought mine (used) I had a friend send me some photos he has shot with minimal processing and they had a look that just grabbed me. I didn't know anything about CCD vs CMOS or whatever but the photos had a look out of the camera that felt right to me.

Now a year or two in, I pretty much feel like I did once I finally got a M4-P, I don't really need anything else. There's nothing I want to do that I can't do with it and I can work the way I want to rather than adjusting to the way the camera wants to do things.

It helps that I shoot mostly street in the wide to the normal range and hyperfocus 80% of the time and don't have great need of super high ISO, a long lens or a motor drive. Basically it has the same exact limitations as my film Leica which for my needs didn't ever feel like limitations.

I wish it was smaller and lighter so I wouldn't hesitate to grab it more. But when I do it feels like a purposeful decision to shoot. There's always my iPhone if there's a must have shot.

 

[JayN]

Fuji to Leica

Fuji to Leica

I made this same jump as well - Xpro-1 to M8. I came from a film background and basically decided to make the switch to digital because I no longer had access to a darkroom and scanned film just doesn't do it for me.

I really tried to like the Xpro-1, but it was just too slow and I didn't really jive with the look of the files. I shoot pretty much primarily B/W (color raw - B/W conversion in lightroom) and the fuji files just seemed a little plastic to me.

That said, when talking about digital cameras, I think it's really important to think about where you come from photographically and what you're looking for in terms of final output. Coming from film, I compare everything to... film. That said, the more a camera works like a film camera and the more the files look like printed film, the more I will likely enjoy the camera... The M8 fits the bill on all of those fronts, so it's the camera for me. However, if you come from shooting digital/film cameras with fast continuous shooting modes, fast autofocus, wifi, good low light performance, you will likely be disappointed (or maybe enlightened ) by a camera like an M8/M9.

-J

 

[rogue_designer]

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.

For me it comes down to lens selection. I like the 35mm FOV (on full-frame). That means on a crop body camera, I need to find a ~25mm lens. Finding fast, sharp ones, means either huge lenses (such as Fuji's 23mm, or adapted SLR lenses) or very expensive ones. If I want a small rangefinder feeling lens, I am with the 25/4 CV (which is what I use). It's fine - but only have f4 is limiting in a wide normal/35mm equivalent.

I deal with it, because I cannot think of another reasonable alternative at the moment.

With that said - I rarely use the AF in my XPro1 - I mostly use adapated M-mount or LTM mount lenses - in either zone focus, or EVF focus peaking. It's pretty fast for my needs. Is it the same as my M-mount bodies? No, it's not. So I also still have an M4 to play with. But with more than 200 rolls of film in my drawer waiting to be processed, that has its own issues.

 

[eujin]

can you clarify what you mean by not being able to focus it manually? and what's this about it hunting in low light? haven't heard that before.

Well, technically the lens can be manually focused with the focus ring on the barrel. However, it's focus-by-wire with no stops for minimum or infinity. It's not an enjoyable nor efficient experience. I say this when comparing to older manual focus lenses and Fuji's other lenses which offer better manual focus rings (the 23/1.4 for example). The 18/2 lens also has no distance scale, which doesn't help the situation. To me, this is purely an AF lens.

As for hunting in low light, I find that the lens has trouble locking on and will sometimes focus on the wrong subject in darker scenes. All AF lenses will do this to some degree, some more than others. The 18/2 is certainly not the worst in this regard...but I'm spoiled by how fast and accurate the 23/1.4 is (it's probably among the fastest Fuji X lens in this regard). For reference, it's not quite as bad as a Canon 85/1.2L. But the 18-55 kit zoom has better AF at the 18mm end, which I found quite surprising.

 

[Oscuro]

I'll take jpeg anyday....

I'll take jpeg anyday....

Well, exactly.

There are artists and photographers like myself who made work which used slides as the final product. Despite all the gnashing of teeth on this site, I had very few exposure failures using Nikon FTn meters.

I still use digital as though I am shooting slides (jpgs ).

I know, many who blog, and know everything, think this is blasphemy!

Ah -- yes/no, yes/no, yes/no

 

[aizan]

Well, technically the lens can be manually focused with the focus ring on the barrel. However, it's focus-by-wire with no stops for minimum or infinity. It's not an enjoyable nor efficient experience. I say this when comparing to older manual focus lenses and Fuji's other lenses which offer better manual focus rings (the 23/1.4 for example). The 18/2 lens also has no distance scale, which doesn't help the situation. To me, this is purely an AF lens.

gotcha. for a second, i thought maybe it's been too long since i read a product description of this lens. the lack of a focusing scale and stops at minimum focus and infinity are not that big a deal to me. i can still zone focus without those because of the scale on the lcd or evf. the thing that sucks is the variable turn rate, which prevents scale focusing by feel. the leica q gets it right on this count.

As for hunting in low light, I find that the lens has trouble locking on and will sometimes focus on the wrong subject in darker scenes. All AF lenses will do this to some degree, some more than others. The 18/2 is certainly not the worst in this regard...but I'm spoiled by how fast and accurate the 23/1.4 is (it's probably among the fastest Fuji X lens in this regard). For reference, it's not quite as bad as a Canon 85/1.2L. But the 18-55 kit zoom has better AF at the 18mm end, which I found quite surprising.

do you mean that the camera will select the "wrong" af point to use with this lens more than others in wide/tracking mode? and what ev value is "dark"?

 

[willie_901]

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.

The crop factor can be annoying if you have curated a set of lenses manufactured for 24 X 36 mm media. You have to stand in a different place to get the same field of view with a smaller sensor. Several common 24 X 36 mm media focal lengths (24=36, 35=50, 24=36, 50=75) are close enough.

When a brand decides to fully support a smaller sensor area the pre-visulization process remains constant. What is rarely achieved with reduced sensor area are identically thin DOFs. DOF similarity is technically possible but impractical due to the size and cost of lenses with wide enough maximum apertures.

 

[jaapv]

It only means you need to add a wideangle and leave your longest lens at home to have the same range.

 

[olakiril]

Wait, really?? Where has this been reported? If so, that would be great.

Well "reported" as in rumored

But since X100T has the hybrid OVF it would be really strange if Fuji did not put it in X-Pro1.

I tried the X100T and I really enjoyed using it. Personally I think of it as the future of the rangefinder focusing mechanism.

 

[olakiril]

I'd go for the X100T if I didn't h-a-t-e the lens focusing..

This is how I feel too.
Plus the aperture lag was driving me crazy.

 

[Oscuro]

Gee, if only you could move the rangefinder patch in a Leica and avoid that delay in reframing...(sarcasm)

 

[B-9]

Gee, if only you could move the rangefinder patch in a Leica and avoid that delay in reframing...(sarcasm)

Wait.. You actually use the rangefinder patch?

 

[Oscuro]

Wait.. You actually use the rangefinder patch?

Game on! First point to you, though. I passed an entire sandwich through my nose when I read that.

 

[jaapv]

Gee, if only you could move the rangefinder patch in a Leica and avoid that delay in reframing...(sarcasm)

Not unthinkable in the light of future developments though...

 

[eujin]

do you mean that the camera will select the "wrong" af point to use with this lens more than others in wide/tracking mode? and what ev value is "dark"?

Not exactly. First, it's slow to lock focus...you'll hear the motor whirring away and it'll give up and show a red square (indicating focus has not been locked). So then you'll have to half-press to try again. It'll often lock on a second attempt. Second thing is that you have to be fairly careful about what the focus point is on. When light is low, it'll just lock in on the highest contrast thing that's closest to the focus point. I use single-point AF, not zone or multi, so I don't know if those other modes result in the the focus point jumping around (I suspect it would).

Note that all these comments apply mainly to the X-Pro1. It's better on the XT-1 but that's a moot point for me personally because I bought the lens specifically to shoot on the X-Pro1. The 35mm/1.4 is probably the most balanced choice on the X-Pro1, based on size and performance. Still not the fastest AF performance, but better than the 18/2. The bummer is that I like shooting 35mm focal length and the closest equivalent is the 23/1.4—wonderful lens but way too big for the X-Pro1.

 

[jsrockit]

I zone/scale focus so it is instant.

But only in bright light with high apertures does zone focus work.

 

[Landberg]

But only in bright light with high apertures does zone focus work.

True! But Fuji xpro1 auto focus in low light isn't better!