Why i left Fuji for Leica M.

eujin said:
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 ....
Click to expand...

This problem isn't restricted to low light shooting, although that's where it surfaces most for me. Problem is outlined by *eujin* above: poor focus lock performance where highlights, broad or specular, are adjacent to the desired point of a normal/lower contrast subject. True for my XT1 fw 4.0 cameras, across all my XF lenses, primes or zooms. I have tried reducing/enlarging the focus point size, multi-point selection, semi-frantic focus & recompose, continuous AF - nothing really helps other than changing the shooting perspective to reduce the background highlights in the frame.

Shooting into the light with my Fujis is frustrating, and shouldn't be.

I've had same issue once in awhile with my Canon dSLR gear, but much less frequently.
 
MCTuomey said:
This problem isn't restricted to low light shooting, although that's where it surfaces most for me. Problem is outlined by *eujin* above: poor focus lock performance where highlights, broad or specular, are adjacent to the desired point of a normal/lower contrast subject. True for my XT1 fw 4.0 cameras, across all my XF lenses, primes or zooms. I have tried reducing/enlarging the focus point size, multi-point selection, semi-frantic focus & recompose, continuous AF - nothing really helps other than changing the shooting perspective to reduce the background highlights in the frame.

Shooting into the light with my Fujis is frustrating, and shouldn't be.

I've had same issue once in awhile with my Canon dSLR gear, but much less frequently.
Click to expand...

After a while I learned to just always keep the exposure comp dial a couple of notches south of zero...
 
jaapv said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you shoot Leica. I also have Nikons which have picture management. I can select a "flat" no contrast mode which is ugly without processing, to vivid
which looks like cheap amateur film from 1985 with high contrast and saturation.

I am doing a church directory on line and will do about 200 families. I am not going to shoot a neutral mode and process 200. So I spent a day learning how to make a custom picture control that starts with "portrait mode", lower contrast, and then a contrast increase curve. JPEGS straight from the camera look pretty good, good enough. Dual cards allow me to
put raw files on one, jpeg on the other , and run the jpegs only straight into LR on a laptop. This is not new Nikon technology, I am doing it with a D3 and D800.

For sure manually processing each file will yield better results, but there is the time factor.

I love my Leica and when I put the Leica lenses on the Nikon and compare with Leica/Nikon glass, the Leica wins. But I feel 9 out of 10 will not see the difference without a side by side.
 
DrMcCoy said:
I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I apologize in advance. I was being ironic.
People complain. Aperture lag. AF lag. Focus by wire lag. Exposure calc lag. Too noisy, too light, too this, too that. Etc.

Fuji implemented a focus patch on their evf that can be placed pretty much anywhere in the frame. As I'm sure you know, Leica doesn't. It's centered in the frame. So if your point of focus isn't in the center and you're not shooting wide enough, you focus, then reframe, right. Oh the horror! Reframing lag! Worse if you have tennis elbow or a bad hip. If only Leica would....

My point was there's always something to complain about. Cameras now offer more utility than ever yet people are always dissatisfied. "I simply can't accept this camera as a professional offering because...yadda, yadda..."

Ya follow? (Robert Shaw as Lonnigan in The Sting)
 
DrMcCoy said:
Ahhhh, this is the part I was missing. I had no idea that the patch could be anywhere - I thought it was only in the lower corner. That's actually really neat - I could have it function the exact same as my Leicas (if I understand correctly). Man, I really hope the XPro 2 is what I'm hoping it will be. I might even sell my 5DM3 if it is.
Click to expand...
Nice thing on the Fuji is the shutter speed dial functions like an M6 TTL - my last Leica, sold years ago. If you work film and digital, it makes for a somewhat less confusing, er, switch. But I'd hang on to the 5D. Stellar camera. Nearly went over to Canon from Nikon over that camera but I don't even think about the file quality coming out of the Nikons so that was a good indicator to not switch. The Fujis make an excellent compliment to an SLR - they are very different machines. Kind of like having a motorbike as well as a 4x4 pickup.
 
stephen.w said:
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.
Click to expand...

TY for kinds words on that shot :)

That previous 'Old Wood' was ISO 800. I had Exposure Comp on camera to -2/3. Auto WB.
In LR I bumped whites, and I bumped lights, and then for NR I went to 20 on Luminance. Post took all of 1 minute. :)

Funny, but 3 feet away was this friend:

Robert by unoh7, M9 50 cron WO

But he had light all over him, ISO dropped to 640, and he was overexposed at that, though not blown. My auto WB totally lost the plot, but shooting RAW I was able to salvage it somewhat. You would never know they were in the same room, however :) Post was more like five minutes.

Reading the thread, it seems fuji has played some strong chords with their APS-C, unlike Sony, they have really made the most of it from the build, to the glass, and the files. Full Frame, Fuji, what are you afraid of? The A7 series is full of the same quirks as the nex, and you could do the "interchangeable Q", make it look like a Contax IIa, and make a fortune :)
 
DrMcCoy said:
I think the thing that keeps me from drinking Sony's Kool-Aid is the EVF, not the sensor size.
Click to expand...

You certainly have a point, and I prefer the M9 RF to the A7 EVF, which I use all the time.

However EVFs are evolving fast. The A7r2 has a much better one, and the Leica SL EVF is reportedly incredible: by far the best yet seen, and well ahead of the latest Sony.

Each method, prism, RF, and the latest EVFs, have their weaknesses and strengths. No way to truly evaluate any without extensive use. I hated the M9 RF the first several weeks. Now I love it. :)

For me the "kool aid" aspect of Sony is their touting the camera as "open mount" while adding cover glass which precludes the best digital performance with film lenses.
 
Richard G said:
Wonderful statement from a smart guy. I shoot the X100 like this.
Click to expand...
Richard, you're too kind. If you ever have a chance to meet me in person, turn it down! I'll only be a disappointment.

In all seriousness (and I do recognize that this is often predominantly a gear-centric forum), I've always said that I preferred a camera that gets out of the way. It was only after working as a photographer for 20 years that I realized that it was me that got the camera "out of the way". Total immersion and a willingness to budget for the amount of film that immersion required.

I, like others, see the potential in the (digital) camera's output the same way we were forced to reckon with the characteristics of the slide film we used back then. For me, at least, it was a good lesson.

Glad you're digging the x100.
 
I also took the Fuji plunge, but still nothing like a responsive Rangefinder. My M6 is always with me, the Fuji not so much.
 
Lss said:
The EVF patch in the OVF can only be in the corner.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think we're talking about two different things.

The AF focus patch can essentially be anywhere in the frame. I'm not taking about display overlays in the OVF - but I am talking about the ability to put the focus pipper anywhere in the frame.
 
majid said:
Well, I have a foot in both camps (M240,X-T1, X-Pro1 and X100S, although I am going to sell the latter two to cushion the blow from a RX1RII).

The X-T1 is the camera I actually use most often. AF is lightning quick, and MF using peaking is just as fast as a RF, and more accurate to boot. It is really a big jump over the X-Pro1/X-E1. Image quality is not quite as good as the M240 due to the APS-C sensor, but they got almost everything right in that camera (my only gripe would be the non-locking exposure compensation dial). I dream of a X-T1 success using a X-Trans version of the Sony A7RII sensor and the Leica SL EVF, but it looks like Fuji unwisely made a lens mount that is unsuited for full-frame.
Click to expand...

Same here, foot in both, leaning toward letting a good part of my M gear go. The XP2/XT2 releases this year will narrow the gap b/w FF and APS-C image quality, if the gap is meaningful in one's shooting. It isn't so meaningful for me, so I'll work on wearing out what I have.

Reading this thread, pretty obvious deciding between fuji X and leica M is highly dependent on how and what one photographs. For me, leica M use has become restricted to FLs from 28mm to 75mm, with the preferred mode 28-35mm, maybe 50mm, scale/zone focused, f/5.6 and smaller, in correspondingly supportive light. I do less of this kind of shooting now than several years ago and more of event/performance stuff. So, I naturally gravitate toward my X gear. That may change of course so I keep the M stuff around for now.

Nits like AF performance, EVF limitations, dial position*, menu opacity - I tend to figure out how to work around or with these kinds of things. Basically I concentrate on what a camera can do for me, not what it can't. I agree that the most pleasure in use from Leica M is with its film bodies. My M6 ttl gets little use these days, but it's probably the M body I'll keep longest.


* Majid's comment about Fuji's lockless EV dial resonates here, however. I've eff'd up some important shooting in dark venues when I bumped the dial and failed to note it.
 
I have never owned or used a Fuji digital camera beyond a 5MP camera that my two daughters used to use when they were younger. I am entrenched in using Leica M8 and M9 cameras. Different people have different preferences, and this is how life is. Not everything is about AF or "incredible sharpness". As I go over thousands of photos that I have taken over the past three eyars or o, I am astounded at the quality of the images from the M9 with the pre-asph 35/1.4, whe viewed on an Apple Retina high resolution monitor. I can nearly "feel" the people who are shown in the images. This works for me.
 
uhoh7 said:
The whole goal of the modern digital camera should be to provide an image which does not need post processing. We only need it when the attempt has failed. This admittedly is very frequent.
Click to expand...

The very issue I had that drove me away from the X-Pro1... the camera had NO idea what I want or like... either in image output OR focus, and the X-Pro1 didn't do what I wanted from it at all. The digi-M bodies do what I tell them to do with no presumptions from programmers to get in the way.

jaapv said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably the M9 and Olympus E1 sensors come the closest, which is why I like them.

Oscuro said:
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.

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.

That was the point about not spending time working with raw files and instead using the onboard jpeg engine to do its thing.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no camera natively "knows" what you want YOUR images to look like. I was one who never left my b&w negatives with a printer because I wanted the prints to look the way I wanted them to look... not that a printer couldn't have done that, but I'd spend more time explaining what I wanted than doing it myself.

With digital images OOC, you're allowing a programmer to decide how your images should look. If you're ok with that, then good on ya.

Oscuro said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I had a GX-1 as a backup to my M9P for a while, but the magenta cast issue plagues me today even as I go back to work some of those images over. Thank God that Fuji had introduced the X-T1 by the time I was ready to trash the GX-1.

JayN said:
I made this same jump as well - Xpro-1 to M8.

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.

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
Click to expand...

Well said, and your experience parallels mine closely. My problem with the X-Pro1 wasn't so much the files as it was the mechanics of the camera. It looks like an RV/VF camera. it has the same "vibe." It's advertised to the same market, but it is NOT an integrated RF/VF camera; it's a computer and just can't be used like an RF/VF camera. That's not the camera's fault; but I expected to be able to use it in the way it presents, and it just can't be used that way. I paid the price of admission to return to Leica after a ten year hiatus with Olympus... and I am happy that I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom