MCTuomey
Veteran
my experience as well, and said much better than I can ...
Leica M is pretty much the seductive choice, so pleasurable to use, but often a practical force-fit for my kinds of shooting.
X-Pro 2 or M 262?
- Thread starter eleskin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 27K
my experience as well, and said much better than I can ...
Leica M is pretty much the seductive choice, so pleasurable to use, but often a practical force-fit for my kinds of shooting.
willie_901
Veteran
Neither do I.
I can see how some peoples' work would benefit from the extra signal (light) available from the increased surface areas with extremely wide-aperture lenses and a larger sensor. I''m just not one of those people.
eleskin
Well-known
Side by Side interesting
Side by Side interesting
This is interesting, the side by side comparison. Both cameras have the same MP, and yet the Leica renders more detail. I would love to see some samples of this side by side comparison. I have the A7r, and love 36mp and the detail, but am wondering if the Fuji is in the same league and comparable to the M240/M262. You seem to lean in the direction that the Leica is still superior being full frame. One other thing you can add would be color rendition and tone differences between the Leica and Fuji.
Side by Side interesting
This is interesting, the side by side comparison. Both cameras have the same MP, and yet the Leica renders more detail. I would love to see some samples of this side by side comparison. I have the A7r, and love 36mp and the detail, but am wondering if the Fuji is in the same league and comparable to the M240/M262. You seem to lean in the direction that the Leica is still superior being full frame. One other thing you can add would be color rendition and tone differences between the Leica and Fuji.
borge
Established
I think the difference being observed is more to do with the sensor design (X-Trans versus regular bayer design). X-Trans is known to "mush" fine detail a bit. Also, while the Fujifilm lenses are fantastic for the price, they're really no competition to modern aspherical Leica lenses. I've compared the XF14mm f/2.8 R (one of Fuji's finest lenses) to the Super-Elmar 21mm f/3.4 ASPH for example, and while the Fuji is a great lens, the Super-Elmar is completely in a league of it's own in every way possible on the M240. The same goes for the XF23mm f/1.4 R and the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE, and so on and so on.
I've had most Fuji's (and most of Fuji's lenses) as well as most modern Leica ASPH glass and an M240, MM1 and M9-P, and have been comparing them in different raw converters over the course of many years now. I love the Fuji's but even with the best glass it can't be compared to how natural and life-like an image from the M240 makes with good glass. The Leica files also have a unique color and contrast palette, whereas the Fuji's tend to pump out rather flat raw files that always needs to be processed to not look dull. The Leica files are a little bit pre-cooked, and modern Leica lenses has loads of micro-contrast which makes subjects "pop" out of the image in a unique way (which can be good or bad depending on what you want, but the Leica results are generally very pleasing out of the camera and requires minimal processing. I can't say the same for the Fuji's).
I've owned the X-T1, X100T, X100S, X-Pro1, X-E2, X-E1, XF14mm f/1.4, XF18mm f/2, XF23mm f/1.4, XF35mm f/2, XF35mm f/1.4, XF60mm f/2.4, XF18-55mm, XF55-200mm. I've also tried the X-Pro2 and XF35/2 in a limited time and compared some raw files. And I've compared them directly with the M9-P, MM1, M240, 21 SEM, 35 Lux FLE, 50 Lux ASPH, 50 Noctilux 0.95, 75 APO-Summicron and 90 Summarit.
I've bought and sold a lot, but I've decided to keep two cameras and three lenses after testing all of this over the course of the last 5 years. The keepers are the M240 and MP (film), 21 SEM, 35 Lux FLE and 75 APO-Summicron. I've also ditched Lightroom and ACR, and now use Capture One Pro 9 as that results in much better raw conversions from both the Fuji's and the Leica's in my opinion - both in regards to color and detail.
shawn
Veteran
That is a good description of the XP2. I had the XP1 before it and while they look the same that are very different cameras. XP2 keeps almost all the good of the XP1 but adds some great features and makes it feel SLR level responsive.
Even more so if you try a XF lens on the XP2. BTW, Fuji has a lens sale on right now. 35 F2 is $299 and the 14mm is $499 ($400 off).
Shawn
willie_901
Veteran
Neither is the 'True Red'.
tom.w.bn said, "What I did was no scientific comparison." So my intent is not to criticize tom.w.bn[/B.
The fact is, ad-hoc testing may, or may not be useful. There are so many variables to consider. Testing is difficult and tedious. A glance at Jim Kasson's blog reveals how much effort is required to do meaningful comparisons.
This has nothing to do with Leica vs Fuji. It would be irrational to assume lenses that cost 3 to 5 times more perform identically to less expensive lenses. Despite criticisms that Leica prices are inflated by a luxury factor, Leica uses very expensive raw materials. The fact is Leica M products outperform Fujifilm X-Series products (and probably about every other brand as well).
Using default raw rendering parameters eliminates problems caused by subjective differences in user optimized rendering parameters. At the same time, the default rendering parameters for different cameras certainly don't mean either image is optimal.
Then there's the XTrans vs Bayer difference. The demoasicing algorithms for both are very different. In-camera and post-production sharpening parameters will be very different to get the most out of either raw file.
In terms of color-fidelity demoasicing profiles (a.k.a. camera profiles) are different for even different models from the same brand. These differences are due to differences in the IR filter and RGB color-filter array characteristics (link).
Since 2010 I have owned four different Fujifilm X-Series and up to seven XF lenses. While these are equal or outperformed my 'Pro'-level Nikon gear, I know the Leica M system with Leica's best lenses are optically superior.
The analog signal-to-noise ratios and dynamic range are another story. Here are some data from statistical analyses of un-rendered raw files.
Noise levels
Dynamic Range
willie_901
Veteran
Helen,
How close either sensor may be is impossible to answer without a thoughtfully designed, properly controlled test protocol.
I did not intend to imply you were suggesting a Leica vs Fuji red-hue rendering scenario. So, I apologize if thats how my post read.
I realize you were only interested in a subjective opinion. But when rendering raw files one can adjust red hues to give any result. Even a well-exposed JPEG has enough information to render many different red hues. Of course in-camera JPEG rendering parameters and automated white balance algorithms also affect in-camera JPEG hues.
I can say in certain lighting situations Fujifilm pinks and purples can be tricky to reproduce during raw rendering. I never experienced this with Nikon raw.
How close either sensor may be is impossible to answer without a thoughtfully designed, properly controlled test protocol.
I did not intend to imply you were suggesting a Leica vs Fuji red-hue rendering scenario. So, I apologize if thats how my post read.
I realize you were only interested in a subjective opinion. But when rendering raw files one can adjust red hues to give any result. Even a well-exposed JPEG has enough information to render many different red hues. Of course in-camera JPEG rendering parameters and automated white balance algorithms also affect in-camera JPEG hues.
I can say in certain lighting situations Fujifilm pinks and purples can be tricky to reproduce during raw rendering. I never experienced this with Nikon raw.
Lss
Well-known
Nothing wrong with liking the camera, but what I see is a 2014-2015 spec X-Pro1 firmly in the prosumer price category.
vladimir
vladimir
Do not get me wrong I like my M 240 and several nice M lenses, but just 3 days with my new X-Pro2 I am very impressed with it and the 2/35 mm R WR lens. This might be heresy to say, but I wish that the new M 10 (or whatever it will be named) would come close to Fuji with build in EVF and manual focusing M lenses.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Kind of in the same place, I have an MP with a 35 cron, 50 Lux and a rather old 90 mm lens. I kind of messed up my digital alternative (I had an M9 and scores of Fuji stuff) by impulsively buying a Pany GX8 with the excellent kit lens 12-60 zoom and a 20mm f1.7. The Pany has turned out to be awesome, but I shoot film 80% of the time. Ok not exactly the same place.😀 🙄
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I've had a demo XP2 for a few weeks now and it's fine but it doesn't feel anywhere near as fun for me to shoot with as the M262 I demo'd for a month or so. I'm not a fan of the crop sensor FOV and I don't care what anyone says, the XP2 is not a rangefinder and doesn't act like one. It's fine for what it is, a high end prosumer level camera that would be fine if I had never used an M before. The AF is good, the EVF is great, it has all kinds of neat things inside the camera that make it fun if you wanna post to IG and stuff on the go but based on a pure fun factor, I'd highly suggest the M262. I feel like the IQ is better, crop vs ff is an argument people can make but I want my lenses to actually act like what they are, I like the ease of use on the M262, etc. They're different cameras that can be used for the same things but if you wanna use your M lenses and you enjoy using a rangefinder then get the M262. If you want AF and want to save some money then get the XP2.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I chose focus peaking over a focus patch. Which in my case resulted in a Ricoh GXR in the past and a Sony A7 currently. So focus peaking and full frame, the best of both worlds imho.
Just sayin' 😉
Just sayin' 😉
Purely subjective.
Those of us that love the X-Pro2 and native lenses were probably not expecting a rangefinder. It's more like modern, digital version of the Contax G series than a Leica.
It's not a M replacement. It's not mean to be. It's its own camera.
Purely subjective again. Was the instagram thing a dig at an insanely capable camera?
Purely subjective again... and there is nothing wrong with the IQ of the Fujis.
Agreed.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
He asked for opinions. I gave mine. Your opinion is subjective too. No, the instagram thing wasn't a dig. I use it a lot for my fiance's collabs she gets.
True... ...
Lss
Well-known
This was in response to someone being amazed at such a camera being released as a consumer product.
It's actually a fairly expensive camera, rather positioned in the prosumer category than consumer category. On the other hand, cameras of comparable performance level and similar features have been available since 2014, and at least some of them were selling already in 2015 at a significantly lower price point. I am not saying it's a bad product, rather that it was not really anything more than what was expected as the bare minimum in terms of specs and features. A sensible update for existing X-Pro2 owners.
SaveKodak
Well-known
If you have 15 M lenses I think the choice is obvious. They both have their strengths and weaknesses but 1 is a Rangefinder and 1 is an autofocus APS-C camera. Which one do you want to shoot with?
______
Well-known
Given the range of your existing Leica M lenses, you might also consider the Leica SL over the M 262.
Gregm61
Well-known
The original post was 6 months ago, so it'd be interesting to hear what the OP's decision was, assuming they made one, if they'd come back and respond.
