Bill Pierce
Well-known
I’ve been using the Fuji X-Pro1, seeing if it was a less expensive alternative to Leica’s digital M’s. In the process, I also spent a lot of time on the Web seeing what other folks thought of the Fuji. Many of the comments were of the “It’s not a Leica!!!” variety. Of course it’s not a Leica; it’s a Fuji. But, those comments in context almost always meant it’s not as good as a Leica.
When I was a little kid, my father came back from Germany with a camera - for me. I have used Leicas for sixty years thanks to that rather early start. They have been my companions in some rather exciting adventures. It would be rather easy for me to dismiss the X-Pro with “It’s not a Leica,” but I found it to be an excellent camera. Hopefully we’ll get to the specific reasons later in this thread, but I don’t want to bias the thread by being an opinion bully. Does anybody out there have experience with the X-Pro and an opinion about it as an alternative to a digital Leica in those areas where the Leica has excelled?
When I was a little kid, my father came back from Germany with a camera - for me. I have used Leicas for sixty years thanks to that rather early start. They have been my companions in some rather exciting adventures. It would be rather easy for me to dismiss the X-Pro with “It’s not a Leica,” but I found it to be an excellent camera. Hopefully we’ll get to the specific reasons later in this thread, but I don’t want to bias the thread by being an opinion bully. Does anybody out there have experience with the X-Pro and an opinion about it as an alternative to a digital Leica in those areas where the Leica has excelled?
furcafe
Veteran
For my verdict on the X-Pro1, I'll quote what I wrote in this thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1859500&postcount=71):
"I got the X-Pro1 primarily for its high ISO performance & OVF, potentially as a replacement for my D700 (which I had also bought primarily for its high ISO performance, not its AF & other typical pro SLR features) & also as a backup for my M9, so I had relatively high expectations for the sensor & low expectations for the AF & user interface. By those personal measures, the X-Pro1 succeeds. My dream camera (the M10 maybe?) would combine the Leica M optical RF/VF w/a Fuji-quality full-frame sensor, but until that day arrives, having to use both the M9 & X-Pro1 is a 1st World Problem, i.e., not the end of the world."
Not sure if you ever used or tried the Kyocera Contax G1 or G2, but in my experience the X-Pro1 (& X100) work similarly, w/many of the same advantages/disadvantages. In the same way that a G1/G2 might have been a viable alternative to a film M in the '90s-early '00s, I think the X-Pro1 can definitely substitute for an M8/M9 today, w/some bonus features that weren't possible back in the day (e.g., macro & video). Per my response in the other thread, the main selling point for me is the X-Pro1's high ISO performance, which is excellent & makes it a viable replacement for the D700, which was my kludgy substitute for the M9 in dark conditions.
"I got the X-Pro1 primarily for its high ISO performance & OVF, potentially as a replacement for my D700 (which I had also bought primarily for its high ISO performance, not its AF & other typical pro SLR features) & also as a backup for my M9, so I had relatively high expectations for the sensor & low expectations for the AF & user interface. By those personal measures, the X-Pro1 succeeds. My dream camera (the M10 maybe?) would combine the Leica M optical RF/VF w/a Fuji-quality full-frame sensor, but until that day arrives, having to use both the M9 & X-Pro1 is a 1st World Problem, i.e., not the end of the world."
Not sure if you ever used or tried the Kyocera Contax G1 or G2, but in my experience the X-Pro1 (& X100) work similarly, w/many of the same advantages/disadvantages. In the same way that a G1/G2 might have been a viable alternative to a film M in the '90s-early '00s, I think the X-Pro1 can definitely substitute for an M8/M9 today, w/some bonus features that weren't possible back in the day (e.g., macro & video). Per my response in the other thread, the main selling point for me is the X-Pro1's high ISO performance, which is excellent & makes it a viable replacement for the D700, which was my kludgy substitute for the M9 in dark conditions.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I'm not going to blow his cover without his permission, but one of the most famous "Leica Photographers" and a photographer that I think is one of the true greats was using the Contax G series almost since it came out.
Eric T
Well-known
I think the X-Pro1 is a game changer. It technologically vastly superior to the Leica M8 or M9 but remains very easy to use. It also has easily accessible manual control. Image quality, low light sensitivity, and dynamic range are amazing. I appreciate the autofocus and it is fast enough for my purposes. I like the hybrid viewfinder and the sensor cleaning.
I have been a Leica fan for years and I still am. But this little Fuji has raised the bar significantly.
I have been a Leica fan for years and I still am. But this little Fuji has raised the bar significantly.
rbelyell
Well-known
just so i understand the way the OP wants this thread to proceed, when we us the term 'alternative to leica' does that mean how this camera performs with the same legacy and new M mount lenses we would use with our leicas, or is this being defined as an 'alternative system' to leica? for me personally, i am much more interested in the former comparison than the latter...
tony
tony
furcafe
Veteran
I'm not surprised, whoever it is. The G system, w/all of its quirks, was certainly a formidable system for those could master it &, to repeat myself, I think the X-Pro1 fills the same niche for those looking for a high-quality, small, non-dSLR, camera. It's not a Leica, but overlaps quite a bit w/the M system.
Personally, I had mostly switched to Leica because I prefer manual RF focusing, especially in low light, but kept my G2 system for sentimental reasons & because the resale value plummeted. Now that I have the X-Pro1, I may start using the G2 more often as a daylight film companion.
Personally, I had mostly switched to Leica because I prefer manual RF focusing, especially in low light, but kept my G2 system for sentimental reasons & because the resale value plummeted. Now that I have the X-Pro1, I may start using the G2 more often as a daylight film companion.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I personally have no experience with my Leica or Leicaflex lenses on the X-Pro. (Still waiting for the adapters. Kind of excited about a camera that can do bright line viewing for my "normal" lenses and TTL viewing with long ones.) Hope other folks can provide that info. In the meantime, I will see if I can get some opinions.
rbelyell
Well-known
thanks bill!
tony
tony
celluloidprop
Well-known
I'm really enjoying the XPro-1 - I find AF good enough with the 18 and 35 (haven't seen a 60 yet), I think some frustration coming from phase-detect from some folks is that contrast detection has to lock from shot to shot, where phase-detect (if you're pointed at the same spot) has little or no focus lock time.
Without RAW support, though, I can't really think of the images I've taken as being done.
Without RAW support, though, I can't really think of the images I've taken as being done.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Solid performer. I expect to have my writeup done this week. AF performance is not spectacular, but as they say, you only need to run faster than your friend - not the crocodile chasing you both.
I did first encapsulate my thoughts about the role of Leica M in the modern world here.
One thing that I will share in advance is that the X-Pro1, due to its closed-loop autofocus, is very impressive and does what would require floating elements in an M camera. I am still testing this, but the 35mm ASPH Fujinon seems to be right up there with the 35 Summilux ASPH. I think this camera is going to capture quite a few M10 intenders, especially when they see how much an M10 is going to cost.
Dante
I did first encapsulate my thoughts about the role of Leica M in the modern world here.
One thing that I will share in advance is that the X-Pro1, due to its closed-loop autofocus, is very impressive and does what would require floating elements in an M camera. I am still testing this, but the 35mm ASPH Fujinon seems to be right up there with the 35 Summilux ASPH. I think this camera is going to capture quite a few M10 intenders, especially when they see how much an M10 is going to cost.
Dante
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
If it's not Salgado, it's Elliott Erwitt. He was also spotted a few times with a Hexar RF.
Dante
Dante
kbg32
neo-romanticist
If the Fuji is anything like the Contax G series, maybe I'll try one out. I love the Contax G series and still have mine with the 16, 21, 28, 45, and 90 lenses. It was my go to kit for years. It rivaled and surpassed Leica Ms in many, many ways. I am sorry it is no loner produced. There were so many rumours 12 years ago about Contax producing a digital G.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
JHutchins
Well-known
So I sold my Contax G2 & lenses and went with Leica M. My Leica M8, however, is being abandoned in favor of the Fuji X Pro. In the film days a body had to keep the film flat, not have light leaks; then be well enough thought out that the photographer never found the camera in the way. An M rangefinder did the latter better for me than a G2. An M rangefinder still does it better for me than the Fuji X Pro 1, but today a camera has to do a lot more than keep film flat and not leak light. The sensor matters -- it matters a lot. That's why the X Pro 1 appeals to me more than the G2 did.
The Xpro1 is a fantastic image maker even if I'm not 
and it's difficult to determine what a digital Leica can do, that I need, that the Xpro1 cannot do...even if they were priced similarly.
Conversely, there is much the Xpro1 can do that the M9 cannot.
Bear in mind, this doesn't necessarily mean Fuji is taking business away from Leica in my case. The M9 and modern lenses are simply not justifiable expenditures for me so I would never buy one. The depreciation of the M9 body is already more than the entire cost of an Xpro1 body, never mind comparing lens prices...although they hold their value.
and it's difficult to determine what a digital Leica can do, that I need, that the Xpro1 cannot do...even if they were priced similarly. Conversely, there is much the Xpro1 can do that the M9 cannot.
Bear in mind, this doesn't necessarily mean Fuji is taking business away from Leica in my case. The M9 and modern lenses are simply not justifiable expenditures for me so I would never buy one. The depreciation of the M9 body is already more than the entire cost of an Xpro1 body, never mind comparing lens prices...although they hold their value.
celluloidprop
Well-known
re: Erwitt, found this referenced quote from an old Italian magazine a little amusing:
"in my early years I used a Leica M3, then a Leica M6. Later also a Contax G2. Recently I use with pleasure also the Canon EOS especially because of the very useful 28-135 f3.5-5-6 Stabilized (!!). Other lenses: for Leica the Summilux 50mm f1.4 and the Tele-Elmarit 90mm f2.8. For Contax the Sonnar 45mm f2.0 and the Sonnar 90mm f2.8. Film: Kodak Tri-X developed in D-76. This is about my personal work. For the commercial work I use all the job needs (medium and large format, colors film, slides... I have to satisfy my clients)"
The 28-135 kit zoom! Heavens, I thought you needed the new $2300 24-70L II to make decent images!
"in my early years I used a Leica M3, then a Leica M6. Later also a Contax G2. Recently I use with pleasure also the Canon EOS especially because of the very useful 28-135 f3.5-5-6 Stabilized (!!). Other lenses: for Leica the Summilux 50mm f1.4 and the Tele-Elmarit 90mm f2.8. For Contax the Sonnar 45mm f2.0 and the Sonnar 90mm f2.8. Film: Kodak Tri-X developed in D-76. This is about my personal work. For the commercial work I use all the job needs (medium and large format, colors film, slides... I have to satisfy my clients)"
The 28-135 kit zoom! Heavens, I thought you needed the new $2300 24-70L II to make decent images!
OT, but I love Erwitt. A quote from his Austin lecture a couple of years ago:
"Sometimes you get a good picture, but most of the time you don't. If you get one out of a thousand, you're lucky."
Kinda puts in perspective that the gear doesn't really matter...
"Sometimes you get a good picture, but most of the time you don't. If you get one out of a thousand, you're lucky."
Kinda puts in perspective that the gear doesn't really matter...
I use three cameras; The M9, the X100, and the X-Pro1.
I have to admit that the X-Pro1 may not be as elegant as a M9, but for my needs, it is most likely the best fit. I've come to find that I like high ISO, I like AF, and I like that, unlike the X100, the X-Pro1 is M9 sized. It feels right to me and reacts very well on "the streets." I still like the M9 (it is the funnest camera to use and makes me very happy)... and will continue to use it, but I truly think the X-Pro1 will be my main camera (just because it is the best tool for me).
I am not going to buy a crop factor digital camera. If you are used to using fast lenses on film cameras, digital crop looks like a cartoon version of traditional photography.
Yes, its sharp and clean up to ISO-you-name-it, awesome. I still fail to see what is so great about the Xpro vs any other crop digital camera. Wheres the point? If you care about pictures buy a low end Nikon with a 35/1.8 DX and start shooting. The pictures will be the same.
Yes, its sharp and clean up to ISO-you-name-it, awesome. I still fail to see what is so great about the Xpro vs any other crop digital camera. Wheres the point? If you care about pictures buy a low end Nikon with a 35/1.8 DX and start shooting. The pictures will be the same.
willie_901
Veteran
Sorry this is so long...
Sorry this is so long...
I have never used a Leica product.*
The thing about the XP1 is: it serves the same purpose as the Zeiss Ikon M system I used for about three years. I owned the Biogon 35/2, the C-Sonnar 50/1.5, the CV 28/3.5 and an ancient Nikkor 85/2 lenses. I carried the ZI-M with me daily and used the lenses on several projects. I sold the ZM and all the M lenses a few years ago because I decided Smart Phones would accelerate the demise of film as a practical(for me)daily medium.
I tried a m4/3 system, but never liked the raw files from the smaller sensor. I carried a D200 with small primes for a while, which was too heavy and bulky. I carried it, but I didn't enjoy using it.
Then came the X100. This camera was like my first rangefinder, the Canonet QL17. Suddenly I had a camera that I enjoyed using and could take with me wherever I went. The raw files were better than those from my D300. I used the X100 as I used my ZI-M, i.e. I mostly focused and recomposed. I operated the AF manually ( in both AF-S and MF modes. I find the OVF/EVF turns out to be the best of both worlds. The X100 got the job done. With the 1.21 firmware installed, it felt like I got a new camera.*
I think anybody who knows how to focus a RF body can have the same in-focus percentage with the X100 or XP1. I suggest people can safely ignore at least 80% of the AF complaints at this point in time. Even the fly-by-wire lens barrel focusing is a practical option with both cameras, although the 35/1.4 is much better than the X100. While some are surely more skilled than I, the ZI-M XP1 and X100 produce about the same percentage of in-focus frames for me.
The X-Pro 1 is finally a true replacement for the ZI-M system I reluctantly stopped using. I just ordered the 18/2 lens last weekend. I have no complaints about the XP1 except for the soft plastic lens caps. I switched to use the Nikon HN-3 lens hood and pinch cap with the Fujinon 35/1.4. I ordered a HN-3 clone and a couple of generic pinch caps. The Nikon HN-1 hood will be used with the 18/2. I guess the hoods, pinch caps and diopters cost me about $60.
I plan to carry the XP1 as my daily camera. I assume the XP1 raw files will be at least as good as the X100's once ACR support is released. For some outings I'll carry both lenses. The X100 will see use as well.
I only bought Fuji products because they had the potential to replace the ZI-M and deliver excellent image quality. I would have bought similar products from any other vendor (except one) had they chose to market one. If a better system comes out in a couple of years, I may stop using the Fujies. If alternate systems do not appear (an OVF is important to me) I'll be happy using the Fuji system for some time. I have seen how a 24 X 36 mm sensor makes a difference with my DSLRs. Yet I do not feel the APS-C sensor holds the Fujies back. That is, the lens focal lengths are matched to the sensor. The fast apertures provide useful DOF control. Case closed. For Nikon there really aren't a set of wide primes that cover the DX sensor. Nikon and other DSLR platforms expect their users to be happy with zoom lenses. I do not enjoy using zoom lenses.
Here is the most important thing. I feel the XP1 has liberated me from thinking about how to replace the ZI-M. The search is over and may not need to resume or some time. Now my challenge is to re-direct my efforts at production rather than worrying about consumption. I hope I'll feel the same sort of restlessness about printing, editing projects and displaying photographs.*
Sorry this is so long...
I have never used a Leica product.*
The thing about the XP1 is: it serves the same purpose as the Zeiss Ikon M system I used for about three years. I owned the Biogon 35/2, the C-Sonnar 50/1.5, the CV 28/3.5 and an ancient Nikkor 85/2 lenses. I carried the ZI-M with me daily and used the lenses on several projects. I sold the ZM and all the M lenses a few years ago because I decided Smart Phones would accelerate the demise of film as a practical(for me)daily medium.
I tried a m4/3 system, but never liked the raw files from the smaller sensor. I carried a D200 with small primes for a while, which was too heavy and bulky. I carried it, but I didn't enjoy using it.
Then came the X100. This camera was like my first rangefinder, the Canonet QL17. Suddenly I had a camera that I enjoyed using and could take with me wherever I went. The raw files were better than those from my D300. I used the X100 as I used my ZI-M, i.e. I mostly focused and recomposed. I operated the AF manually ( in both AF-S and MF modes. I find the OVF/EVF turns out to be the best of both worlds. The X100 got the job done. With the 1.21 firmware installed, it felt like I got a new camera.*
I think anybody who knows how to focus a RF body can have the same in-focus percentage with the X100 or XP1. I suggest people can safely ignore at least 80% of the AF complaints at this point in time. Even the fly-by-wire lens barrel focusing is a practical option with both cameras, although the 35/1.4 is much better than the X100. While some are surely more skilled than I, the ZI-M XP1 and X100 produce about the same percentage of in-focus frames for me.
The X-Pro 1 is finally a true replacement for the ZI-M system I reluctantly stopped using. I just ordered the 18/2 lens last weekend. I have no complaints about the XP1 except for the soft plastic lens caps. I switched to use the Nikon HN-3 lens hood and pinch cap with the Fujinon 35/1.4. I ordered a HN-3 clone and a couple of generic pinch caps. The Nikon HN-1 hood will be used with the 18/2. I guess the hoods, pinch caps and diopters cost me about $60.
I plan to carry the XP1 as my daily camera. I assume the XP1 raw files will be at least as good as the X100's once ACR support is released. For some outings I'll carry both lenses. The X100 will see use as well.
I only bought Fuji products because they had the potential to replace the ZI-M and deliver excellent image quality. I would have bought similar products from any other vendor (except one) had they chose to market one. If a better system comes out in a couple of years, I may stop using the Fujies. If alternate systems do not appear (an OVF is important to me) I'll be happy using the Fuji system for some time. I have seen how a 24 X 36 mm sensor makes a difference with my DSLRs. Yet I do not feel the APS-C sensor holds the Fujies back. That is, the lens focal lengths are matched to the sensor. The fast apertures provide useful DOF control. Case closed. For Nikon there really aren't a set of wide primes that cover the DX sensor. Nikon and other DSLR platforms expect their users to be happy with zoom lenses. I do not enjoy using zoom lenses.
Here is the most important thing. I feel the XP1 has liberated me from thinking about how to replace the ZI-M. The search is over and may not need to resume or some time. Now my challenge is to re-direct my efforts at production rather than worrying about consumption. I hope I'll feel the same sort of restlessness about printing, editing projects and displaying photographs.*