willie_901
Veteran
I owned the X100 and X-Pro 1. I use X-100T and X-Pro 2.
If you value using a rangefinder-style OVF, then the X100 and X-Pro are your only digital options other than a M8 or M9. By RF-style I mean a non-electronic finder view where one can compose while viewing what's outside the frame lines.
The X-100S is far superior to the original X100 because it's in-camera CPU is much faster. The primary advantage is found in more flexible and successful focusing. All other aspects of camera operation is quicker as well. The X-100T has a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the S. If you don't care about dynamic range in bright light or shadow region detail in low light, the S would be fine.
The same goes for the X-Pro 1 vs X-Pro 2. Here the differences are greater. The X-Pro 2 IQ is far superior (dynamic range and low light performance). But not all of us value more dynamic range and low-light performance. The focusing performance difference is also much improved.
The newer cameras' focusing improvements are less important if you plan to use adapted M mount lenses - but the additional focusing views can be useful.
If using a RF-style OVF is not important, than the XE-2 or XE-3 would be good choices.
I use the X-100T and X-Pro 2 as I used my Canonet G-III QL17 and Zeiss Ikon M - focus and recompose withmanual aperture and shutter selection. I'm pleased with the Fujinon prime lenses. I have no plans to pursue the newer FUJIFILM models.
If you value using a rangefinder-style OVF, then the X100 and X-Pro are your only digital options other than a M8 or M9. By RF-style I mean a non-electronic finder view where one can compose while viewing what's outside the frame lines.
The X-100S is far superior to the original X100 because it's in-camera CPU is much faster. The primary advantage is found in more flexible and successful focusing. All other aspects of camera operation is quicker as well. The X-100T has a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the S. If you don't care about dynamic range in bright light or shadow region detail in low light, the S would be fine.
The same goes for the X-Pro 1 vs X-Pro 2. Here the differences are greater. The X-Pro 2 IQ is far superior (dynamic range and low light performance). But not all of us value more dynamic range and low-light performance. The focusing performance difference is also much improved.
The newer cameras' focusing improvements are less important if you plan to use adapted M mount lenses - but the additional focusing views can be useful.
If using a RF-style OVF is not important, than the XE-2 or XE-3 would be good choices.
I use the X-100T and X-Pro 2 as I used my Canonet G-III QL17 and Zeiss Ikon M - focus and recompose withmanual aperture and shutter selection. I'm pleased with the Fujinon prime lenses. I have no plans to pursue the newer FUJIFILM models.
LCSmith
Well-known
Please spare me the "Leica fetish" garbage. Ok?
Thanks.
My opinion really isn't very controversial.
The only thing about the Fuji X cameras that is "like a Leica" is that they are made to "look like" rangefinder cameras. They are not rangefinder cameras. Some have viewfinders. None has a rangefinder.
I don't understand the comparison.
You might as well say that On the Origin of Species is like the Bible, since they both look like books.
Huss
Veteran
What camera in current production would be most similar to a Leica M if it also had AF?
Correct answer - Fuji XPRO series as they have an OVF.
Incorrect answer - Leica SL as they only have an EVF.
The Fuji has a bonus of also offering EVF through the same viewfinder.
Leica, on the other hand, needs a clip on bulky, expensive (and low Rez) EVF to provide functionality that is similar to Fuji but much worse as it suffers from lag and black out when one takes a photograph.
For Leica to catch up to Fuji it needs to provide an OVF that can also turn into an EVF at the flip of a switch. AF would be a bonus but not attainable using the current M mount. It would have to switch to the L mount.
If a future M Leica offered an OVF with rangefinder that at the flick of a switch turned into a high Rez evf, then I would consider trading up from my M240. No more needing to carry a clip on EVF to check framing with my Leitz 18 and 21mm lenses. Using the back screen is awkward in bright conditions and I don't want to carry multiple accessory optical finders.
It would be nice if Leica would provide a solution such as Fuji has had for almost the last decade.
FYI On the Origin of Species is considered to be the Bible of evolutionary biology so that is one place where you are right.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Oops.. one other thing that Fuji gives us ex-rangefinder photographers is the optical viewfinder on the XPro series and X100 series cameras. Fuji's viewfinder gives us the experience we enjoyed with our rangefinder cameras... the ability to see outside the framelines. Fuji's solution is lovely. And being able switch to an EVF with the flick of a switch is genius.
LCSmith
Well-known
Viewfinders are not rangefinders. No one is saying the combined VF isn’t “genius,” or even that those cameras aren’t fine cameras. But they are obviously not rangefinders, and they are not Leica M’s with autofocus. Surely people understand this, don’t they?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Yes, I think people understand the difference between a viewfinder and a rangefinder. With Fuji's viewfinder, you can see outside the frame lines and have auto focus; with Leica's rangefinder, you can see outside the frame lines, but you have to manually focus. Not a tough distinction.
LCSmith
Well-known
Not tough at all!
I said mechanical rangefinder fetish, not Leica... Thanks.
No, but neither is ours.
Nobody called it a rangefinder. You are the only one saying that. We only are saying that if you want a rangefinder shaped AF camera and you are coming from a Leica, Fuji is probably the most comfortable option.
Because you are fixated on the mechanical rangefinder... which is ok, that is what makes a Leica M an M. None of us said the X-Pro is a rangefinder. By the way...have you looked at the title of this thread? The guy wants a Fuji. He is not asking you to argue on behalf of Leica.
Hyperbole in its greatest form...
Unfortunately, there is only one guy in this thread who seems to not understand.
LCSmith
Well-known
I just think it’s interesting how I never advocated any particular camera, I just wanted to point out that Fuji auto focus cameras are not the same thing as Leica rangefinder cameras with auto focus. That’s it. There’s nothing controversial about that because it’s a fact.
It is a fact... a Fuji is not a Leica and a Leica is not a Fuji... but they are both cameras that are rangefinder shaped, have optical viewfinders, have shutter speed dials and aperture rings, have small lenses that allow one to see through the optical viewfinder, etc. In the current digital camera world, there aren't too many cameras that share these attributes. Fuji and Leica are two of them. This is the point of the discussion. It is a comfortable transition for many former or current Leica M users or former Konica Hexar / Contax G owners.
And since we do not know what a Leica M with autofocus would be like, I guess you are right there... but I think you understand what people mean.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Just glue a red dot on the Fuji..then..its a Leica...lol..
LCSmith
Well-known
Rangefinder shaped? What does that even mean? The "rangefinder" refers to the focusing mechanism.
Huss
Veteran
I could answer but instead I'll say this:
You have a way to interject yourself into threads, deviate from the actual topic in hand and make it a miserable experience for everyone.
Well done.
LCSmith
Well-known
Wow. I was just talking about cameras. I sincerely apologize if I made any experience miserable for anyone. I like talking about cameras. Don't you?
Not SLR shaped. So let’s see... no grip or very minimal grip, rectangle shape and with a viewfinder on the far left corner. This is a common definition when talking about cameras of this type...but you are just being difficult at this point.
LCSmith
Well-known
SLR is not a shape. I'm afraid I cannot take you seriously.
Very rigid...
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
No one here has said Fuji is making rangefinder cameras. We all understand the Fuji cameras give us SOME of the features we liked about REAL rangefinders. And, personally, I don’t care one bit what we call what Fuji has built. I love what Fuji has given us. Period.
nightfly
Well-known
The ignore feature is incredibly useful for those that are interested in the original thread...