Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Iluvmycam on February 06, 2014, 04:59:47 pm
-
Does anyone own both cams?
Does the Leica give enough IQ boost to be worth at least some of the increase in cost over the Fuji X?
I've looked all over the net and can't find any good reports between the 2 cams. I want to know if you will see a big difference in a 13 x 19 print between a Leica M240 and a Fuji X.
Thanks
-
I want to know if you will see a big difference in a 13 x 19 print between a Leica M240 and a Fuji X.
No, you won't see a big difference (assuming you use good lenses on both cameras). Whatever difference you may see is more likely to be tonal than spatial. I like the Fuji look, both from JPEGs and well-converted RAWs. The M240 look I'm still ambivalent about. My friend Bruce refers to it as "M9 with Auto-Tune." By this he means it's pretty, approaching immaculate even, but lacking in character. I wouldn't go that far but I do prefer the M9 look. The M240 does print very well at larger sizes. I've seen some lovely 60x40" fine detail prints from it. Don't know how a Fuji X would do in comparison...and no real-world interest in finding out.
I'd focus my attention more on handling, specifically focusing using a rangefinder vs. an EVF. Or, more broadly, manual focusing vs. AF. You can use an EVF on the Leica, of course, though IMO this doesn't work as well as it ought to. But if you like rangefinders (I do) using the Leica is a pleasure.
Note: I own an X-E1. I don't own an M240 but I have easy access to one.
-Dave-
-
Thanks Dave.
-
I don't have extensive comparison between Fuji and Leica M, but there are a lot of comparisons between Sony A7/A7R to Leica M.
The differences are dramatic, with the same Leica M lenses of course. In general it is not recommended to use lenses cross the system.
When each uses its own native lens, you get typical Leica M rendering vs. Sony rendering, which one is preferred is subjective.
Between Sony A7/A7R and Fuji X? Not meant to start another endless debate, but you should find a lot more preference towards A7/A7R.
The bottom line is, you should ask yourself, is Fuji X good enough for YOU and if YOU are willing to pay the price difference? If you are not sure, usually the answer is very clear.
-
I don't own the Leica M240 but I do own the Leica M9 and the Fuji X-Pro1.
The Leica M9 is a wonderful camera for the pure joy of photography. It makes you want to pick it up and take pictures.
Is it better than the Fuji X-Pro1? No, it isn't. IMO you will be hard-pressed to justify the additional cost of the Leica M240 if that is what you are trying to do.
-
Comparing any two things can be very subjective. It's particularly hard when talking about Leica M.
Check out the web forums, such as dpreview.com, pick up "Leica" forum and "Fuji" forum for example. An interesting observation is, the Fuji owners are busy in comparing Fuji with Leica, while Leica owners are busy in taking the pictures.
Ask people who have both systems, see how many regret for buying the Leica M, for that much more of money.
-
An interesting observation is, the Fuji owners are busy in comparing Fuji with Leica, while Leica owners are busy in taking the pictures.
Especially the Leica cameras owned by collectors… No offense but this is BS…
Ask people who have both systems, see how many regret for buying the Leica M, for that much more of money.
That is an entirely different thing. IMO though the Fuji (and other cameras like the E-M1 and the A7/A7r) will give you a lot more value for money if that is what you are looking for.
-
Especially the Leica cameras owned by collectors… No offense but this is BS…
That is an entirely different thing. IMO though the Fuji (and other cameras like the E-M1 and the A7/A7r) will give you a lot more value for money if that is what you are looking for.
Many friends I know who own Leica M also own either Canon FF or Nikon FF. Good complement for making fun and making money. Fuji X still has a lot ground to catch up.
-
Every time I pick up a Fuji X I'm thankful I bought Leica.
In terms of construction, think Volkswagen v Maybach (Mercedes)
In terms of output quality, think High ISO v Base ISO
In terms of sensor, think CMOS v CCD (M9, M-E)
In terms of versatility, think FujiFilm X
I use both.
-
They are obviously different cameras in terms of usability and handling and I love both of them.
But, to go back to the question of the OP, does the Leica give enough of an IQ boost to justify the increase in cost over the Fuji the answer is probably no IMO.
-
If the price is the issue you have your answer. All the gear I own or have owned was what I could afford at the time. I would spends lots time learning every bit i could about my gear. I always ended up enjoying and loving my gear for what it can do. Or maybe it's more what I can do with what i have.
Peter
-
A £5k camera plus £2k per lens isn't going to make you a better photographer and i doubt there would be significant visible differences at the size you want to print at.
-
I should add, if the OP wants a rangefinder, buy the Leica.
If the OP wants a rangefinder get a Mamiya 7 and a scanner for less money and smoke Leica ... ;)
Cheers
~Chris
-
Forget the pesky film and scanner, add a digital back and you've got a deal.
Actually I heared a rumor about someone modding a Mamiya 7 once, but never found the proof.
-
I have a Leica M9 and M240.
How does the M240 compare to the M9 for you? Do you have a preference? Thanks, Joris.
-
Forget about M7. It's focusing has never been accurate.
Yes, I'm talking about film. For digital? you bet.
-
If price is an issue, forget Fuji, go for Sony A7 or A7R.
Fuji is done, no future.
-
Leica is the only camera maker who understands what you need for manual photography. They truly suck for any automation. Unfortunately that lowers the keeper rate, but greatly enhances the pleasure of having it nailed.
The Fuji probably yields a higher success rate due to good AF, great exposure and decent WB, but I am still looking for greatness, which I am getting with the Leica, though rarely, but then worth it.
The Sony A7r might be technically superior, but using it is no joy. there's no magic.
If you look for best quality go Sony.
If you look for highest pleasure in photography go Leica
If you look for most reliable tool, go Fuji.
-
I don't miss anything with the Fuji X E-2 I recently got.
Leica is a nice camera - I once shot an M7 loaner and it was fun, but:
- No Autofocus
- No long telephoto or usable macro options
- No OIS
These are all features I don't want to miss anymore.
The Sony A7R: Most overrated camera ever ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
Are you sure? I described one eminently usable macro option in the post above and that's just one of many. Same with longer lenses. There are so many adapters and options out there.
It has somewhat changed with the EVFs now - but use a 300mm equivalent tele without OIS ...
-
It has somewhat changed with the EVFs now - but use a 300mm equivalent tele without OIS ...
My #1 setup is a 280mm on a 1.37x crop camera, for a field of view equivalent to 383.6mm. No OIS, no problem if you learn a little technique.
-
Joris, I think the best way to answer you is if I give you my feelings about the M9 first. I use it primarily as a walk-around camera and as such it is a joy. As I said in an earlier post, solidity combined with absolute simplicity. Truth is I fell in love with the rangefinder and I can honestly say I’ve never enjoyed using a camera more. Sure, critical framing can be a problem but for this use it’s simply not an issue.
That is pretty much also how I use my M9. I took it with me to the desert around Las Vegas recently, drove around there for around a week and only took pictures with my M9. As a walk around camera it is excellent. Back to the basics, enjoying the simplicity and the pure joy of photography.
I am new to Leica and I am not comfortable yet with shooting people. I use my Fuji or MFD gear for that . I might actually never get really comfortable with it either. Not sure yet. I worked with rangefinders before (mainly Polaroid packfilm cameras like the Fuji FP-1) and although I always liked them I never got really fast with focusing them. Perhaps if I were to use the M9 as my only camera for a long time...
For some reason on this forum there seems to be more resistance to the M240 than on other forums. Not sure why. I think I might get one at some point in time. Not in a hurry though.
-
If you are comparing Leica M with Fuji and if you like Fuji, you should choose Sony A7/A7R.
But none of them has the uniqueness of the real Leica M.
-
If you are comparing Leica M with Fuji and if you like Fuji, you should choose Sony A7/A7R.
But none of them has the uniqueness of the real Leica M.
The A7(r) is a small SLR-style camera. The Fujis feel more like rangefinders due to the VF placement. But focusing is where a true RF camera stands out (or falls down, if you don't like the RF method). Leicas have the best RFs around, IMO, and the M240's is their best version yet. I just wish the $&@! EVF allowed you to move the magnified focus point around in the frame. If they'd got that right my photo $$ allocation over the past year likely would've been very different.
-Dave-
-
Focus tabs are the most brilliant thing about Leica lenses. I installed them on those Leica lenses that don't have them.
If you practice a bit, you can get to 90% focus accuracy just by muscle memory without even looking. The final 10% (or rather 6-9%) are achived by the rangefinder.
-
Focus tabs are the most brilliant thing about Leica lenses. I installed them on those Leica lenses that don't have them.
If you practice a bit, you can get to 90% focus accuracy just by muscle memory without even looking. The final 10% (or rather 6-9%) are achived by the rangefinder.
where did you get the one you use?
-
Just a thought, are you using lenses with focus tabs? Makes all the difference.
Not using lenses with focus tabs and not familiar with focus tabs either. How do they make the difference?
where did you get the one you use?
I have seen custom ones being sold on eBay already, not sure where else you would get them...
-
Not using lenses with focus tabs and not familiar with focus tabs either. How do they make the difference?
Say you're an urban ("street") photographer who has found that zone focusing at 2 meters with a 35mm lens at f/8 is often sufficient for a sharp result (given your prefered subject matter). Once you've internalized where your lens' focus tab is located with the focus at 2m you can focus at that point, or close enough to it, by feel very quickly. So you can focus accurately when possible and yet be able to react fast when needed.
-Dave-
-
Thanks Keith and Dave!
I am about to invest in a few Leica lenses. So far I haven't done so because I first wanted to make sure I like the camera.
Hopefully these tabs help with faster focusing.
-
funny, was thinking of just using a strip tie, and sure enough that's what someone used
the idea of glueing something to a Leica lens gives me shivers
going to try the strip tie.
-
Generally speaking investment and lens buying are mutually exclusive.
Technically any lens is an investment if it's used to produce income, but the word has been corrupted by marketing 'geniuses' hoping to convince hobbyists that their purchase is somehow better than spending money.
-
I have Nikon 24x36 plus a Fuji X now, have owned and used film Leica M's in the past.
The Fuji(in my case, an XE1) is, to me, a fancied-up point-and-shoot where you can set the exposure and focus and change lenses. I've got the 21 and 35 equivalent lenses, and may not buy more.
It's clear that no one has a solution to the freeze/blackout problem in the EVFs. The blackout time on the newest, fastest Fuji XT1 seems about three times as long as on a Nikon DSLR.
I wish Leica would make their rangefinder more useable to eyeglass wearers. Right now it useless wider than a 50mm for me.
-
Personally I've never cared for the focus tabs. Although the majority of my M lenses have it, for me, they just get in the way - especially when shooting in the vertical position.
-
Another point on tabbed lenses---at least for the lenses I've used (21, 28, 35, 50), the tab position is consistent across focal lengths and focus distance. You can focus by feel to some distance by putting the tab in the same position. It's easy to memorize a couple of handy distances/positions, and then use them for all your lenses. I like tabs very much.
-
Another point on tabbed lenses---at least for the lenses I've used (21, 28, 35, 50), the tab position is consistent across focal lengths and focus distance. You can focus by feel to some distance by putting the tab in the same position. It's easy to memorize a couple of handy distances/positions, and then use them for all your lenses. I like tabs very much.
Yes this is what they are for. Discreet shooting on the street or doc work by feel alone. Landscapers need not apply.
-
I like the way Zeiss has implemented tabs on their ZM lenses. They're bumps in the ribbed focus rings. This is one reason why I've been favoring the ZMs on my M6 and more recently new/old M8s. The 21 & 28mm f/2.8 ZMs also have a 46mm filter thread, which matches my most versatile set of IR filters. (IR pass, that is...I don't use the infamous IR blocking filters.)
-Dave-
-
Thanks Keith and Dave!
I am about to invest in a few Leica lenses. So far I haven't done so because I first wanted to make sure I like the camera.
Hopefully these tabs help with faster focusing.
If you have used film Leica M cameras, the M240 is a tiny bit larger but it is still a Leica M. I shot with an MP and an M4-P for 10+ years before I got the M240. I have not found anything to complain about with the M240 so far. When I was doing my research before buying, I looked really hard to find an alternative to the undeniably costly M240 that would let me use my Leica M lenses and would be a full frame camera. Every camera I looked at was in one way or another a compromise. I did not want a "settle for" camera so I traded in my Leica MP body and a bunch of Nikon gear to get the M240.
After using it for about six weeks, I would not part with the M240 for love or money.
Regarding Leica M gear as "investments," any film M camera or lens that is taken care of will hold its value. I shot with my MP for 10+ years and got the same amount of trade-in credit from it as I paid for it when I bought it new. A digital camera will probably not retain 100% of its original cost, but film Leicas will as will M lenses, if they are well cared for.
-
I think the Fuji is a good value for the money, but I have not used the Leica as I do not care to invest that much money. There are plenty of opinions here and elsewhere. The best thing is rent similar setups, try them out and see what works for you. Opinions on forums are just that opinions, you are the only one who can decide what works best for you.
Alan
-
I have two years of experience with Fuji X100, few months with Fuji X-E2 along with XF14,23,35 and 56mm. Not had the chance to handle the M240 yet. As far as Fuji goes, very good value for the money and very good results, all the lenses are very good!
-
I use both the Fuji X-E2, the A7r, and the Leica M8 - so I'm not biased but , this time at least , Diglloyd got it right, IMO. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014-index-5.html#20140520_2250-EVF-resolution
-
I don't disagree with Lloyd...the EVF was one reason why I passed on the M240, but in the end I wouldn't have used it (EVF) much anyway. For me rangefinders are very much a "see it, frame it, click" kind of camera. Lenses usually stopped down enough so that quick-reaction focusing is accurate enough. The kind of care taken with focus in Lloyd's report just doesn't happen when I pick up an RF camera. One of the reasons I stopped using the X-E1 with my RF lenses in favor of the M8 was the way the Fuji had nudged my pic-taking approach away from spontaneity. I was fussing too much with it. Give me the power to get perfectionist about something and I'll take advantage of it, even to the detriment of the overall thing (job, hobby, craft, etc.) I'm doing. :o When it comes to the freer style of photography I often prefer, RFs put a beneficial hard limit on fussiness.
-Dave-
-
One of the reasons I stopped using the X-E1 with my RF lenses in favor of the M8 was the way the Fuji had nudged my pic-taking approach away from spontaneity. [...]When it comes to the freer style of photography I often prefer, RFs put a beneficial hard limit on fussiness.
Dave,
All I can say is that the latest X-E2 update has given the Fuji good FP. Not as good as the Sony but more than good enough. For fast, spontaneous (read: street style) shooting I now find it faster than a RF and it's the easiest cam to pre-focus. I set it to monochrome with red FP - it takes fraction of a second, and never stops to amuse me as I see the DOF shift as I play with focus. The Fuji with a 24 Elmar is a gas. Obviously, for critical focus both cams (X-E2 and A7r) are great.
M
-
The Sony A7R: Most overrated camera ever ...
Maybe, but I think my A7 is the best camera I've ever owned.
-
Actually I heared a rumor about someone modding a Mamiya 7 once, but never found the proof.
search ebay
e.