Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

[Spyro]

Originally Posted by rxmd

And we are (or at least I am) talking about reusing existing lenses that people already have.

Ah ok sorry, now I realised this. I was talking more about selecting a system from scratch, or getting far out of your way just to accomodate a crop sensor that doesnt have native lenses. This can get quite ridiculous at times, like being forced to buy something excruciatingly expensive that blocks your VF and changes the form factor of your kit, eg the leica 21/1.4, just because you need a fast wide for your crop sensor. Whereas both m4:3 and xpro1 offer tiny f2 lenses @ 28mm FOV for $600-$700. This is the type of economy that can be achieved with smaller image circles, and in my book it's significant enough to swing me in favour of a system.

[wafflecakee]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

How was the AF response? The VF?

It feels like a toy because it is lighter than an M?

AF was faster than the x100 but still not all that fast. The VF was nice, I do like the hybrid, I just wish they'd make a fake digital RF patch. It also shifts to do macro shots.

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Here we go again... first the X100 was supposedly a toy, now the X-Pro1 will be too?

The x100 feels more solid.

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by tbarker13

I suppose it depends on how wrapped up you are in the rangefinder focusing.
I've shot with an RD-1, M8 and an X100. For me, they offer only slightly different working experiences. Negligible, really.
"Completely different" for me would be something like the transition from a rangefinder to a large format camera. Or from film to digital.

No one said anything about being wrapped up one way or another. I would think a manually focusing a rangefinder would be much different than autofocus. The handling experience would be different. No?
Negligible. I'm not sure. Why compare?

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Spanik

No, the marginal cost is far from zero. You may now have a "nice free 75" but you're out of a very expensive 35.

No, you're not. You bought your expensive 35 to use with some camera. That camera isn't going away because you just bought another one.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by gdi

I wasn't talking about the mechanics of the focus mount, rather, the size, it should be obvious that having an integrated mount requires an increase in size over simply mounting the lens to the board; this reduces the value of your comparison between LF and small to nil. And if a shift adapter on 35mm negates the need for a view camera's movements, you simply are not taking advantage of the later.

Regarding mounts - by the same line of argument you could say that while the lens is the same, a 5x7"-capable camera is bigger than a 4x5", so if you want both formats you need to live with a size disadvantage or carry two bodies. So I simply think that constant lens size is not really an argument.

Regarding movements, I think you know that this is not what I was saying. You mentioned that one of the things that switching to a smaller negative give you in LF is added movements, and I basically only mentioned that some people are taking advantage of this on crop sensors as well. It would be a pretty pointless argument that an APS-C camera with shift adapter gives you an anything near a view camera, but again, that's not what I was saying.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Regarding mounts - by the same line of argument you could say that while the lens is the same, a 5x7"-capable camera is bigger than a 4x5", so if you want both formats you need to live with a size disadvantage or carry two bodies. So I simply think that constant lens size is not really an argument.

Uhmm... I'll have to take you word on that ....

Regarding movements, I think you know that this is not what I was saying. You mentioned that one of the things that switching to a smaller negative give you in LF is added movements, and I basically only mentioned that some people are taking advantage of this on crop sensors as well. It would be a pretty pointless argument that an APS-C camera with shift adapter gives you an anything near a view camera, but again, that's not what I was saying.

It looked like you wrote that in response to my mention of movements; so, yes, it seemed like your intent. Glad we can agree on the pointlessness of the argument. Enjoy that 5x7!

[tbarker13]

Originally Posted by kbg32

No one said anything about being wrapped up one way or another. I would think a manually focusing a rangefinder would be much different than autofocus. The handling experience would be different. No?
Negligible. I'm not sure. Why compare?

Why compare? I was just responding to your comment about them being two completely different working experiences.

I've used Leicas long enough that manual focusing isn't something I think about. I look through the viewfinder and my fingers just sort of take care of focusing.
With the Fuji, I'll look through the viewfinder and my fingers will take care of the focusing - but by pushing a button instead of rotating a lens barrel.
Either way, my brain is going to automate the focusing process. I'll decide what I want to have in focus. And it will happen.

Obviously everyone is different. But, I just didn't find that much difference between shooting with an M8 and an X100. I found it to be more jarring (though that's probably too strong of a word) to switch back and forth between my Nikon DSLRS and the smaller cameras (Leica or Fuji).

[Cyriljay]

Originally Posted by kbg32

I knew rangefinder. The rangefinder was my friend. The Fuji X Pro-1 isn't a rangefinder. The M8 and Fuji are going to offer two completely different working experiences. Comparing these cameras are like apples to oranges. A better comparison and choice might be the Sony NEX-7.

This is the fact!! and I own M8u . I love Negative M cameras. since I had M8 and had the upgrade and I love the quality of it . Yes . It is very expensive in terms of using the basic lenses as for M analog camera due to the Crop factor. But produce marvellous quality photos compared to the other cameras. Of course if i have money I buy the Fuji .

[Lss]

Originally Posted by tbarker13

Either way, my brain is going to automate the focusing process. I'll decide what I want to have in focus. And it will happen.

Same here, which why I prefer manual focusing anyway.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by wafflecakee

The x100 feels more solid.

I find that hard to believe... anyone else can confirm?

[Avotius]

Having had a M8 for a year....I would say X Pro. The Fuji is interesting, the M8, as much as I loved it, is not so interesting anymore.

[Strangeluv]

I think I will have a go with both.
Very happy with my M8 at the moment, but I do miss AF from time to time and looking at the specs of the Fuji I see no reason not to try it out.

[efirmage]

Originally Posted by Pete B

If the GXR had the evf and focus peaking of the NEX7 I'd get it.

If the NEX7 had the microlens sensor of the GXR, or the sensor of the NEX5n I'd get it.

If the NEX5n had the evf of the NEX7 I'd get it.

If the XPro1 had the focus peaking of the NEX7 I'd get it.

For the moment I'm sticking with my M2 and Portra.
Pete

Boy that sums it up nicely. Hopefully over the next year we can check some of those boxes off. Until then I'll also be shooting Portra with my M6.

[cosmonaut]

Get the one you think you would have the most faith and trust in that means a lot and is a very personal choice. Certainly anyone owning an M8 is going to tell you that's what you need.

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by tbarker13

Why compare? I was just responding to your comment about them being two completely different working experiences.

I've used Leicas long enough that manual focusing isn't something I think about. I look through the viewfinder and my fingers just sort of take care of focusing.
With the Fuji, I'll look through the viewfinder and my fingers will take care of the focusing - but by pushing a button instead of rotating a lens barrel.
Either way, my brain is going to automate the focusing process. I'll decide what I want to have in focus. And it will happen.

Obviously everyone is different. But, I just didn't find that much difference between shooting with an M8 and an X100. I found it to be more jarring (though that's probably too strong of a word) to switch back and forth between my Nikon DSLRS and the smaller cameras (Leica or Fuji).

Tim,

Maybe you don't find a difference, but a lot of people here do. Hence this thread. Hence, a lot of threads on RFF, comparing this or that, should I buy X or Y. Personally, I find these threads ridiculous. How on earth can someone answer what you need? Buy a camera based on popularity in a poll, or buy because it fits your style? One should choose the tool that fits the situation. The Fuji and M8 represent two totally different working experiences. One is a rangefinder, one is not, but pretends to be, and tries to offer that experience. When you are truly familiar with your equipment (), working differences become second nature.

[tbarker13]

Originally Posted by kbg32

Tim,

Maybe you don't find a difference, but a lot of people here do. Hence this thread. Hence, a lot of threads on RFF, comparing this or that, should I buy X or Y. Personally, I find these threads ridiculous. How on earth can someone answer what you need? Buy a camera based on popularity in a poll, or buy because it fits your style? One should choose the tool that fits the situation. The Fuji and M8 represent two totally different working experiences. One is a rangefinder, one is not, but pretends to be, and tries to offer that experience. When you are truly familiar with your equipment (), working differences become second nature.

Totally agree. And if you remember, I originally responded to your comment: "The M8 and Fuji are going to offer two completely different working experiences."
My point was the same one you just made to me. We are all different. And for some of us, the two cameras offer a very similar working experience.
I suppose I felt like your original comment was rather broad and sweeping. I'm certain it's true for a lot of people. But whether it's true for the majority of people, I have no idea.

[kanzlr]

Originally Posted by efirmage

Boy that sums it up nicely. Hopefully over the next year we can check some of those boxes off. Until then I'll also be shooting Portra with my M6.

having owned both, the GXR and the 5N, I sold the 5N mostly because GXRs mode2 assist is much better than Sonys peaking.

[mathiasprinz]

I used an M8 for the for time yesterday – usually shooting film leicas – and i felt that the image quality was very good at lower iso. What really bugged me is that it is LOUD - not much quieter than a 5D, i think. CLACK! Combine that with the crop, the IR-Problem and the limited ISO-capabilities and it´s not my camera.

Still, if you want to shoot M-Lenses, the M8 would be the better solution, in my opinion. I don´t like EVF´s or shooting from the back screen, so i would have to exclusively scale-focus and get along with non-exact frameline on the X-Pro. If you want to shoot the Fuji lenses with Autofocus thought, it could be a great camera. Then again, if you want that, why are you even thinking about a manual focus rangefinder?

[merciless49]

I'm going with Fuji X-Pro1, because of the newer sensor technology and interchangeable lenses. I'll be fine using a film M to get my RF patch/manual focus experience.

[chrispiper]

Shooting a wedding this weekend and portraits the next with the 5D, then it goes up for sale (along with an M3). Hoping to get within range of an M8. I'm tired of hauling around a DSLR for digital shooting and scanning too many negs with film just for fun/family shooting. Keeping the M6 for B&W film but really looking forward to having an M digital I can have with me all day. XPro 1 is probably more capable in terms of specs, but my heart rules my head and I love to shoot rangefinder M's. X100 and XPro 1 sound intriguing but it's just not my cup of tea. I'm keeping the other DSLR for when I want/need it and what it can do. The M8 sounds like it has it's "issues", but I'd rather have it in hand and shoot it for a couple of years until the M9 comes within range than not have it at all. By that point maybe there will be a real digital rangefinder/MF competitor and I'll take another look. But that's then and this is now and my M8 is waiting.

[braver]

As interesting as the x-pro is, it is not a manual focus rangefinder. I love working with mf, and fuji's not doing anything to implement something that works there. I handled an x100 for a while once and I like their implementation of af within the optical finder. The evf is rubbish, which made me wonder if all evf's are like that. If I were to buy a digital camera right now I think I'd be inclined to save up for an M9, you only live once so do it right the first time. That said, I have no inclination to have a digital camera, so it's moot really.

[Chris Bail]

I asked my self a similar question when the NEX systems were announced. I ended up getting the NEX-5, and an M8. The NEX has great IQ, but for simple shooting pleasure, I continue to pick the M8 every time.

I'm sure the X-Pro will be a nice piece of technology, and maybe somewhere down the road I'll look at one...after the X-pro 2 is announced and everyone is unloading their X-pro 1's.

[braver]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

In the electronics/digital realm, you go with the newest technology/most recent sensor you can afford. Ya just do.

No you don't, you skip the first generation of every new technology. A camera is also more than just a container for a sensor, especially nowadays when pretty much every sensor made the past 4 years is good enough to do great work with.

Only way you go with the M8 is if you have Leica glass you refuse to part with - a very legit reason, and the only reason that makes sense.

No it isn't, they're different cameras, they work differently. There is enough there to prefer one over the other regardless of what glass you can use.

I'm sometimes amazed by the amount of nonsense that is broadcasted as truth around here and everywhere else on the internet.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Chris Bail

I asked my self a similar question when the NEX systems were announced. I ended up getting the NEX-5, and an M8. The NEX has great IQ, but for simple shooting pleasure, I continue to pick the M8 every time.

Yes, I find I'm in this camp too... attached to the digital Leica more than any other camera... I just find it very fun to use. I guess there are two camps... those who are immune to ergonomics and who don't care if the camera feels like a hairdryer in there hands and those that are sensitive to ergonomics and everything has to be perfect. Honestly, I wish I was in the former category and not the latter (like I am). It would be cheaper.

[leicapixie]

The Fuji great as it "seems" is not a True RFDR. The film Leicas are true. The M8,M9 are similar but feel different. Lack of Real time screen is very necessary due the RFDR difficulties with certain lenses.. I love my Leica. Fuji has made great cameras but can abandon systems and models on a whim!
I would rather add an inexpensive DSLR from Canon or Nikon. A few lenses will still be way cheaper than going the Fuji route. The DSLR again less than adding a used or new Leica M8,8.2 or M9. A camera with all the bells and whistles and most problems resolved..