Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-Pro Series

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

X-Pro 2 or M 262?
Old 05-21-2016   #1
eleskin
Registered User
 
eleskin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
X-Pro 2 or M 262?

I am debating buying an X Pro-2 or a Leica M 262. I have been a Leica shooter since 1991, and have a ton of M lenses. My first digital was the M8, I then migrated to the X-Pro 1, feeling the for the money, the M9 and X Pro were about equal regarding image quality, and I wanted autofocus, and the hybrid viewfinder. I have since migrated to the A7r, and that really has been an awesome camera for my Noctilux, but hence, I miss the rangefinder experience for my wide street shooting, so today I am debating should I buy the new X-Pro 2 and save a ton of money or should I bite the bullet and get the M 262. I have 2 Fujinon lenses , the 18-55 and the 35 1.4. My M collection is 15 lenses from 15mm to 280mm. Image quality is issue #1, #2 is usability in the street, #3 is cost, but I may overlook that if the M262 would offer greater benefits.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2016   #2
macjim
Registered User
 
macjim's Avatar
 
macjim is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 463
Having been a previous owner of both a Leica M9 and a Fujifilm X-Pro1, I can understand your dilemma. Both cameras were nice and had advantages and disadvantages too. I liked the purity of the Leica with its full frame sensor, manual focusing lenses and the viewfinder but I also liked the hybrid viewfinder & autofocus system. The price difference was a frightener as the Leica was more than double the cost of buying the Fujifilm X-Pro1 as you will know, so these factors have to be taken into count. Now that the X-Pro2 and the Leica M 262 are available would I choose the Leica over the Fuji… I don't know. If I hadn't bought an M9 then I'd probably stretch for the Leica but, like me, we've previous owned the Leica. As that is the case I'd go for the X-Pro2 over the M. Why, well, you can get more for your money for the one thing and buy more lenses and accessories too for the equivalent of the M body alone. You can use Leica lenses via an adapter on the X-Pro2, you have the ability to manually focus if you want or take advantage of the autofocus too. Reliability Is also in the Fiji's ballpark too as I've read about problems with Leica cameras and the customer service side too... I don't think you'd regret buying the X-Pro2 as its now a much more mature and grown up camera than the X-Pro1 was, as much as like that camera. For me, I now use an X-T10 after selling my X-Pro 1 and X100s to buy it but I'm now looking at replacing it with an X-T1, yes I know the X-T2 is due out, but I will get a weatherproof camera to go with my XF-35 and F2 and save money over the X-T2. Do I still have the urge to buy a Leica, boy do I! Yes but I've experienced the time with one.
__________________
Cheers, Macjim
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2016   #3
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is online now
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,013
I have the XP1 and an M9, I would/am going to go with the XP2 when my toy fund is built up rather than the M(240). I like the M9 for the crisp CCD images, the M has CMOS and isn't a big difference from any other modern camera. I had a tough time with Leica glass on the XP1 but eventually got used to the focus peaking method over the focus patch on the Leica. I make no recommendation but offer my experience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2016   #4
krötenblender
Registered User
 
krötenblender's Avatar
 
krötenblender is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 749
Since a few weeks I have the X-Pro2 (bought it more or less the day it was available) and since then, my M240 very seldom sees any light...

Just a few months back, I wouldn't have thought, that this is even possible.

The Leica still has some advantages for some special purposes and the simulated rangefinder-experience of the Fuji is only 90% at it's best as what it is with a real mechanical rangefinder. But boy, it comes close! What I really missing a just a few special lenses for my special needs (if I could dream or get a free wish from the Fuji-guys, it would be a real mechanically coupled lens-focus in a fast 35mm-equivalent lens).

My M240 with the 35mm Summilux ASPH. FLE currently is not replaceable by any other camera/lens combination. But besides that, the Fuji beats the Leica in every aspect, I can think of. Besides manual focusing, which is (only a little) behind Leica, the handling is IMHO much better than the Leica, it feels much quicker and ergonomics is very good. The optical viewfinder is very nice and the information blended in, is useful and doesn't disturb. If you need to use a EVF also from time to time the Leica solution is just a bad joke compared to what Fuji has.

One drawback is, that I find the Leica-lenses not very usable on the X-Pro1. Granted, you can adapt them and the electronic RF simulation works pretty good. But with the adapter the lenses are not that small anymore on the camera, you don't have the same field of view (crop 1,5) and the camera just does't feel right with the non-native lenses (I think, this is very much your own experience, but for me...). Although Fuji has some really incredible lenses, it is not the same as Leica, yet...

So, if you search for a recommendation, or opinion: Take the X-Pro2, the value for photography, usability and much more is simply better. The camera is a real joy to use and it doesn't get in the way, just like a Leica. In recent years, Leica for me feels more and more like a luxury accessory and at least in the rangefinder department doesn't really try anymore to be a real photographers tool. The Fuji-guys do, and they did something right, I think.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2016   #5
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 54
Posts: 2,838
I recently went through a similar decision and went with a M-P 240 instead of an XP2. The main reason was the sensor size - I want my 35 Cron to have the field of view of a 35, not a 50. If I were starting from scratch with no M lenses I would probably have gone XP2, though.
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro1, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2016   #6
jim0266
Registered User
 
jim0266 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 116
If you are in the U.S. consider renting them for a few days from Lensrentals. You are going to spend a nice chunk of change to rent both the Leica and the Fuji but it might save you money in the long run.
__________________
My Web Site
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2016   #7
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleskin View Post
...so today I am debating should I buy the new X-Pro 2 and save a ton of money or should I bite the bullet and get the M 262...
For a small fee, I can tell you how to REALLY save a ton of money....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2016   #8
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,377
Like the X100T, the X-Pro 2 has instant access to a virtual 'Digital Split Image' preview via the front OVF/EVF lever. This is means one can view a simulated, monochrome, RF patch in OVF mode. The display is a an EVF projection located at the bottom right of the OVF finder. I find its size to be larger enough to function as a focus aid but not too large to impede composition. This 'Digital Split Image' view can be changed to focus-peaking display mode as well.

With my X100T I found this to be a significant improvement over focusing with the X-Pro 1. At the minimum one can quickly determine where the actual AF focus region is located.

Even though this is as close as one can get to an optical RF patch, it is only a digital simulation.

The X-Pro 2 and M 262 are very different cameras. I would never contend the X-Pro 2 ia a M 262 surrogate.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2016   #9
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,498
Live view is extrememly useful for working photographers even if it's not the primary method of composing and finding focus.
The M240 makes more sense than an M262.

Myself, I prefer AF and mostly produce for web use. ...I would choose the Xpro-2.
If choosing a new DRF the M240 is the most logical choice.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2016   #10
mdwsta4
Matty Westside
 
mdwsta4's Avatar
 
mdwsta4 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 441
I was never a fan of the XP1 having had one when it was first released. Loved my M9, but after shooting with film M's and an x100t, the M9 was sold too. The XP2 is an amazing camera and I have grown to like it quite a bit. I'm not really tempted by digital M's anymore because of their large size. If Leica ever produces a digital M that's the size of their film M's, I'll probably buy one. Until then.... my M mount lenses get used on the film M's for my 'rangefinder fix'. Digital, the XP2 is damn near perfect.
__________________
Matt
My Instagram Photos

Leica MP
Hasselblad 500 CM
Fujifilm TX-1

Fujifilm X100t
Fujifilm X-Pro 2
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-26-2016   #11
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
 
coelacanth's Avatar
 
coelacanth is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,387
I'm a film M user, have had bunch of digital Ms as well, and most recently had an M 262 for about 3 weeks. It had an issue and I was waiting for a replacement (was Certified Pre-owned). The store insisted that I could keep using it until whenever another one shows up, but none came up in time and I ended up returning it. I really liked it very much, but it's still a lot of money, and also I'm just never a fan of the whole size/shape/presence combination of digital M (IMHO!). I always grab my M4-P and feel "this is oh so perfect size." Anyways, I decided not to replace it with another one. I liked it very much, though.

Now, I also had X-Pro1 for a bit when it first came out. I've been an X-E1 user for a few years now including some work photoshoots with 2 bodies and the native XF lenses, which are really fantastic.

I just got the X-Pro2 a few days ago, and I must say I am really impressed. It's kind of amazing they could pull it off and release it as a consumer product as they did. It's hard to explain in words, but someone really loved that camera and went all the way with the concept of X-Pro line, and somehow convinced the high ranking Fuji execs to make the camera the way it is.

I currently don't have any XF lenses, and I'm just using the X-Pro2 with my M mount glasses using Fuji's adapter. This adapter is great with X-Pro2 because you can specify the focal length of the lens you are using, and the camera will bring up the closest matching frame lines in OVF. I know some people are not into that ERF, but I for one love it. I can really use the camera like I use film M when I want it to be (for my style of shooting YMMV), and it can still do pretty full-on modern day "digital camera stuff" when I need it, including using the native XF lenses. I know many people think the ISO dial is a bit too much, but I actually love it. I can really treat it like a film camera when I want to. And I'm so far very much liking the overall image quality (more of how it renders) of the new sensor/processor. I like the 1st gen sensor/processor like the X-E1 and X-Pro1, but I wan't into the 2nd gen one I tried on X-E2 and X-T1 for a few reasons.

I need to spend more time with it to really get to know it, but so far feeling pretty darn good. It's been a long while since I really fell in love with a digital camera, and I must say I am feeling it with X-Pro2, even just with my M lenses.

Just as a fun data, I bought a CLA'ed M4, a Summicron 35 8-element, an X-Pro2 and a brand new CV Ultron 28/2 for the cost of Certified Pre-Owned M 262 back in April. Now you need almost another $1k on top of that if you wanna buy M 262 new today (CP in April vs new today as the Euro savings now gone). Now that's a lot of money!!

__________________
- Sug

b/w guy.

flickr | RFF Gallery | Buy my prints on RFF Classifieds | Instagram | Portfolio

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #12
eujin
Registered User
 
eujin is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 16
Interesting discussion. I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum...Fujis made me convert from shooting Canon for years. I started with the original X100 and currently own the X-Pro1, X-E2 and XT-1. Then I made the "mistake" of deciding to go back to film and got an M4-P, which took me to the decision last year to get a Monochrom. I thought all along that I would get the X-Pro2 when it came out, but I've held out because frankly, I just prefer shooting with a rangefinder. I do use my Leica lenses on the Fuji M adapter, but I don't like the split image simulation...focus peaking is my preferred way to do it. However, it just doesn't feel the same. I'm now contemplating finding a nice used M9-P just so I can shoot color digital on a Leica!

All this said, if I were the OP, and if image quality really is the number one criterion, I think I'd actually end up with the Xpro2. But I would suggest sticking to shooting native Fuji glass and probably just use AF most of the time. I haven't been particularly happy with the results from adapted Leica lenses on any of the Fujis to be honest, and the split image simulation just feels like a video game version of the real thing. But that's just me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
For me...it is easy. If you want to use Leica lenses, buy a Leica. If want to use AF Fujifilm lenses, buy the Fuji. Another thought is that if you buy used, you can probably swing a M240 and the X-Pro2 for close to the the price of a M262 new.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #14
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelacanth View Post
I just got the X-Pro2 a few days ago, and I must say I am really impressed. It's kind of amazing they could pull it off and release it as a consumer product as they did. It's hard to explain in words, but someone really loved that camera and went all the way with the concept of X-Pro line, and somehow convinced the high ranking Fuji execs to make the camera the way it is.
Agreed... and I don't even miss FF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #15
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 54
Posts: 2,838
It's funny... even with my new M-P I'd still like an XP2 with a 23! I'll probably wait a few years until the prices come down on the verge of the XP3 - it's not like I need one, but it would make a good replacement for my X100s.
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro1, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #16
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford View Post
It's funny... even with my new M-P I'd still like an XP2 with a 23! I'll probably wait a few years until the prices come down on the verge of the XP3 - it's not like I need one, but it would make a good replacement for my X100s.
Funny, even with my XP2, I'd still like an M-A
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #17
35photo
Registered User
 
35photo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford View Post
It's funny... even with my new M-P I'd still like an XP2 with a 23! I'll probably wait a few years until the prices come down on the verge of the XP3 - it's not like I need one, but it would make a good replacement for my X100s.
Ken,

I'm loving my XP2 with 35 f2! I've had my eye out on that 23 I'll shall see.. If they come out with a 23 f2 that would make things interesting..
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #18
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleskin View Post
Image quality is issue #1, #2 is usability in the street, #3 is cost
I think most of us can generally agree that there's not a ton of difference in #1 and that the difference in #3 is blatantly obvious. What your decision will come down to is #2. Without more information, it's hard for us to say what is more usable for you and how you shoot.

For some, surely this means needing AF to get quick shots on a wide open lens with greater repeatability. For others, like myself, it means a lens that i can physically focus and not look at some digital representation of a DOF scale inside the viewfinder. To me, the focus by wire on the fuji camera's was never pleasing, except on the XF14mm. (and likely on the other clutch style lenses they make that Ive never used)

Really though, I think it would be important for you to go somewhere you can try an XP2 with a leica adapter so you can experience if the digital range finder will work for you. Otherwise, you know a bit about what to expect from the XP1 and Leica cameras you own\owned in the past.

And as a secondary note, unless you absolutely need and want to get a brand new camera, you should also consider buying a used M240. They regularly seem to be going for ~3700$ which reduces that gap on #3 by a good bit, especially when you consider how much glass you already own for that mount.
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-2016   #19
strobesync
Registered User
 
strobesync's Avatar
 
strobesync is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Washington DC metro area
Posts: 15
I shoot street, art, and some fashion type photography. My M9 at times didn't quite nail focus as did my D800 so I thought perhaps it was time for an autofocus camera. Enter the x-pro 2. I've had it for about a month and have shot street, studio, and location images. It can be a quirky little beast at times, not quite intuitive as the M9, same learning curve as a Nikon/Canon DSLR. Once you make mistakes you remember. Image quality and nailing focus has been high especially when using adapted Leica lenses. At times I miss the no nonsense of the M9 but I am about to head out to a shoot and the only digital camera in the bag is the Fuji. I always think it boils down to comfort and confidence in your equipment so that your creativeness comes to bear more on the images than the camera or lens in your hands. Use both and one will be there for you and if not flip a coin and live with it. Look forward to creating images but not backwards to some equipment decision.
__________________
Film/Digital, Holga/Leica
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-2016   #20
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 54
Posts: 2,838
To expand on what Tom said above, an unexpected (by me, anyways) advantage to my new M-P is the LV, or in my case the EVF - it's making using my 28 a real pleasure and is the root evil behind my deciding to splurge on a 21. I don't think I'll be using LV or the EVF with the 35 or 75, but for wider or longer it's a revelation. I'm even thinking about picking up a 135 at some point now that I have the digital Visoflex.
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro1, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-2016   #21
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by krötenblender View Post
Since a few weeks I have the X-Pro2 (bought it more or less the day it was available) and since then, my M240 very seldom sees any light...

Just a few months back, I wouldn't have thought, that this is even possible.

The Leica still has some advantages for some special purposes and the simulated rangefinder-experience of the Fuji is only 90% at it's best as what it is with a real mechanical rangefinder. But boy, it comes close! What I really missing a just a few special lenses for my special needs (if I could dream or get a free wish from the Fuji-guys, it would be a real mechanically coupled lens-focus in a fast 35mm-equivalent lens).

My M240 with the 35mm Summilux ASPH. FLE currently is not replaceable by any other camera/lens combination. But besides that, the Fuji beats the Leica in every aspect, I can think of. Besides manual focusing, which is (only a little) behind Leica, the handling is IMHO much better than the Leica, it feels much quicker and ergonomics is very good. The optical viewfinder is very nice and the information blended in, is useful and doesn't disturb. If you need to use a EVF also from time to time the Leica solution is just a bad joke compared to what Fuji has.

One drawback is, that I find the Leica-lenses not very usable on the X-Pro1. Granted, you can adapt them and the electronic RF simulation works pretty good. But with the adapter the lenses are not that small anymore on the camera, you don't have the same field of view (crop 1,5) and the camera just does't feel right with the non-native lenses (I think, this is very much your own experience, but for me...). Although Fuji has some really incredible lenses, it is not the same as Leica, yet...

So, if you search for a recommendation, or opinion: Take the X-Pro2, the value for photography, usability and much more is simply better. The camera is a real joy to use and it doesn't get in the way, just like a Leica. In recent years, Leica for me feels more and more like a luxury accessory and at least in the rangefinder department doesn't really try anymore to be a real photographers tool. The Fuji-guys do, and they did something right, I think.
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.
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer

Gear: more than enough, film and digital

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-2016   #22
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
... and I don't even miss FF.
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.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Side by Side interesting
Old 05-28-2016   #23
eleskin
Registered User
 
eleskin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
Side by Side interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
I was able to compare the X-Pro2 and the M240 side by side a few weeks ago. Regarding image quality the M240 was the clear winner for me. When I look at the files at 100% view I saw a big difference in detail rendering (landscapes, ISO < 1600). Besides that the handling of the Fuji was ok but I just like the operation of the Leica better.

I enjoy live view for wide angels and on the tripod so the M262 would not do it for me.

Finally bought a used M240 and I'm almost finished with the process of selling my M9 and all my Canon stuff. After years I realized that my photos will not be better if I constantly switch between different camera systems.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-2016   #24
borge
Registered User
 
borge is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleskin View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Website: www.indergaard.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2016   #25
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelacanth View Post

I just got the X-Pro2 a few days ago, and I must say I am really impressed. It's kind of amazing they could pull it off and release it as a consumer product as they did. It's hard to explain in words, but someone really loved that camera and went all the way with the concept of X-Pro line, and somehow convinced the high ranking Fuji execs to make the camera the way it is.

I currently don't have any XF lenses, and I'm just using the X-Pro2 with my M mount glasses using Fuji's adapter.
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2016   #26
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
... Which red is the True Red ?
...
Neither is the 'True Red'.

tom.w.bn said, "What I did was no scientific comparison." So my intent is not to criticize [b]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
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2016   #27
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,377
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.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2016   #28
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelacanth View Post
I just got the X-Pro2 a few days ago, and I must say I am really impressed. It's kind of amazing they could pull it off and release it as a consumer product as they did.
Nothing wrong with liking the camera, but what I see is a 2014-2015 spec X-Pro1 firmly in the prosumer price category.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #29
vladimir
vladimir
 
vladimir is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 59
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #30
kshapero
Photo Taker
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 9,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by borge View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
Nothing wrong with liking the camera, but what I see is a 2014-2015 spec X-Pro1 firmly in the prosumer price category.
Please explain...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #32
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 731
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.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #33
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,905
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'
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #34
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
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.
Purely subjective.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
It's not a M replacement. It's not mean to be. It's its own camera.

Quote:
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.
Purely subjective again. Was the instagram thing a dig at an insanely capable camera?

Quote:
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.
Purely subjective again... and there is nothing wrong with the IQ of the Fujis.

Quote:
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.
Agreed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #35
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 731
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.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #36
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
He asked for opinions. I gave mine. Your opinion is subjective too.
True... ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #37
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Please explain...
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.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #38
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 393
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #39
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 209
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2016   #40
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
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?
Both of course!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:08.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.