Jump to content

Considering a switch to Leica M240 from Fujifilm X100s and X-Pro1?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Considering a switch to the Leica M240 from the Fujifilm X100s and X-Pro1? Wanting more info before you make the financial commitment required to enter the Leica world?

 

So was I, and here is my experience. If you don't want to do all the reading, the short answer is Yes, it's well worth the switch, because of image quality, the rangefinder experience, speed, simplicity and connection to the subject.

 

What follows is my response to a fellow in the an FB Leica group who was also considering a switch and was asking for anecdotal information. When I was considering the switch, I used this forum for much of my research, and I'm very grateful to the various forum members for their help during my journey. I can only hope that my own experience, detailed below, might be of some use to those also considering a switch and desiring more information before taking the plunge.

 

For those of similar background or interest, please feel free to add your own comments or experiences. For me, at least, Leica has been a switch well worth taking and a journey finally begun.

 

BACKGROUND - I have the Fujifilm X100s and the X-Pro1, with which I shoot Leica glass (with adapter) and also Fujifilm glass. Last year, I obtained a brand new shiny M240 and also some additional vintage Leica glass. My first experience with a rangefinder, I was quite concerned about the financial outlay required for the M. However, after a couple of months' of use, I can say, without qualification, that I have been very satisfied with the Leica M240. As I purchased the body from B&H, I had a full 30 days to return the camera, and so when I say I found the M240 to my liking, I say it because I mean it, not because I'm trying to justify to myself the cash outlay required to acquire the camera.

 

 

X100s

With those preliminaries covered, on to the assessment. First, the Fujifilm X100s (the predecessor to the X100t) is quite the little gem, and I'm not going to get rid of it anytime soon. It is quiet, almost completely silent, is small and so relatively nonobtrusive and can be carried on a small belt pouch much like my Leica X1 could, has good IQ, is effective in low light, has reasonable autofocus, has a built-in hybrid finder (window/digital) which can change from window to digital on-the-fly, has built-in flash and a built-in ND filter and is an all-around killer setup with a very small footprint.

 

 

X-Pro1

Unabashedly, I got the X-Pro1 so I could, for the first time, experience Leica glass without having to commit to the expense of a Leica body. But I also got some Fujifillm glass as well, so I am in a position not only to offer comment on the two bodies but also on the glass from each manufacturer. The X-Pro1 is larger than the X100s, has a louder shutter, does not have a built-in flash or ND filter, but takes interchangeable lenses and, with an adapter, can be used to mount Leica glass. Like the X100s, a huge advantage of the X-Pro1 is it's built-in hybrid finder. With Fuji lenses, it also has autofocus. With Leica lenses, one may rely upon it's hybrid finder and focus-peaking.

 

 

Leica M240

So, I took the plunge, like you are currently considering, with the very same cameras you are considering, and I must say, it has been well worth it. Since I got the Leica M240, I have not used either the X100s or the X-Pro1, even though I have them ready and available for use. When I'm out and about, I have the M240 and the X100s close at hand, but always it s the M240 I reach for.

 

 

So, the question is, why. That's the bottom line. What appeals to me as a photographer may be entirely different to you, and so I provide a concise explanation as to why I have found the M240 so attractive as compared to the X100s and X-Pro1 (both fine cameras also, by the way).

 

 

First and foremost and last also, it is the image quality. Period. Even though I can use Leica glass on the X-Pro1 with an adapter, the results produced on an M240 are quite remarkable. It's not even close. Colors, tones, resolution - the M240 reigns supreme. There is just no comparison, in my humble opinion.

 

 

Comparing Leica to Fuji glass, again, just no comparison. For character especially, Leica glass is a clear triumph. I have found the Fuji glass a bit clinical in feel. Yes, it gets the job done, but it just seems to lack the character, or unique lens-drawing characteristics, of Leica glass. For example, I have a Leica lens that I find quite pleasing for portraits, as I like the brush-stroke nature of it's out-of-focus (bokeh) rendering at wide apertures. Additionally, as the Leica lenses all have a clearly marked distance scale and aperture, the Leica M240 is FAST (more about speed later).

 

 

Second, but very close to image quality is a characteristic that cannot by any means be underrated on an M camera is the rangefinder experience. I was a bit concerned, as my only experience with a rangefinder prior to the M had been a quick trip to a local Leica store where the rep seemed more interested in taking pictures himself with the M than in showing me how to do it. Also, I was very concerned about the all-manual-focus nature of Leica lenses. I've always relied upon autofocus, but with the X-Pro1 (with Leica manual lenses with adapter) had at least some small amount of recent experience using manual focus.

 

 

Nevertheless, I was not prepared for the beauty and elegance of the rangefinder experience. There is (literally) nothing else like it. Use of a rangefinder is much quicker and more precise than autofocus under many demanding situations. More about speed later. One key area that the rangefinder stomps on autofocus is when trying to focus on an object behind a screen or brush or other interposing barrier that the autofocus wants to lock on. Another is being able to focus quickly on a part of an object (e.g. the eyes). Yes, yes one can always "spot focus" using autofocus, but it's just not the same. Using a rangefinder links the photographer to the subject in a way that autofocus cannot, much like the difference between "fly-by-wire" focusing on the Fuji lenses versus the analog focusing on Leica lenses.

 

 

Finally, are speed and simplicity and connection to the subject. These three topics are related and so grouped here. The Leica M240, for certain subjects, is unrivaled in speed. All settings are readily available - aperture and focus on the lens, shutter speed and ISO on the body, all dials and readily viewable, except for ISO, which is a quick button-press. The Leica lenses have readily usable distance and depth of field settings. ISO is fully customizable. Settings are quick to access and very simple to use, so that, under stress (e.g. street photography) one can react very quickly to a changing situation. Once the settings are set, shooting is very, very quick. Compose and shoot. The photographer is free to focus on the subject and is not held back by the camera. Lastly, connection to the subject is afforded by manual focus lenses, the rangefinder, and the simplicity of the camera itself, so you almost forget it is there and it becomes merely an extension of yourself.

 

So there ya go, my longest post ever, but hopefully you might find this experience relevant and useful. Best of luck to those considering a switch. I can say, in my experience at least, it has been well worth it.

Edited by michaelbrenner
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice review here thank you but you compared your Fujis to the M240 in classic mode i guess. In LV/EVF mode, my Fuji X-E2 is significantly faster besides being smaller, lighter and quieter. I use the latter with M lenses mainly and with a very good 18/2 Fuji lens. Image magnification doesn't bring up automatically with M lenses so there is a bit of learning curve but the Fuji has little to envy to the M240 IQ wise with a good raw converter (C1 namely). The Fujis have no rangefinder though so they are different beasts to Ms anyway but comparing them as TTL cameras i much prefer the X-E2 personally. YMMV.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the review, Michael. Leaving aside the rangefinder experience for a sec, in comparing Leica M 240 and various Fujis, were you shooting DNGs or JPGs and how did you post process? In my experience the software and sensor can make quite a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... compared your Fujis to the M240 in classic mode... In LV/EVF mode, my Fuji X-E2 is significantly faster ... the Fuji has little to envy to the M240 IQ wise with a good raw converter (C1 namely). ... comparing them as TTL cameras i much prefer the X-E2 personally. YMMV.

 

EVF

Yes, it would be difficult to find a slower camera than the Leica M240 when using the EVF or Live View, at least for captures after the first in a series when in single shot mode. The first shot is as quick as anything out there, if not faster, but there is a huge lag, and the EVF is blacked out during this time period, before the next shot may be taken. When shooting a series in continuous mode, the EVF blacks out during the entire series and stays blacked out for a few seconds after the end of the series. Not usable. What I end up doing is using the EVF as needed to get things set up but then switching to the rangefinder window when actually shooting. The EVF is more suitable to tripod or slow, methodical work. I use the EVF mainly for long lenses and also to review pictures or to chimp or for shooting at low angles.

 

IQ

I've never used the X-E2 and so cannot speak to that, but I can say, without reservation, when comparing the X-Pro1, with Leica lenses, to the M240, it's not even close - the M240 easily tops the X-Pro1. Moreover, I've got the 14 and the 35, both good Fujifilm lenses, especially the 35 though the 14 has distortion issues, and neither has the character of vintage Leica lenses. To me, though they certainly get the job done, they appear a bit too perfect, even clinical in presentation. However, especially the 35, they are both good lenses, and I get great enjoyment out of using them. But, the Leica lenses add a dimension just not found in the Fujis and so more often then not, it is the Leica that I reach for, not the Fujis. Granted I haven't used C1 with the Fujis, just LR.

 

TTL

I would agree with you that for quick TTL work - that is, using the EVF or Live View with the requirement that subsequent shots after the first take place quickly on a single shot basis - is clearly not something the M was designed for. However, that's comparing apples to oranges. The M was obviously never meant for such work. For reportage, street, candids, portraits, and - now that the EVF/Live View are here - macro and even long lenses, I have found the M outperforms, easily, the Fuji X-Pro1 and X100s. However, for long range action shots where autofocus is critical and the rangefinder and zone focus are impractical and for quick TTL work, stay with the Fujis as the M is not designed for this sort of work, a square peg in a round hole for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For reportage, street, candids, portraits, and - now that the EVF/Live View are here - macro and even long lenses, I have found the M outperforms, easily, the Fuji X-Pro1 and X100s

I agree if you prefer the M in classic mode but in LV/EVF mode i'm simply unable to take candids with the M. So much the better for Fuji, my old 5D and my lastly acquired and also much faster Panasonic LX100 :cool:.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... comparing Leica M 240 and various Fujis, were you shooting DNGs or JPGs and how did you post process? ...

 

I shoot DNG/JPG Fine, meaning the camera produces a DNG file and a fine-resolution JPG files simultaneously. I process using Adobe Lightroom, sometimes using Photoshop for fine-tuning where LR cannot. The level of detail I can pull out of the shadows or highlights using the M is amazing. I've been able to "rescue" darkened shots and also shots that I thought had areas blown out. I've been able to take "impossible" shot with the M that I would never even consider attempting with the X-Pro1 or X100s.

 

I should mention that both the X-Pro1 and X100s are fine cameras, and I do not regret buying them. Especially, the X100s is a great little gem, because of its compact size, quite shutter, and general usability. But, the M 240, to me at least is worth the niggles and the extra cost. Nothing shoots Leica glass like a Leica (no pun intended...).

 

Another thing I should mention is that, with the M 240, I notice detail, shadow, tonality, contrast, saturation effects and subtleties not evidenced with the Fujis, using Leica or Fuji lenses. Plus, the character of the Leica lenses really comes into its own on the M compared with the X-Pro1.

 

The ultimate test, to me at least, is which camera do I reach for, which camera do I keep close to me? In every case, it's the M. Of course preferences are highly subjective. If one is using a long lens for sports action photography where razor thin depth of field and quickly moving subjects require quick and accurate autofocus, the M is not right tool. But, if you are doing candids, reportage, street, portraits, macro (now possible more than ever with the EVF/LV), studied long lens work, even landscapes, then the M 240 is well worth considering, in my humble opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... in LV/EVF mode i'm simply unable to take candids with the M...

 

Yes, it's real bummer trying to get that second shot off with the M when using it in EVF/LV mode. However, most of the time, I'll only shoot a single shot for candids, and for that I use zone focusing. Where I get really bummed out is using a long lens for portrait work with the EVF/LV and desperately wanting those subsequent shots. Just not usable. So, I turn off the EVF and use the window finder...

 

The other thing that just drives me crazy with the EVF is when using the self-timer, the EVF blacks out during the timing sequence!!!

 

Or, when shooting on continuous, the EVF blacks out fully.

 

Or, when shooting low light, long exposures, the EVF blacks out and displays the negative exposure countdown.

 

Grrr...

 

But, despite these little setbacks, I'm quite impressed with the M. Many of these can be mitigated in some way. Nevertheless, a huge part of photography is, where possible, have the right tool for the job. For the type of photography I do, I have found the M very useful and effective. Though the X-Pro1 may possibly be on the way out soon, I have no plans on disposing of my X100s anytime soon. That little fella is a true gem among cameras, so small and versatile. Still, since getting the M, the X100s has, I admit, been sitting in the bag, poor little fella.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... the software and sensor can make quite a difference.

 

I agree. I tested the macro capability of X100s and X-Pro1 (using Fuji lenses and Leica lenses with an adapter) and also on the M, in particular a Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8 (with adapter). Same lens on both X-Pro1 and M 240. On the X-Pro1, the images were flat and muted. On the M 240, the images were warm and seemed to pop out of the page. I used LR for processing. It's possible using C1 may have yielded significantly different results, but as I use LR in my workflow, the cameras' performance with that software seems the most pertinent anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the rangefinder, I focus once and take pics at any aperture. When working with a manual-focus lens on the X-Pro1, I have to switch to the widest aperture, focus, then stop down to the taking aperture, then make the capture.

Why so? I focus generally at real aperture personally. The beauty of a good EVF is it allows image magnification an any aperture fortunately. Don't get me wrong. I don't try to "sell" you another Fuji body :eek:. But as much as i like my rangefinders, i must say that the EVF of my X-E2 allows things that i could not dream of with my (d)SLRs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an X-Pro1, was OK, photos were great. Then I put a Leica lens on it and ... the Autofocus problems went away and I used the EVF all the time. And soon after I got an old rangefinder, so that was even nicer.

 

Now I have an A7, I think its a better solution. Does not pretend to be a Rangefinder, works with anything, has annoying menus ... but I have such low expectations that it does not matter. Shoot RAW and process in LR or C1.

 

IMO if you want a rangefinder, get one. The Fuji is an approximation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so? I focus generally at real aperture personally. The beauty of a good EVF is it allows image magnification an any aperture fortunately. Don't get me wrong. I don't try to "sell" you another Fuji body :eek:. But as much as i like my rangefinders, i must say that the EVF of my X-E2 allows things that i could not dream of with my (d)SLRs.

 

Assuming the lens does not have focus shift, by focusing at widest aperture with shallowest depth of field, I can assure myself of where peak focus occurs, no matter the aperture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an X-Pro1, was OK, photos were great. Then I put a Leica lens on it and ... the Autofocus problems went away and I used the EVF all the time. And soon after I got an old rangefinder, so that was even nicer.

 

Now I have an A7, I think its a better solution. Does not pretend to be a Rangefinder, works with anything, has annoying menus ... but I have such low expectations that it does not matter. Shoot RAW and process in LR or C1.

 

IMO if you want a rangefinder, get one. The Fuji is an approximation.

 

I have enjoyed the X100s and X-Pro1, and they are, to me, a great stepping stone towards the M 240, but, as you say, they are not rangefinders. Their main draw is the hybrid finder, combining a window finder with electronic view finder, on the fly. So, it's very convenient, for example to focus a manual lens using focus peaking by switching quickly to EVF and then, when focused, quickly back to the window finder without moving one's eye and with very little disruption from the subject.

 

On the Leica M 240, the EVF is attached in the flash bracket, so, all nose issues aside, one must move one's eye back and forth between the finders. Still, this is not as difficult as it first appears once one gets a bit of practice, but the connection with the subject still suffers a bit as you move from one to the other.

 

The Fujifilm bodies *do* have framelines so that you can compose while taking out of frame objects into account, just like on the Leica M 240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I tested the macro capability of X100s and X-Pro1 (using Fuji lenses and Leica lenses with an adapter) and also on the M, in particular a Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8 (with adapter). Same lens on both X-Pro1 and M 240. On the X-Pro1, the images were flat and muted. On the M 240, the images were warm and seemed to pop out of the page. I used LR for processing. It's possible using C1 may have yielded significantly different results, but as I use LR in my workflow, the cameras' performance with that software seems the most pertinent anyway.

 

Thanks Michael, most interesting. Glad you are enjoying your M! I am used to rangefinders and love the M9 (and film Ms). I just find the handling natural and straightforward. Ease of rangefinder focusing may vary slightly between models. That's another topic.

 

Leica lenses are uniformly excellent but do seem to yield different results on different digital cameras. Sensors and software make a difference -- just as choice of film makes a difference with film cameras. I also use LR, mostly. There seems to be a significant difference between M9 and M240 sensors, at least judging by other posts on this forum. White balance, color accuracy, and high ISO performance are considerations. A very useful discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so? I focus generally at real aperture personally. The beauty of a good EVF is it allows image magnification an any aperture fortunately. Don't get me wrong. I don't try to "sell" you another Fuji body :eek:. But as much as i like my rangefinders, i must say that the EVF of my X-E2 allows things that i could not dream of with my (d)SLRs.

 

Another advantage of the window finder is low light photography. The EVFs I've used seem to have great difficulty under low light and with motion, either that of the subject or that of the photographer (e.g. from a moving vehicle) and also under contrasty lighting, clipping shadows to black and blowing out highlights, and also there is always some amount of lag.

 

None of these are issues with a window finder, and, I might add, the differences in window finder between the X-Pro1 and the M 240 are night and day. I was doing some portraits of a nervous subject and so she was blinking quite a bit. With the M 240, I thought nothing of timing my captures to her blinks, but with the X-Pro1, same exact distance and lighting conditions, forget it, I just had to guess. It's that big of a difference between the window finders of the two cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I didn't have an M9 I think I would buy an xpro 1 as at the moment in the UK you can buy one for £700 with two free lenses that wont even buy a second hand leica 35mm summicron. I bought the x100 a while ago while my m9 was back in Germany as a stop gap and the only reason I sold it was because I thought I wouldn't go back to the M9 as it was so good and convenient. I would expect a M240 to be better than an Xpro 1 just because of the huge price difference.

Good luck and enjoy that leica!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never tried my Macro-Elmarit-R on the X-E2 but the Macro-Elmar-M 90/4 doesn't produce flat and muted images on it by far. Couple of pics here: Fuji X-E2 w. Macro-Elmar 90/4 - lctphot

 

Here's a few direct comparison shots... almond blossoms taken today under cloudy conditions. Wind was blowing, so not perfect, but good enough to give one a general comparison idea. The results are, unfortunately, a bit skewed in Fuji's favor as I inadvertently used 800 ISO for the M240, 400 ISO for the XPro1 shot using the XF lens and 200 ISO for the X-Pro1 shot using the Leica lens (with adapter) and also for the X100s.

 

No mods whatsoever, not even for cropping. I just took the pics and exported from LR from RAW files (DNG for M240 and RAF for Fujifilm bodies). All handheld under natural lighting. No tricks... ;)

 

You will have to visualize a bit as they are not at exact same distance, field of view, perfect exposure, etc., but it ought to be good enough to illustrate my earlier observations. However, all were taken with the *same* aperture, f/2.8. Granted, with any lens, one's opinion can be highly subjective. So use your own judgement. Hope these help... Comments welcome!

 

1. M240 with Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8 at f/2.8

2. X-Pro1 with same lens at f/2.8

3. X-Pro1 with XF35 (50mm EFOV) at f/2.8

4. X100s (35mm EFOV) at f/2.8

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...