dant Posted April 14, 2014 Share #1 Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) On the Fuji forum someone did some tests shots between these 2 cams. They claimed the Fuji was slightly sharper than the MM. I pulled out both cams to give them a shootout. The MM produced much sharper images than the Fuji. Here are test pix. zonefocused (The first 2 sets of BW.) I used NIk for the Fuji conversion. Both images had similar PP which was minimal. You wont see the sharpness difference until you make big prints. But there are other benefits to shooting Leica. Simplicity of manual controls is a big reason for me. The Fuji can be hell to adjust on the fly sometimes.The again, the M240's slow buffer is hell sometimes as well. Edited April 14, 2014 by dant 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Hi dant, Take a look here Fuji X vs MM...here are my test shots.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
GaryMulcahey Posted April 14, 2014 Share #2 Posted April 14, 2014 First off I would like to say that I think Fuji is doing a great job with the direction they are going. But I believe that the Fuji web forum folks are delusional. I have read so much crap on those forums about how that little sensor's IQ is as good as a full frame sensor blah blah blah. I have friends with these Fuji X series cameras. I like them. The cameras and the friends. I just had two 36 inch prints made from my MM by one of the owners of a Fuji X camera. He said he had no idea that the MM was that good. As far as image quaility goes the MM runs circles around anything Fuji makes at the moment. Not to say that the Fuji X is crap, it is not. G 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted April 14, 2014 Share #3 Posted April 14, 2014 Not many people make such large prints.... In fact not many people make A3 prints. The Fuji X is tremendous in what it does. I have made prints from M8 ,M9 and Fuji X.... At A3 the best is the M8, in my opinion,but sometimes the Fuji X and sometimes the M9.. The gap is small Andy 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #4 Posted April 15, 2014 First off I would like to say that I think Fuji is doing a great job with the direction they are going. But I believe that the Fuji web forum folks are delusional. I have read so much crap on those forums about how that little sensor's IQ is as good as a full frame sensor blah blah blah. I have friends with these Fuji X series cameras. I like them. The cameras and the friends. I just had two 36 inch prints made from my MM by one of the owners of a Fuji X camera. He said he had no idea that the MM was that good. As far as image quaility goes the MM runs circles around anything Fuji makes at the moment. Not to say that the Fuji X is crap, it is not. G Im sure the MM is great, but it is many multitudes the cost of a Fuji X and is purely B&W, you have to ask yourself is it worth this? For you I guess it is, but for me I really can't see the justification in the multi-£k cost of Leica digital cameras. The tech is out of date pretty much the day its released with no upgrade path. I love my M6, but I couldn't imagine wanting to drop that cash on a digital leica -ts pretty much the definition of anachronistic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #5 Posted April 15, 2014 Besides, I thought sharpness was a bourgeois concept? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #6 Posted April 15, 2014 What would you want to upgrade to? Is your photography such that the MM (or M or M9 or M8) does not outperform it already? With me it sure is... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #7 Posted April 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well simply put, the digital Leica's are technology, not mechanical and technology gets significantly better at least every 2 years. Digital Leicas are old hat tech wise as soon as theyre out. Now my X100 is indeed 3 years old, but it does not cost £6k! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #8 Posted April 15, 2014 Significantly? Digital cameras have been a lot better than what we can print for the best part of the last decade. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #9 Posted April 15, 2014 So what makes leica digital so special that it's 10x the cost? Im sure they're well built. But is that better photos? I just can't square that circle - personally Mattmaber.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #10 Posted April 15, 2014 Sensor designed to the lenses, better build, ergonomics that suit me, general Gestalt, need I go on? Yes I take better photos with a camera that I am happy with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted April 15, 2014 Share #11 Posted April 15, 2014 If you can afford an outdated MM of which you like the output better than what's coming out of a far more modern Fuji, you still wouldn't buy it just because of its price? Or because of the fact it will be replaced with a new model, eventually? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #12 Posted April 15, 2014 The sensor is designed for the lenses in all cameras surely? And the M8 and M9's sensor is definetly nothing special. Hey, Im not shooting you down for buying one, Im just saying I find their digital prices hard to justify. If I had the cash would I buy an M240? Probably not. Id rather get an X-Pro1 and spend the spare cash on a holiday. In the film world I can see how leica's are special but in the digital world, especially with their all in one even more ridiculously priced offerings and panasonic link ups I think they've devalued their brand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #13 Posted April 15, 2014 I wouldn't buy an outdated MM both because compared with similar equipment the price is silly and because its already old tech compared to far cheaper and reasonably priced offerings. As I say, I love my M6, sure its more expensive than a similar camera could be, but its not to the same degree and its also of its self not a massive price. My M6 & voigtlander were similar to an X-Pro1 with lens at the time, that is perfectly acceptable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #14 Posted April 15, 2014 Its about choice though of course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #15 Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) No, the Leica sensors are a specific design aimed at short-register rangefinder lenses. The M8 and M9 sensor is probably the most sophisticated CCD ever built (although the DMR is quite special too) Quite a few users still prefer the rendering over more "modern" Cmos sensors. As for the MM - what offerings technically speaking? I cannot think of one except maybe the now discontinued Phase One monochrome. Edited April 15, 2014 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #16 Posted April 15, 2014 Im sure they are. And I'm sure Fuji design their lenses to work with their sensors too. If were quibbling over technical specifics Leica won't win that, especially tech specs vs price. Build quality maybe (though I seem to read a lot of digital Ms having problems here). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #17 Posted April 15, 2014 You've not convinced me to spend £8k on a b&w camera, sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #18 Posted April 15, 2014 You are not very consistent, are you? You shoot an M6 and not a Bessa.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #19 Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) You've not convinced me to spend £8k on a b&w camera, sorry. I have no desire to convince you. Just explaining there are valid reasons for those that do. You are right, though. tech wins. We have to do without smile recognition. It is really impossible to take a selfie with the MM.... Edited April 15, 2014 by jaapv 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 15, 2014 Share #20 Posted April 15, 2014 Haha, I did the research, got the the M6 via my X100 (a film gateway drug) then cheap ebay Yashica Minister III, Canonet 28, Canonet 17 then decided to spend a decent but not crazy amount. The difference between the bessa and m6 given the build quality of the M6 and that Id read of the bessa made it a not too tough decision but it still took long enough. Film is mechanical, its worth, IMHO having good build quality, but with digital what moving parts are there? how often do you open it up? Its just not worth it - IMHO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.