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

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 . 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.

 

To achieve accurate focus on any EVF/LV camera, you need to focus at the widest aperture then stop down. Manually focusing with 10x magnification and focus peaking is not accurate at f/4 or f/8, be it on an X-Pro1, Sony A7R, Sony A7S, or any other camera.

 

On the Sony A7 bodies with the new manual Zeiss Loxia lenses you also need to focus at f/2 and then stop down to the preferred aperture and then make the picture, as focusing at f/8 is inherently very very inaccurate even with a large mount of magnification, focus peaking, and all sorts of electronic aids.

 

Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers has a couple of articles about this. Reid has reviewed the Loxia lenses and mentions this many many times, since these lenses don't have electronic aperture control, it makes them very inaccurate to focus unless you focus them wide open, and then stop them down.

 

The rangefinder is far quicker and more accurate to focus as it doesn't rely on any such external factors.

[michaelbrenner]

... a few direct comparison shots [see earlier post]

 

As a side note, with the Leica M 240, I achieved focus using the EVF (rangerfinder not possible b/c it's an R-lens and too close for rangefinder use anyway, because of parallax errors). With the X-Pro1 and the R-lens, I used manual focus with focus peaking, no problems. With the X-Pro1 and the XF35, it was, even in macro mode, unable to get a lock on the subject, and I had to focus manually, which I found to be a huge pain as it is a fly-by-wire system and so many turns were necessary, no feel at all, like with the Leica lens. With the X100s, it was easily able to achieve auto-focus lock, when in macro mode.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zlatkob]

The Fuji XF 35 lens is a standard lens and can't do macro, even if you set the X-Pro1 to macro mode.

[michaelbrenner]

If I didn't have an M9 I think I would buy an xpro 1 a... x100 a while ago while my m9 was back in Germany as a stop gap ...

 

I would suggest an X100s (or X100t) rather than an XPro1, if you already have an M9, because the X100s is so small and versatile. It's role is as a complement rather than a substitute to the M 240. I have a little belt pouch I used to use to carry it around everywhere. Now I have a small "man purse" that I carry my M 240 (and two spare lenses and wallet and iphone and pack of filters) - such small equipment, Leica has, no sore back anymore.

 

Back to the X100s, it's small, has the builtin ND filter, flash, has macro capability, autofocus and takes great pictures. However, if I were to do a high risk activity requiring two hands (such as sailing or rock climbing) I likely would use the belt pouch with the X100s. No idea how I would carry an M 240 about under those conditions.

 

The XPro1 functions more as a substitute than a complement to the M 240, but I suppose you might use the XPro1 as a second body, maybe for a long lens, and keep a wide-angle on the M 240 while walking about (as a professional, just have to pony up the extra dough for a second M 240 body...). Still, because of the flat results and muted colors and because I like to roll pretty much incognito, I just stick with a single M and when the moment pops up, just have to use the lens in use at the time...

[michaelbrenner]

The Fuji XF 35 lens is a standard lens and can't do macro, even if you set the X-Pro1 to macro mode.

 

It's the XF35mm f/1.4 R and stands up very well in use. Highly recommended if one has the X-Pro1 (or compatible camera). Macro 28cm - 2.0m. For more info, see FUJINON LENS XF35mmF1.4 R | Fujifilm Global. I was at the low end of the range, so maybe that's why the XPro1 was unable to obtain a lock, though I did try backing up a bit.

[bobbywise]

Leica is great, and Fuji is also great. Both systems are great, but sometimes for slightly different purposes and reasons. The rangefinder system (which I love), slows you down, and takes time to master, but of course gives you a more rewarding shot when you nail it.

Street shot taken with the XF 35mm on the X-Pro1 with its original firmware (often criticized by many for its slow auto-focus).

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!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To achieve accurate focus on any EVF/LV camera, you need to focus at the widest aperture then stop down. Manually focusing with 10x magnification and focus peaking is not accurate at f/4 or f/8, be it on an X-Pro1, Sony A7R, Sony A7S, or any other camera.

 

On the Sony A7 bodies with the new manual Zeiss Loxia lenses you also need to focus at f/2 and then stop down to the preferred aperture and then make the picture, as focusing at f/8 is inherently very very inaccurate even with a large mount of magnification, focus peaking, and all sorts of electronic aids.

 

Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers has a couple of articles about this. Reid has reviewed the Loxia lenses and mentions this many many times, since these lenses don't have electronic aperture control, it makes them very inaccurate to focus unless you focus them wide open, and then stop them down.

 

The rangefinder is far quicker and more accurate to focus as it doesn't rely on any such external factors.

 

I've not had this issue. I regularly use slower lenses on my Sony A7R. Focusing with the magnifier is easy for me even at F8. I regularly use my WATE on the A7 series cameras. My shooting partner uses the Canon T/S lenses on his A7R and provides images to commercial clients every week. He has no issues with focusing an f4 lens. In his opinion it's significantly easier than on a Canon body.

 

I also had, for a while, a Nokton 50mm 1.1. That lens has focus shift between 1.8 and f5.6. I regularly used that lens on my Sony's specifically because I could achieve accurate focus on the A7 but not on an M9.

 

I agree that with a lens that has no focus shift it is faster to achieve focus with the M. However it is definitely not more accurate.

 

Gordon

[lct]

To achieve accurate focus on any EVF/LV camera, you need to focus at the widest aperture then stop down. Manually focusing with 10x magnification and focus peaking is not accurate at f/4 or f/8, be it on an X-Pro1, Sony A7R, Sony A7S, or any other camera.

I beg to differ. As far as my Fuji X-E2 is concerned, in most cases, i don't need to focus at full aperture at all, it is just a waste of time.

[db24fps]

Funnily enough I’m currently flirting with a Fuji X-E2 whilst my M is away for repair in Germany (there were no loan units available, so it seemed like a good time to evaluate my options for investing in a backup system). I had considered the Fuji XT1 but the ergonomics of the X-E2 were of greater appeal, and both have the same sensor and the same EVF resolution and refresh rate. As a former owner of the original X100 I was curious to see how far Fuji had come in the past five years.

 

The X-E2 is, to its credit, an extremely pleasant camera to use. A bit more plastic in the build than I would like certainly, but it’s a thoughtfully made device and it instantly feels at home in my hand. I will also say, with some relief, that I no longer live in fear of an EVF. Yes I would have preferred the hybrid viewfinder of the X-Pro1 and X100T, but I can’t mount my Leica glass to the X100 and I did not consider the X-Pro 1 on account of its successor finally due to arrive later this year. The quality of a good modern EVF has now has reached the point where I can feel at ease in accepting them as a useable and often beneficial tool rather than have grounds to dismiss them outright though. They’ve still a way to go naturally, but the technology will only get better. On the street, with my Summicron mounted to the Fuji, I have been focusing just as well with the aid of focus peaking as I have the rangefinder on the M240 itself (better in low light, in fact).

 

All that said, it has been interesting to discover just how much one appreciates the physical design of an M even more when it is taken from you. Leica’s menu layout is beautifully refined compared to that of Fuji’s, but take something physical like the shutter speed dial as further example. It is rather stiff on my X-E2, apparently in reaction to it being too loose on some previous models. On an M, it is neither one way nor the other, but just right. So stiff is the dial on the Fuji in fact that I often have to take my eye from the camera to adjust it with a grip between my thumb and forefinger (I'm hoping it will give a little with time). On the Leica a moderately firm brush with my forefinger against the dial is all that is required, and saves me from ever having to look away from the viewfinder. Perfection, but then it bloody well ought to be since I’m comparing a £5100 camera to another I picked up for £650. There’s value to be had in Leica’s slavish attention to detail, but anyone seriously considering taking the plunge on an M does need to consider for themselves whether it truly amounts to several thousand pounds/dollars worth of value. I don’t think that there is any right or wrong answer, it depends on the individual, but I always hope that anyone considering a M purchase (or any camera purchase for that matter) gets to spend good time testing it for themselves first.

 

I think as far as the quality of the files from the M240 are concerned, one of the camera’s greatest assets is that very little post processing is required to fine tune the images the RAW DNGs produce, at least in my experience. With the Fuji I am finding it to be the opposite. It requires more work, but I do think the X-E2/XT1/X100s and X100t (all have the same sensor) have an upper hand when it comes to dynamic range and noise at higher ISO. In fact Fuji’s handling of chroma noise in particular is exemplary and left me thoroughly impressed. So, the files are at least very responsive to the extra work they have asked of me (and I am actually still trying to get to the bottom of whether it is chiefly ACR's mishandling of X-Trans files that is commanding more attention in post in the first place).

 

The beauty of the M as a system, from the way it handles, to the menus, to the lenses, to the DNG files, is really that it asks little else of you once you’ve captured an image. It distils all the elements down to what is most important, the image itself, and frees the user from the burden of distraction. What frustrates me is none of this actually has to be exclusive to the Leica rangefinder, and I continue to lament that such an experience, via way of an M, comes to photographic enthusiasts and professionals at ever increasing financial expense. Leica certainly does not have a patent on streamlining the ease of use of a camera, but the industry almost seems to be backwards at times, making cameras ever more complicated by comparison. It’s no shock to me that the smart phone revolution has ignited such passion for image making amongst millions via way of Instagram..etc when such apps serve to make the photographic process all about the ease of creating photographs in their own way.

Edited February 23, 2015 by db24fps

[pico]

I think that getting into the Leica paradigm is a very bad idea if your wish is to produce compelling imagery without referring to the technology behind it.

 

No discerning viewer cares.

.

[indergaard]

I beg to differ. As far as my Fuji X-E2 is concerned, in most cases, i don't need to focus at full aperture at all, it is just a waste of time.

 

That's fine. You are simply relying on depth of field to focus, and not performing precise focusing, as to do that with LV/EVF - you need to focus at the widest aperture available - then stop down.

 

There's countless detailed articles about this available online, so I'm not gonna bother argumenting on behalf of a fact that has been known for a long time, and where more detailed and in-depth information is available at your fingertips.

 

Sure, I can focus my 21mm f/1.8 at f/8 with LV too. But the depth of field is so great, that precise focusing is nearly impossible.

 

That's also the reason why ALL autofocusing DSLR's and mirrorless cameras have electronic aperture control. Because ALL focusing - no matter what aperture you've selected - is done at the widest aperture of the lens to secure as precise focusing as possible, then after the camera has achieved focus is the aperture blades electronically moved to the position you've selected in your setting - ALWAYS - without exception.

[lct]

Never say never... or always for that matter . 100% crop of a snap focussed at f/8 (Fuji X-E2, Macro-Elmar-M 90/4 @ f/8, FF pic here, 9MB file). Fast, accurate, no need to focus at full aperture at all.

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!

[rpavich]

This is an interesting discussion as I am in the opposite mode. I have a Fuji X-E2 and an X100T that I dearly love and though they are fine cameras and I won't sell them anytime soon, I long for the ACTUAL rangefinder experience.

 

As much as Fuji has done a good job approximating something LIKE what a rangefinder does (with their OVF and focus patch) it just doesn't seem to me to be the same.

 

So...I'm shooting for getting an M within the next two years.

[Herr Barnack]

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...

 

<snip>

 

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...

 

 

 

Thank you for articulating the above points - your experience mirrors my experience.  I will always remember the time that one of my Leica chromes found its way into my Nikon chromes.  Same film (Fuji Velvia 50) as the Nikon images were made with, but made with my MP and pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux.  The slide nearly jumped off the lightbox - it was frighteningly sharp, clean can clear compared to those made with my Nikon glass.  The difference was simply staggering.  Today I have no Nikon cameras or lenses; they have been traded in on Leica M glass and my Safari set.

 

Many people fixate on the price of M cameras and lenses and think we who shoot with Leica M are either wealthy dilettantes or just plain lunatics.  No, we are just seriously committed to photography.  It is not just a hobby for us; it is an unbridled passion, an obsession, a love, a way of life. 

 

In the future, when I get the glassy eyed stare because of my M kit I now have a link to direct people to that will explain this Leica thing. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[borjalcazar]

They are differnt animals. Onces you try a M yon never look back

[tookaphotoof]

Someone on this forum recently bought an M9 and quickly decided he liked his X100T more. If I'm not mistaken the M9 will be returned to the store.

Not everyone prefers a Leica, I guess.

[jaapv]

The mistake is buying a Leica and thinking that one will instantly get "better" photos. The top shelf is too crowded nowadays.

A Leica M will be great if the camera suits the photographer. Otherwise it will not be the optimal choice.

[Mornnb]

The mistake is buying a Leica and thinking that one will instantly get "better" photos. The top shelf is too crowded nowadays.

A Leica M will be great if the camera suits the photographer. Otherwise it will not be the optimal choice.

 

Cameras don't make photos, people do. Talent with an iPhone will do better than a random person with a Leica.

 

If one tends to favour available light and subjects that don't move a lot (i.e., not rugby players). Then the M should be a good choice.

[CheshireCat]

ALL focusing - no matter what aperture you've selected - is done at the widest aperture of the lens to secure as precise focusing as possible, then after the camera has achieved focus is the aperture blades electronically moved to the position you've selected in your setting - ALWAYS - without exception.

 

There are several reasons for electronic aperture control in AF cameras:

- Bright viewfinder

- Some AF points work only at wide apertures

- Ergonomy

- Automatic exposure with time priority

 

The real problem is with lenses suffering from focus shift. Ask the owners of the Canon EF 50/1.2

Edited April 30, 2015 by CheshireCat

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hamey]

Hello Michael.

 

Having both the M240 and the Fuji X system I am starting to lean more towards the Fuji X system.

I don't have the X100s or the pro 1 but have the X-T1 instead and frankly love this camera.

The more I use it the more I am impressed with it, it allows me to get shots that is impossible to do with my M240. 

These shots where taken in Hong Kong two weeks ago, all hand held with AF and IS.

I cannot hand hold my M240 and get these shots, the M 240 is a beautiful camera but in my opinion is no match

again'st AF and IS.

The first shot taken on the peak was rather difficult as so many people where pushing and shoving to get similar shots

I just held the camera above my head with the screen tilted and fired away, not possible with the M system.

Second shot was once again hand held.

 

By all means get the M240 but reconsider the fuji X system.

 

Good Luck with your choice.

 

Ken.

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!