Viv Posted June 26, 2012 Share #1 Posted June 26, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I visited my camera dealer today. He told me that, in the past week, seven customers have sold their M9s and bought the Fuji X Pro 1. Food for thought ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Hi Viv, Take a look here Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted June 26, 2012 Share #2 Posted June 26, 2012 Not really - if they prefer a cropped camera with limited manual focussing capability, well, they most likely were right to do so. These may well be users that are suffering from secondhand price drop angst because of an impending M10. The X-pro seems an attractive refuge right now. However it will not be as attractive in a couple of years if the record of earlier challengers is anything to go by. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted June 26, 2012 Share #3 Posted June 26, 2012 I visited my camera dealer today. He told me that, in the past week, seven customers have sold their M9s and bought the Fuji X Pro 1. Food for thought ... Did you ask him to sell you an M9? Bet he doesn't have one to sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted June 26, 2012 Not really - These may well be users that are suffering from secondhand price drop angst because of an impending M10. Equally possibly, they may not be. In terms of High ISO Capability, autofocus and bang for the buck, the X Pro 1 blows the M9 out of the water. And the 35mm f/1.4 lens is extremely good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 26, 2012 Share #5 Posted June 26, 2012 Well, in my considered opinion, and I tried the cameras out, an OM-D is the better choice overall for the superior viewfinder, and the image quality of the XPro at base ISO is nowhere near the M9 and trumped by the NEX7 and NEX 5 at all ISOs .Focussing manual lenses brought it in rear position by a wide margin. It is best used with its own AF lenses, that makes it much more pleasant. However, it would take something far more persuasive to make me give up my Leica glass. I decided not to buy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 26, 2012 Share #6 Posted June 26, 2012 Did you ask him to sell you an M9? Bet he doesn't have one to sell. Lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted June 26, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, in my considered opinion, and I tried the cameras out, an OM-D is the better choice overall for the superior viewfinder, and the image quality of the XPro at base ISO is nowhere near the M9 and trumped by the NEX7 and NEX 5 at all ISOs . You may indeed be right about the relative capabilities of the OM-D, the NEX-7 and the NEX-5. I cannot comment on those cameras, since I have not tried them. But I have seen ISO 200 shots from the X Pro 1 that were of extremely good image quality. Certainly the M9 may be capable of better, but I would not like to have to live on the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share #8 Posted June 26, 2012 Did you ask him to sell you an M9? Bet he doesn't have one to sell. He does. I already have one thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 26, 2012 Share #9 Posted June 26, 2012 You may indeed be right about the relative capabilities of the OM-D, the NEX-7 and the NEX-5. I cannot comment on those cameras, since I have not tried them. But I have seen ISO 200 shots from the X Pro 1 that were of extremely good image quality. Certainly the M9 may be capable of better, but I would not like to have to live on the difference. Indeed. If anything, I would have gone for the OM-D, despite the slightly lower IQ. More of a photographers' camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinj Posted June 27, 2012 Share #10 Posted June 27, 2012 Equally possibly, they may not be. In terms of High ISO Capability, autofocus and bang for the buck, the X Pro 1 blows the M9 out of the water. And the 35mm f/1.4 lens is extremely good. This is not news. There are several cameras that have been available for a long time and blow the M9 out of water in terms of high ISO, AF and bang for the buck. If those were the only parameters, M9 sales would have stopped 2 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted June 27, 2012 Share #11 Posted June 27, 2012 I visited my camera dealer today. He told me that, in the past week, seven customers have sold their M9s and bought the Fuji X Pro 1. A very persuasive salesperson, trading Leica for Fuji is a tough sell. Food for thought ... Eyes aging and autofocus is desirable. M9 is old, been there done that. Fuji is new and exciting. Many cameras come and go, few if any have the staying power of Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 27, 2012 Share #12 Posted June 27, 2012 Equally possibly, they may not be. In terms of High ISO Capability, autofocus and bang for the buck, the X Pro 1 blows the M9 out of the water. And the 35mm f/1.4 lens is extremely good. I have both. Agreed, the Fuji AF is better than the M9's one:p. Other than that, the Fuji is a fine camera but after 8 weeks of ownership I'm still trying hard to bond with it. Yet it's unreliable AF really really gets into my way of shooting, it has a life of its own. MF is forgetable, close to useless with the native lenses. The M does not get into my way, the Fuji does, still too often for my liking. Some might trade in their M9 for the Fuji Pro, I definitely won't, it's no M9 replacement. There is simply no contest between the best MF implementation and best VF window versus quirky AF coupled with flawed MF. Those with eyesight problems who need to switch to AF should look elsewhere as the unreliable Fuji AF requires good eyesight to master it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 27, 2012 Share #13 Posted June 27, 2012 We sell the X Pro-1. Nice camera in many ways. So far as I know, exactly one of our M9 customers has actually swapped over to the XP1 (and OM-D, as well) - and that was to gain the video capability, because he shoots video for a living. I'm not tempted, since most of the lenses I use aren't available (21, 35, 75, 135) - and while they may be available sometime, experience with ornery AF on the Contax G series is enough to warn me off. The deal with the XP1 AF is that the focus-area box suffers from parallax problems when working close. The AF isn't seeing the same thing as the box indicates, since the actual lens is 2" down and to the right of the viewfinder. Easy to get focused backgrounds instead of focused subjects unless you stick your subject right in the middle of the frame every time (basic box camera composition). If you watch the parallax-corrected framing engage AFTER focusing, you can get an idea of where the camera actually focused, and try again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted June 27, 2012 There are several cameras that have been available for a long time and blow the M9 out of water in terms of high ISO, AF and bang for the buck. If those were the only parameters, M9 sales would have stopped 2 years ago. Quite right. They are not the only parameters. But they may be parameters that are important to a lot of people. It occurs to me that if Zeiss would (or could) produce a digital version of the current Ikon for a retail price of, say, 3,000 euro, they would have a winner. Better handling and viewfinder than the M9. I know this, as I also have an Ikon and it is wonderful. But this is fantasy, it will never happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share #15 Posted June 27, 2012 The deal with the XP1 AF is that the focus-area box suffers from parallax problems when working close. The AF isn't seeing the same thing as the box indicates, since the actual lens is 2" down and to the right of the viewfinder. Very true. But working close with the M9 is equally problematic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelduck Posted June 27, 2012 Share #16 Posted June 27, 2012 Very true. But working close with the M9 is equally problematic. How? I find the M9 to be the only camera that actually focuses where I want it to focus. I shoot a lot at 0.7m and the focus is spot on and extremely accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 27, 2012 Share #17 Posted June 27, 2012 Quite right. They are not the only parameters. But they may be parameters that are important to a lot of people. It occurs to me that if Zeiss would (or could) produce a digital version of the current Ikon for a retail price of, say, 3,000 euro, they would have a winner. Better handling and viewfinder than the M9. I know this, as I also have an Ikon and it is wonderful. But this is fantasy, it will never happen. No it won't; Zeiss themselves have said they were unable to undercut Leica... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted June 27, 2012 Share #18 Posted June 27, 2012 and the image quality of the XPro at base ISO is nowhere near the M9 and trumped by the NEX7 and NEX 5 at all ISOs . As much as I prefer my NEX7 to the XPro1, because of the focus peaking and smaller size, I must say that in my tests I found the XPro was superior at all ISO's above 400 to the NEX7. At 1600 and above the NEX7 was well beaten by the Fuji by at least a couple of stops in noise performance. AT base ISO's they were similar except the Fuji lenses are better. And while I wouldn't say the M9 is "better" than any other camera at base ISO it does have a look that I can't seem to get with any other small format system (35mm) and I do prefer that look to anything coming out of a CMOS sensor at this time. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 27, 2012 Share #19 Posted June 27, 2012 Have a look at the detail. The Fuji noise reduction appears to be more aggressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 27, 2012 Share #20 Posted June 27, 2012 I looked at the X Pro 1 in a store in Bangkok, although I was a bit rushed when I did. My impression was that the OVF was much darker than that of the M9. On problem for me was that I have very good far vision, but need reading glasses. On an M9 VF I don't need a diopter adjustment, but do need one with the EVF (from my experience with the Ricoh GXR, which has built-in dipper adjustment). I found that for the X Pro 1, I would need diopter adjustment but the store did not have one available. Also, as far as I recall, I remember that I couldn't see clearly with the OVF — does this mean that Fuji have designed the VF in such a way that, if you need a diopter adjustment on the EVF, the same one will work for the OVF? It would seem to me that this would have to be the case; otherwise one would not see clearly through the OVF if one used a diopter adjustment in the EVF. Anyone know? —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.