Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read the title of this thread, hoping to find IQ arguments.

 

I see it's really hard to keep leica users on a pure image quality discussion when it's up to the M9 vs "anything else", even worse to let them accept the M9 IQ is not the state-of-the-art anymore.

 

Please, leave apart the AF/MF and parallax issue, which is IMHO not an argument. Apples vs Oranges, as usual.

 

I see more and more professional photographer using the XP1, and the M9 sales are now not so enthusiastic.

 

I personally just bought one FUJI, the IQ is better than my M9, M8, 5DmkII, but that's no surprise. I can live with the crop factor (a FF would be much better), but then again I can live with the M8 as many here, so I can't complain about that.

Sensor technology behind the M9 is at least 6years old, and you must be not willing to accept this if you declare the opposite.

 

It's not just high ISO noise (aggressive or not, the XP1 totally blows away any digital Leica in this case), it's about color quality too.

I dare anybody then to see evident resolution margin of the M9 vs the XP1 on low ISO too.

[Advertisement]

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

[Viv]

I read the title of this thread, hoping to find IQ arguments.

 

I see it's really hard to keep leica users on a pure image quality discussion when it's up to the M9 vs "anything else", even worse to let them accept the M9 IQ is not the state-of-the-art anymore.

 

Please, leave apart the AF/MF and parallax issue, which is IMHO not an argument. Apples vs Oranges, as usual.

 

I see more and more professional photographer using the XP1, and the M9 sales are now not so enthusiastic.

 

I personally just bought one FUJI, the IQ is better than my M9, M8, 5DmkII, but that's no surprise. I can live with the crop factor (a FF would be much better), but then again I can live with the M8 as many here, so I can't complain about that.

Sensor technology behind the M9 is at least 6years old, and you must be not willing to accept this if you declare the opposite.

 

It's not just high ISO noise (aggressive or not, the XP1 totally blows away any digital Leica in this case), it's about color quality too.

I dare anybody then to see evident resolution margin of the M9 vs the XP1 on low ISO too.

 

This accords exactly with my experience.

 

I too, was hoping that the thread would focus on these topics - and on relative ease of handling of the two cameras, but it appears that many of the Leica faithfil feel the need to indulge in diversionary tactics. Regarding ease of handling, it is so nice not to need to three hands to change card or battery on the X Pro 1 (no silly removable bottom plate).

[janki]

FYI, any local dealer here has got at least three M9 on the shelf still unsold.

Leica M9 is off the shelf in this part of the world, too.

Could it be that the market now actually starting to get "saturated"?

Leica has almost put all their eggs in one basket, - what now?

[Mauribix]

Leica M9 is off the shelf in this part of the world, too.

Could it be that the market now actually starting to get "saturated"?

Leica has almost put all their eggs in one basket, - what now?

 

I think so.

And it still surprise me how many they have sold, considering the no-evolution done in the last 3 years.

Hopefully we'll se an M10 in this fall... let's see what the price is going to be about.

It could be my final switch to Fuji and Canon.

[jaques]

the only thing sure about the price is that it will be high...

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

It's not just high ISO noise (aggressive or not, the XP1 totally blows away any digital Leica in this case), it's about color quality too.

I dare anybody then to see evident resolution margin of the M9 vs the XP1 on low ISO too.

 

Interestingly, I find the XP1 stuff--like the x100--too red for good skin tones--much like a Canon of 2004-2006 vintage. Some would say "like Fuji film" Of course this can be corrected, but I want to do less correction The M9 wins hands down IMO.

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interestingly, I find the XP1 stuff--like the x100--too red for good skin tones--much like a Canon of 2004-2006 vintage. Some would say "like Fuji film" Of course this can be corrected, but I want to do less correction The M9 wins hands down IMO.

 

Really? The attached is a jpg straight from the X Pro 1, no correction. THe skin tones look good to me.

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!

[jaapv]

De gustibus - I find the colors rather dead in this one. Indeed Fuji vs Kodak. I guess persons who like the older Fujichrome films like this.

[Mauribix]

Jaap, that's just a wrong WB imo. I'll post some XP1 samples then.

 

@Jamie: while I think that the the tones of the X100 is actually pinker/reddish, it's anyway quite different from the XP1 (which I found more pleasant and balanced).

[Viv]

De gustibus

 

How true! One man's meat, etc.

[Ecaton]

Really? The attached is a jpg straight from the X Pro 1, no correction. THe skin tones look good to me.

 

 

I don't mean this in an inflammatory way, but this is very digital looking, with unnatural colors, nothing seems in focus. A heavily cropped pic?

[lct]

Better removing the blue cast to conclude on skin tone folks. Nothing reddish here IMO but i would like to view a 100% crop of the man's face to check if his missing pores are due to smearing or jpeg compression.

[Jamie Roberts]

Really? The attached is a jpg straight from the X Pro 1, no correction. THe skin tones look good to me.

 

Viv: really and truly. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, then, but if you think this is good Caucasian skin tonality then you need to look into this more fully.

 

Not only is he too blue--as mentioned (and that's why he looks "dead" Jaap)--but he's also too magenta in relation to the (lack of) yellow.

 

So even with a white balance fix (which this also needs--what highlights aren't burned out are not neutral, though the shadows are kind of close), you end with up a not-so-lovely Fuji "magenta-ness" which is worse than the M8 even, because it's not in neutral blacks but in skin

 

That right there is way off the experience of the M9, or DMR, or S2, or Portra, or, for that matter, my 5d3.

 

The problem I've seen with the x100 / x1 is that with a neutral WB skin tones are still too magenta.

 

While your JPEG file is much too fragile to fix the highlights without very weird problems, here is skin *a lot* closer to acceptable. Download and compare (measure). It's not hard to do.

 

The point is of course that the M9 has superb colour almost right out the box. I don't have to fix skin tones with the M9 if I've done my job and used or supplied proper light.

 

And anyway, I wouldn't want to fix it in every shot of a person I take.

 

So: this is a difference between the cameras. Whether it's an important one to you is up to you; to me it's very, very important.

 

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!

[Jamie Roberts]

Jaap, that's just a wrong WB imo. I'll post some XP1 samples then.

 

@Jamie: while I think that the the tones of the X100 is actually pinker/reddish, it's anyway quite different from the XP1 (which I found more pleasant and balanced).

 

Interesting. Post some and let's see. I had the occasion to work, in RAW, with an XP1 and it was the same, more or less, as the X100. Certainly not in the same league as the M9.

[eddieargos]

this is my first post. I have an M8 with zm 35/2 and a fuji x pro1. Right now both cameras have their place for me.

 

The fuji has made me really anxious for a leica m with comparable ISO performance. I don't care about CCD vs CMOS or about what i think are super subtle differences. I love being able to get what i perceive as high quality 1600 iso color and 3200 iso black and white on the fuji. I believe high ISO, through digital technology, lends itself so well to the available light / rangefinder / zone focusing that i love so much.

 

What I'm also excited about with a hypothetical high-ISO-performance-M10 is hitting a point of diminishing returns on sensor tech to see an M10 as an easy 5-7 year camera. (for example i don't really need to take photos in pitch black.)

 

I already have my second m mount lens (zm sonnar 50/1.5) on the way in anticipation.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

The fuji has made me really anxious for a leica m with comparable ISO performance. I don't care about CCD vs CMOS or about what i think are super subtle differences. I love being able to get what i perceive as high quality 1600 iso color and 3200 iso black and white on the fuji {snipped}

 

Welcome aboard, Eddie!

 

I'm sure the M10 will be great. The super subtle differences you mention--added up--make for a professional camera experience.

 

See--the M10 will probably be a stop or two better than the M9. That's pretty subtle for all intents and purposes, honestly. The thing that you might be missing with the M8 is that--as good as it is--it can't as readily do the things the M9 can do at higher ISOs, though to be honest I've seen absolutely spectacular BW prints from the M8 at ISO 2500

 

You have to know what you're doing, however, and you need to watch your exposure.

 

With the M9, I can *already* get high quality ISO 1600 shots and, pushed in post, excellent ISO 3200 BW shots So the Fuji has totally limited appeal to me from an image quality perspective.

 

In any case, welcome to the forum! I'm sure the M10 will be better in this regard (read--more easily used at higher ISOs, because its noise floor will be somewhere a stop or two better than it is now). Higher resolution will also help when printing "down"--noise vanishes a bit when you reduce a shot.

[eddieargos]

Good points Jamie. Normally I don't believe in always waiting for the next gen product. I'm getting my fuji m mount soon so i'm anxious to do my own side by side.

[Viv]

Viv: really and truly. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, then, but if you think this is good Caucasian skin tonality then you need to look into this more fully.

 

Not only is he too blue--as mentioned (and that's why he looks "dead" Jaap)--but he's also too magenta in relation to the (lack of) yellow.

 

So even with a white balance fix (which this also needs--what highlights aren't burned out are not neutral, though the shadows are kind of close), you end with up a not-so-lovely Fuji "magenta-ness" which is worse than the M8 even, because it's not in neutral blacks but in skin

 

That right there is way off the experience of the M9, or DMR, or S2, or Portra, or, for that matter, my 5d3.

 

The problem I've seen with the x100 / x1 is that with a neutral WB skin tones are still too magenta.

 

While your JPEG file is much too fragile to fix the highlights without very weird problems, here is skin *a lot* closer to acceptable. Download and compare (measure). It's not hard to do.

 

The point is of course that the M9 has superb colour almost right out the box. I don't have to fix skin tones with the M9 if I've done my job and used or supplied proper light.

 

And anyway, I wouldn't want to fix it in every shot of a person I take.

 

So: this is a difference between the cameras. Whether it's an important one to you is up to you; to me it's very, very important.

 

[ATTACH]323682[/ATTACH]

 

Jamie,

 

Thank you for this very thoughtful and constructive post.

 

You are certainly right that the white balance in my shot is wrong; this was "pilot error" on my part - the shot was taken in a hurry, literally a point and shoot shot, without any consideration of exposure. The posted shot is a crop of a detail of a much larger image - at full size the crop is less than 800 pixels high.

 

My purpose in posting it was to demonstrate that the X Pro 1 skin tones were not too red, no more than that. The cropped shot is indeed not up to the task of bearing the weight of analysis of other image quality factors. It is certainly not representative of the image quality capabilities of the camera and I did not post it to demonstrate those capabilities.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[archi4]

Jamie,

As they are for you, skin tones are very important to me.

The M9's skin tones are so different according to the developer I use (Capture One, LR4/CS6/ Aperture) that I cannot agree that M9 skin tones need little adjustment.

The M9 jpegs which I assume are Leica's idea of what color should be like, are worse.

After much more than 3 decades of Leica M, it is not surprising that I feel most comfortable with my M9.

But it has not kept me from truly enjoying the handling and being very pleased with the results from my Xpro, including its rendering of skin tones

which is also very sensitive to the program used for processing RAW files.

[algrove]

I think our view of what is a good or correct Caucasian skin color is geographically tempered. If you live where there is little sun on an annual basis then a more pale looking skin is fine. But if you live in a more year round sunny area on an annual basis then a more tanned or pinkish skin tone might be OK. Of course then there our own artistic impressions too.

 

To me the photo is as Jamie mentions, but even more so like the walking dead.

 

Take Overgaard. In his M9 color skin tone comments he routinely reduces the red and oranges in skin tones to suit his Danish style. Actually I tend to agree with his directional change for M9 skin tone changes, but maybe not so far.