Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm quite sure it depends on the kind of use (professional or not) you make of the camera.

I used to shoot with the t-max 3200 and sometimes I pulled it up to 6400. So it's evident to me that 2500iso is still at least one step behind that.

Matter of fact, in theaters, or simply when you need extra depth of field, or just more shutter speed to catch the movement, the further you can go the better it is.

I'm not shooting 99% of my pictures at higher iso, anyway that's just the thin difference between taking the shot or nothing.

It may not be important for you, but if you have a fast car that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to go the fastest... it's just that you'd be able to when needed.

 

Anyway, if the M9 performance is good enough for you, your wallett will be grateful when the M10 comes out.

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

I'm quite sure it depends on the kind of use (professional or not) you make of the camera.

I used to shoot with the t-max 3200 and sometimes I pulled it up to 6400. So it's evident to me that 2500iso is still at least one step behind that.

 

I found that T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 were actually ISO 1600 emulsions, and no matter what the developer and time, 3200 is a de-facto +1 push, with the expectable disadvantages. OTOH I find that exposure at ISO 2500 on the M9 Is the same as 3200 on my Canon and my handheld meters, so therefore a de-facto and true 3200. YMMV.

[Jamie Roberts]

I found that T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 were actually ISO 1600 emulsions, and no matter what the developer and time, 3200 is a de-facto +1 push, with the expectable disadvantages. OTOH I find that exposure at ISO 2500 on the M9 Is the same as 3200 on my Canon and my handheld meters, so therefore a de-facto and true 3200. YMMV.

 

That is completely and totally correct: my M9 is a third of a stop more sensitive than the Canons (and the Sekonic) and a bit more than that compared with my Nikon D3.

 

Which makes for a much more interesting camera.

 

Nevertheless, the point is that the M9 hits a wall at around (true) ISO 6400. That's all there is, and there ain't no more.

 

So if you can get all the shadow detail you need with the M9 at 2500, and you can deal with the slow shutter, well, then you're ok; you have an extra stop to play with.

 

If, however, you need a couple of stops of detail for your picture, then only the Nikons or the Canons are going there convincingly IMO.

 

I'm like Maurizio on that score--there's been many times during a wedding when I'd love a clean "ISO 3200" from the M9 with a few stops in reserve in the shadows--even with a slow-ish shutter at f1.4.

 

So my wallet will probably feel "bad" after the M10 is released

[bocaburger]

I'm like Maurizio on that score--there's been many times during a wedding when I'd love a clean "ISO 3200" from the M9 with a few stops in reserve in the shadows--even with a slow-ish shutter at f1.4.

 

So my wallet will probably feel "bad" after the M10 is released

 

I completely understand. If brides today want the no-flash look, then that's what you have to give them or else they'll hire somebody else. If I was a professional photographer I would have to go with the flow, just as I do in my own profession. But as an amateur I can stand missing a few shots better than a few thousand dollars To take a hit of several thousand dollars selling off a perfectly functioning camera every 3 years is more than I'm willing to do for a weekend hobby. I convinced myself that full frame and no IR filters was worth upgrading from the M8, but the M9 has everything I want. Same thing upgrading from a 30D to the 5D1, but as long as the latter still works, I'm done upgrading.

[Mauribix]

OK,

I hope I did something at least interesting.

My M9 has come back from Solms, so I've just tried to make some comparison shots.

Conditions are the same for both cameras.

On one side I put the Leica M9, with the Summilux 50 pre-ASPH. On the other side, there's the Fuji X-Pro1 with the same lens through the LM to FX lens adapter.

I made two specific profiles with the X-Rite colors checker passport tool (even if I didn't apply them to these shots in the end, since I decided to use the same Manual WB for both, which in Lightroom is 3150°K, and +27 on the magenta hue (both cameras were showing a little greener frame to my eye).

 

I won't be drawing any conclusion, I leave that to you.

No PP was applied in Lightroom.

Under the resolution point of view, the RAW file of the Fuji should be able to show even more detail, but there's a known issue with Lightroom which may afflict the Fuji's file as of this writing.

Take a look at this as for reference:Lightroom 4.1 –*RAW Conversion Issues With Fuji X-Pro1

 

 

So Now, let's take a look at the files.

First, both cameras at ISO2500:

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!

 

Now, another ISO2500 shot:

 

Now, an ISO 160(Leica M9) vs ISO 200 (Fuji X-Pro1):

 

Now, an ISO 2500 (Leica M9) vs ISO 5000 (Fuji X-Pro1):

 

Last, another ISO 2500 (Leica M9) vs ISO 5000 (Fuji X-Pro1):

[Mauribix]

Last, but not least, this is the full frame of both cameras, with the right color profile (as set by the Color Checker Passport profile maker):

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!

[JeTexas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shouldn't the Fuji shots be framed with a closer crop due to the 1.5x magnification of the smaller sensor?

 

Did you move the camera positions to get the same crop or did you just crop the final images?

[Mauribix]

Shouldn't the Fuji shots be framed with a closer crop due to the 1.5x magnification of the smaller sensor?

 

Did you move the camera positions to get the same crop or did you just crop the final images?

 

In these shots I moved the fuji back to get the same crop. This was not meant to be scientific test (I'm not qualified for that! ).

By the way I have made shots without moving the camera back too, if you want to take a look at I can post them, or I can simply share full size JPG in a public folder.

[dhsimmonds]

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 ...

 

There are many previous posts comparing the camera's, lenses etc.

However another important aspect in my view of any decision is to not only compare the hardware but also the after sales service. I can only speak for Leica UK and Fujifilm UK having now experienced both.

 

Leica UK used to be excellent, with the staff at Milton Keynes taking a personal interest in keeping your Leica gear in order. That has now gone and I have no experience of the London Mayfair service. Leica UK also offered a very good 'passport' service when buying new cameras or lenses and binoculars. That still exists I believe.

 

Fujifilm UK also offer a similar service called their "Platinum' service when purchasing a new X Pro camera from a Fujifilm appointed dealer. Not only does this offer free service but should the dealer consider that the fault is too severe, he must retain sufficient stock to replace the camera or lens. Usually any servicing is done by trained Fujifilm dealer staff. A booklet is provided to Platinum service customers providing service vouchers for three years. Also another booklet is provided offering discounts on all XP1 accessories and lenses. A welcome pack is sent by post to registered Platinum owners with some of the above together with a quality notebook, lens cloth, Fuji keyring etc,

 

Recently a friend of mine who was struggling to update his firmware for cameras and lenses, telephoned the support team at Fujifilm UK and they immediately sent him a CD by post with all 4 firmware updates that he could then transfer to his memory card. The firmware updates are always making very useful and noticeable improvements to performance. This real after sales service.

 

Overall the Fuji X experience is very satisfying IMHO.

[Viv]

Leica will presumably put a red dot on the X Pro 1 and call it the M10.

[lct]

A crop cam without rangefinder? Zero chance i'm afraid.

[gyoung]

More likely X3...

 

Gerry

[Viv]

Leica will presumably put a red dot on the X Pro 1 and call it the M10.

 

And, of course, add 5,000 euro to the price ... Red dots are expensive lol.

[Mixalis]

Yes, you do need diopter adjustment on the X-Pro. I bought an X-Pro 1 when it was announced and had to go searching for a diopter lens, which I eventually found at a main Nikon dealer at a cost of £25 ($38). Without the lens the camera was unusable for me. The following week the lens unscrewed itself and disappeared, so I had to buy another.

 

I don't need a diopter adjuster on the M9 provided I wear my glasses. I notice, indicentally, that I also do not need it with the 36mm brightline OVF for the X2 while I do need it (using the built-in adjustment) on the EVF. It was the same on the Fuji. No real need for adjustment when using the OVF but absolutely necessary with the EVF. Of course, everyone's eyesight is different so it is impossible to generalise. I use viewfinders while wearing glasses and, I suppose, through the OVF I am seeing normally and making use of the long sight area of the glasses. With the EVF you are looking through the long sight lens but at a very close screen, hence the need for adjustment.

 

In general the X-Pro 1 is a great camera with a few minor quibbles including, of course, the fact that it is APS-C. It is electronically advanced (the hybrid viewfinder is actually great) but more complicated than a Leica. Lots more to fiddle with and adjust if you like that sort of thing. The lenses are good too, if a bit restricted in scope at the moment. But I got to wondering why to invest in a new lens system when I could be buying Leica lenses that have a proven track record and almost inflation-proof standing.

 

In my case the Fuji persuaded me that I might like a genuine rangefinder and that's why I went the opposite way--trading in the Fuji for an M9. The M9 is just a much more satisfying camera to own. And I love the manual focus whereas manual focus on the Fuji is a slow joke. It is far worse than the X2's system which is much quicker, though not something you want to use all the time.