Viewfinder size in M9 compared to Fuji X100 or X-Pro 1?

[miatadan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is the size difference between viewfinders of Leica M9 /M9P , Fuji X100 OVF and Fuji X-Pro 1?

 

If purchase a M9 or M9P, lense would be Summarit-M 50mm f/2.5 or Summarit-M 35mm f/2.5.

 

Right now $500 or $1000 discount for very limited time on M9 or M9P. So expensive that I have to wait a year to buy new lenses or purchase used or Voiggtlander lense for now...

 

Guessing main reason for price drop is M10 around the corner?

 

There is no place locally that I can look at a Leica M9 in person but have seen the Fuji X100 in person here and using that as reference point. Over the years owned different Nikon dslrs such as D50, D300S and D5100. Sold my Nikon stuff + lenses as felt to bulky when travelling and most of time only used 1 lense ( closest to 35mm focal length in film )

 

Dan

[IWC Doppel]

I have tried but not owned the Fuji's.

 

It's a shame you can't try and see as for this level of investment I think it's fundamental, day trip somewhere ?

 

The Leica is sufficiently different with its operation and simplicity. Using the Fuji reminded me of my GF1 (excepting the poor external viewfinder) rather than my M9-P

 

The Leica is sublime to use and the viewfinder is lovely I much prefer the feeling of manual focus and you can also get into the world of Leica glass. I would not buy the X-Pro 1 unless you buy the M mount and go manual, for the simple reason that the 2 will be out and resale on the Fuji will be low

 

It's the perfect time for an M9-P !

[giordano]

The M9 viewfinder has a magnification about 0.68 lifesize for all focal lengths. The X100 is about 0.5 lifesize. The X-Pro1 optical viewfinder can change magnifications for long or short lenses: the values are about 0.6 and 0.37.

[MT710]

Hi,

 

I own both the X100 and a M6TTL .72. The X100 viewfinder offers a different magnification, probably around .5, so objects appear noticeably smaller in the x100.

Both finders are bright and very usable - I never got a shot wrong due to the finder with either camera. What irks me with the Fuji finder is the somewhat more noticeable distortion (barrel), where I found the finder in the M6 are revelation.

To the differences: The X100 is a wonderful camera, but it is not a rangefinder - the entire handling is different. it is a bit like driving a car with manual shift vs a hybrid.

[miatadan]

I have tried but not owned the Fuji's.

 

It's a shame you can't try and see as for this level of investment I think it's fundamental, day trip somewhere ?

 

The Leica is sufficiently different with its operation and simplicity. Using the Fuji reminded me of my GF1 (excepting the poor external viewfinder) rather than my M9-P

 

The Leica is sublime to use and the viewfinder is lovely I much prefer the feeling of manual focus and you can also get into the world of Leica glass. I would not buy the X-Pro 1 unless you buy the M mount and go manual, for the simple reason that the 2 will be out and resale on the Fuji will be low

 

It's the perfect time for an M9-P !

 

Phoned a couple of places and not even able to rent one for a day. Would have to travel to Toronto ( 4 hours ) as no one here has Leica products in stock/ special order only

[IWC Doppel]

That's a real shame.

 

If you like the rangefinder size want to get back into photography and want the best pictures you can get then it has to be Leica for me. No one else can make the decision for you but holding and using a Leica or Fuji is like comparing a Porsche to a Nissan ( no disrespect meant)

 

I would plump for an M-9P this might help with size comparisons

 

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

Here is my weak logic, the M9 will depreciate but it will take a couple of years to drop below £3k then an age to hit £2k your lenses will increase if you buy secondhand or be the same you paid new in 5 years time. I can't think of much that compares for depreciation.

 

Plus you have a camera that is as good as it gets, trust me you wonder about the Fuji, you might wonder about a Leica with a Fuji

 

I am biased of course...

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure a rental is worth it, but you can try: LensRentals.com - Rent a Leica M9

[miatadan]

I'm not sure a rental is worth it, but you can try: LensRentals.com - Rent a Leica M9

 

Just found out that there is Lens Rentals Canada )))) and they do rent out the Leica M9 which I will do very soon

 

Dan

[lars_bergquist]

Glad you found the chance. But prepare for a culture shock. A SLR and a RF camera are two entirely different beasts.

 

That does not mean that the Leica is difficult. A M9 has about the cleanest and most transparent user interface of any digital camera – providing that you know what speeds and f-stops and focusing are all about in the first place. But it is different.

 

The old man from the F-Stop Age

[dante]

What is the size difference between viewfinders of Leica M9 /M9P , Fuji X100 OVF and Fuji X-Pro 1?Dan

 

Let's cut through the non-answers here. I have can compare all three finders - since I have an X100, X-Pro1 and M8 (same finder as M9, except for the framelines).

 

The M8/M9 (0.68x) has a small exit pupil, which is effective in making the viewfinder sharper overall (and cuts down on the need for dioptric adjustment, which is good considering what the adjustment lenses cost...). The only vf display is shutter speeds (or up/down/center arrows) and flash indicator.

 

The X100 (0.5x, EVF) has the smallest finder and the best dioptric adjustment capability out of any of them. It can show an optical view or an EVF view, and the list of things that can be shown or hidden in terms of data is vast. It can project several types of compositional grids over the subject.

 

The X-Pro1 (0.37x, 0.6x, EVF) has an optical finder that can be set two different magnifications (nominally, low for wide lenses and higher for normal/tele lenes). This helps eliminate the need for accessory finders with wideangle lenses (it looks like a 21mm equivalent is the limit). Diopter adjustment is via Nikon-style screw-in lenses. This, too, can be set to show no information or lots, depending on your taste. Notably, if you put a telephoto lens on this camera and use the EVF, the effective magnification increases well beyond what you would get with simple glass finder.

 

That said, the viewfinder is a transitory experience that adds nothing to the picture in the long run.

 

Dante

[zlatkob]

That said, the viewfinder is a transitory experience that adds nothing to the picture in the long run.

 

That raises an interesting question: does the viewfinder add nothing ... or everything?

 

I believe the answer is closer to everything. Critical elements of the picture all come together in the viewfinder: composition, timing, detail, exposure, focus, etc. The viewfinder is the nexus between intention, action and result. A good viewfinder enables the picture to exist by means of the feedback it provides. A poor viewfinder can thwart the photographer's decision-making, thus causing the picture to not exist or to exist with different elements. I believe photographers favor better viewfinders not just for comfort, but for what they add to the picture. Viewfinder limitations are a source of that common experience in photography: the surprise one feels when the picture does not match what the photographer thought was seen in the viewfinder.

[Mr. Doug]

I own all three. I can take pics through the viewfinder when I get home with a 4th camera and upload the shots if you think it'll help.

 

Like this? (With something a little nicer than my iPhone like a DLUX4)

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!

[tom0511]

I also own all three and find the viewfinder of the M9 to be the brightest, biggest and also with the most accurate frame lines.

For my taste 35mm works best in the M9, followed by 50mm.

If you like using 28mm the M9 viewfinder can be a little tight - you would see more around the subject in the x-pro1 viewfinder.

 

All 3 viewfinders are very good IMO.

I find the difference AF vs rangefinder much more important.

 

IMO the Fuji is more flexible and slightly faster to use, the M9 is more simple and lets me better concentrate on just the subject.

If it is a tight budget I would rather buy a x-pro1 with the 3 lenses than a M9 with just 1 lens.

 

Regards, Tom

[Mr. Doug]

IMO the Fuji is more flexible and slightly faster to use, the M9 is more simple and lets me better concentrate on just the subject.

If it is a tight budget I would rather buy a x-pro1 with the 3 lenses than a M9 with just 1 lens.

 

I'm in the opposite camp. If money was an issue, I'd get an M8, the Zeiss 28/2.8 and 50/2, and a Fuji X100. The X100 IQ is outstanding, and the M8 gives the 'rangefinder' type focus and Leica IQ.

 

I settled on the M9 and the X100...and am selling my XPro-1 on eBay right now.

 

An alternative, would be the X100 and the XPro-1 with a few lens adapters. IF you rely on zone-foicusing only, you get fantastic IQ from the Fuji too.

 

The hybrid viewfinder is pretty ninja though. Easily my favorite feature of the Fuji X series.

[Paul J]

I tried the fuji out in the shop and I don't know if if it just had all the options on or not but it felt completely overloaded and like I was playing a computer game. Or worse, like I was the terminator. To call it a distraction would be understatement.

[zlatkob]

Yes, it sounds like the one in the shop had all of the options turned on. The Fuji X-Pro1 viewfinder is very customizable. As I recall, you can set it to show little or no information. I bought it early on but returned it as I found the constant (and loud) aperture ticking sounds to be very annoying. I couldn't believe they would release the camera in that condition. I understand that Fuji fixed this problem with a firmware update.

[dante]

I don't agree - except to the extent that an excessively bad viewfinder can slow things down. But degrees of "good" are not that material to me.

 

I am almost never conscious of anything in a viewfinder except the framelines (for an instant - to get the composition) and the focusing reticle (for as long as it takes to focus). Busy or spartan, I'm almost never looking at the display - I'm always looking through the glass at the subject. In fact, this evening I noticed for the first time (In a long time) that my Fuji G690 has clearly labeled "100mm" and "150mm" framelines. I never see the words when using it - in fact, I never see the 150mm framelines, either. Same on my Leica - I don't see the "extra" 24mm frameline when I use a 35mm lens, for example, nor the 28mm line when I use the 90.

 

I've long thought that the big mistake Leica made in viewfinder "transparency" was using a digit-based (8-segment digit) LED to display shutter speeds. Studies have shown that humans are more able to quickly read things by position (hence the survival of dial gauges in aircraft, for example). The better way to handle this, I think, would have been a vertical array of LEDs with the speeds (like a 1980s SLR or the Hexar RF) - so you could gauge by relative position how fast the shutter is firing. I don't even remember the last time I even bothered looking at the Atari-age display in my M8 - it's not in the same plane of focus as the subject, and it takes a second to look at it. Generally, if I hear a shutter sound that sounds too long, I just open the aperture a stop and reshoot.

 

And I guess by the logic of expectations vs. reality, a Nikon F3 with a D screen has the best finder? 100% coverage, magnification that goes up with telephotos, display of depth of field. When you are talking about rangefinders with Galilean finders and framelines, it's not even the same league. It's not even the same game.

 

Dante

 

That raises an interesting question: does the viewfinder add nothing ... or everything?

 

I believe the answer is closer to everything. Critical elements of the picture all come together in the viewfinder: composition, timing, detail, exposure, focus, etc. The viewfinder is the nexus between intention, action and result. A good viewfinder enables the picture to exist by means of the feedback it provides. A poor viewfinder can thwart the photographer's decision-making, thus causing the picture to not exist or to exist with different elements. I believe photographers favor better viewfinders not just for comfort, but for what they add to the picture. Viewfinder limitations are a source of that common experience in photography: the surprise one feels when the picture does not match what the photographer thought was seen in the viewfinder.

[pluton]

That raises an interesting question: does the viewfinder add nothing ... or everything?

 

I believe the answer is closer to everything..... A good viewfinder enables the picture to exist by means of the feedback it provides....

...A poor viewfinder can thwart the photographer's decision-making, thus causing the picture to not exist or to exist with different elements. I believe photographers favor better viewfinders not just for comfort, but for what they add to the picture.

 

I always feel that with a reasonably clear finder, you see the "photo" or "scene" or composition first with your eyes; you already know what lens and therefore what field-of-view you have, so the finder is the very last thing needed to frame it up and shoot.

It's very easy to get sucked into the pleasure of viewing the scene on the "movie screen" of a nice quality reflex camera finder. The Leica style finder helps prevent that easy temptation on the part of the photographer.

 

A poor finder can be annoying...even infuriating, but even an old fashioned wire sports finder can get you the basic composition.