The Fuji X-E1 compared to an M

[vikasmg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Compared to an M the Fujifilm X-E1 feels very cheap to hold. Even compared to a Panasonic GX-7 it feels cheap. However the image quality is a lot better than I expected. Soon I should get hold of an adapter and try is with M lenses. In case you are interested I posted a comparison at

 

New X-E1. Image quality compensates for build quality.: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

which also shows a 1:1 crop from an M.

 

While the link above is not a comparison with the M, I have been trying the two cameras out and overall I like the M's image quality more - but the X-E1 will make a good, lighter, second camera.

[Albert Andersen]

I have had the Fuji. Pictures are excellent , but you do not feel you have a camera in your hands. To much plastic. Menus are quite confusing compared to Leica. There are so many options you normally don't use.

Sold it, and bought the new Nikon Coolpix A as a supplement to my M. I am very happy with it for easy and light traveling and snapshots, and in areas where you don´t want to bring your M. Picture quality are great.

[viramati]

I have recently bought into the fuji X system and have been literally amazed by the sharpness and quality of the files. To explain further I used to have to M9's I sold one to get the new M and kept the other M9 for a while. as I am getting a little older and focussing an M can get a little more difficult with my eyesight I decided to get an XE-1 and the 35 f1.4 lens (50mm equivalent). To say I was blown away is understating it the fuji 35 lens is truly fantastic sharp across the image wide open with lovely bokeh, it also fantastic to use with fuji M mount adaptor and with the 50 lux asph makes a lovely portrait camera . the focus peaking work very well and is much better implemented than on the leica and most importantly there is no black out after taking an image as you get on the M with the EVF. I did of course miss the OVF on the of the M9 so my next step was to sell my other M9 body and buy the X pro-1 and the 14mm f2.8 lens (21mm equivalent). the 14mm lens is a true marvel with virtually no distortion and sharpness across the frame even wide open and fantastic at f4. Basically for the price I got for my 2nd M9 I Bought a whole fuji system!!!

At times the level of detail when viewing 1:1 makes me wonder if there is something wrong with my M and leica lenses

Yes the fuji doesn't have the simplicity of use like the M but then it does more things. I will not be selling my M as I love it and now use it almost exclusively with the 28 summicron asph (I have discovered the for landscape work this is the best camera and lens combination) but I have to say I look forward to seeing what fuji come up with when they update the X pro-1

[dwbell]

I have recently bought into the fuji X system and have been literally amazed by the sharpness and quality of the files. To explain further I used to have to M9's I sold one to get the new M and kept the other M9 for a while. as I am getting a little older and focussing an M can get a little more difficult with my eyesight I decided to get an XE-1 and the 35 f1.4 lens (50mm equivalent). To say I was blown away is understating it the fuji 35 lens is truly fantastic sharp across the image wide open with lovely bokeh, it also fantastic to use with fuji M mount adaptor and with the 50 lux asph makes a lovely portrait camera . the focus peaking work very well and is much better implemented than on the leica and most importantly there is no black out after taking an image as you get on the M with the EVF. I did of course miss the OVF on the of the M9 so my next step was to sell my other M9 body and buy the X pro-1 and the 14mm f2.8 lens (21mm equivalent). the 14mm lens is a true marvel with virtually no distortion and sharpness across the frame even wide open and fantastic at f4. Basically for the price I got for my 2nd M9 I Bought a whole fuji system!!!

At times the level of detail when viewing 1:1 makes me wonder if there is something wrong with my M and leica lenses

Yes the fuji doesn't have the simplicity of use like the M but then it does more things. I will not be selling my M as I love it and now use it almost exclusively with the 28 summicron asph (I have discovered the for landscape work this is the best camera and lens combination) but I have to say I look forward to seeing what fuji come up with when they update the X pro-1

 

You can't say any of what you have said in here - it is the truth though. Fascinating times for Fuji

[krooj]

I have had the Fuji. Pictures are excellent , but you do not feel you have a camera in your hands. To much plastic. Menus are quite confusing compared to Leica. There are so many options you normally don't use.

Sold it, and bought the new Nikon Coolpix A as a supplement to my M. I am very happy with it for easy and light traveling and snapshots, and in areas where you don´t want to bring your M. Picture quality are great.

 

I can't help but feel as though build quality is a conscious decision on the part of Fuji: they've accepted that the bodies have a set functional lifespan that is bounded on technology, so they build to a price which is amenable to frequent replacement. I wonder if a time will come where sensor technology more or less plateaus and we begin to see manufacturers start to invest more into the build of camera bodies themselves.

 

On the other hand, the X lenses are seemingly built to a quality standard that you can't find in Canon or Nikon at similar price points.

[Guest borge]

I have been using a Fuji X-Pro1 and X-E1 and the 18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4, 14/2.8 and 18-55/2.8-4 lenses for a while.

I was one of the very first adopters of the X-Pro1 when it was launched.

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the X-E1 or X-Pro1 in any way compares to a M. I've also shot a M Monochrom and M9-P for a long time, with the 35/1.4 Summilux FLE and 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH.

 

The Fuji's has come a long way since firmware 1.00 and the initial release. The quirks and annoyances has mostly been ironed out, but I would still not compare it to shooting an M in any way. Yes, the files from the Fuji's sensor can be excellent. The high ISO performance is excellent considering that we are talking about an APS-C sensor. The lenses are excellent compared to other lenses in their price range, especially the 35/1.4 and 14/2.8. The optics of the 60/2.4 is also outstanding but there are other flaws with this lens that sort of ruins the experience (very prone to flare and internal reflections in various scenarios and it is SLOW to focus).

 

But anyway. The output from the Fuji's can't in any way be compared to the output from the M's in my opinion, especially if you look at the images at 100% (pixel level, which nobody really should do). The M's images look natural even viewed at 100%. The details are clear and looks "real". The Fuji's details are smudged and looks plasticky still after the raw improvements and jpeg engine improvements. There is no comparison at all if you ask me. And if you compare the Fuji's output to that of the M Monochrom there is absolutely no comparison at all. The MM is just in a total different league all together.

 

And as fine as the X series lenses are, they lack any character at all. The bokeh of the 35/1.4 is only OK and doesn't compare to a 35 FLE or 50 Lux at all in regards to smoothness, pop and 3D feel.

 

The auto white-balance of the fuji's are far better than on any M though. And I like the fact that the X bodies has a dedicated exposure compensation dial, and that you can program the Fn button to quickly change ISO values without having to remove the camera from your eye and to look at the rear LCD display.

 

I still have my X-E1 and 35/1.4 and 18-55/2.8-4, even though I primarily shoot with the M. All the other X series lenses and the X-Pro1 body has been sold. There's nothing wrong with the other lenses, but I just don't use the focal lengths. The X-E1 kit is great for snapshots. But whenever I want the highest quality, and want to create something different, be creative and do some serious stuff I always use the M.

 

The fact that I can use the Nocti 0.95 on the X-E1 with the adapter for a 75mm equalent focal length is cool though. Great for portraits.

I also use Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, 50/1.7 and 135/3.5 lenses on the Fuji with a Konica AR to FX adapter which also works very well.

[vikasmg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

>>To much plastic. Menus are quite confusing compared to Leica. There are so many options you normally don't use.<<

You are right on both counts :-)

- Vikas

[vikasmg]

I have recently bought into the fuji X system and have been literally amazed by the sharpness and quality of the files. ...

but I have to say I look forward to seeing what fuji come up with when they update the X pro-1

 

The more i use the Fuji the more impressed I am by the image quality. I just wish it _felt_ more reliable!

[fursan]

I have used ( and continue to use ) the M8s and the ME extensively.

 

I also have the Fuji XE-1, with the 35/1.4 and the 18-50 and 60 macro.

 

I just love the output from all my cameras. Leica lenses..I have a stable of them.

 

' It does not have the ethereal quality; the magic is not there; that 3 dimensionality is missing..etc..' and on and on it goes.

 

I love all the three cameras mentioned above. I have realized, a long time ago, that it is I who needs improving.

 

The Fuji is in no way better or worse than the Leica Ms I have. And, to me, the Leica is no way better or worse than the Fuji XE-1.

 

They are what they are. Red Dot does not change that, for me at least.

 

 

Fuji XE-1.

[viramati]

I have used ( and continue to use ) the M8s and the ME extensively.

 

I also have the Fuji XE-1, with the 35/1.4 and the 18-50 and 60 macro.

 

I just love the output from all my cameras. Leica lenses..I have a stable of them.

 

' It does not have the ethereal quality; the magic is not there; that 3 dimensionality is missing..etc..' and on and on it goes.

 

I love all the three cameras mentioned above. I have realized, a long time ago, that it is I who needs improving.

 

The Fuji is in no way better or worse than the Leica Ms I have. And, to me, the Leica is no way better or worse than the Fuji XE-1.

 

They are what they are. Red Dot does not change that, for me at least.

 

 

Fuji XE-1.

 

I find your comments to me pretty much spot on

[Guest borge]

' It does not have the ethereal quality; the magic is not there; that 3 dimensionality is missing..etc..' and on and on it goes.

 

I love all the three cameras mentioned above. I have realized, a long time ago, that it is I who needs improving.

 

The Fuji is in no way better or worse than the Leica Ms I have. And, to me, the Leica is no way better or worse than the Fuji XE-1.

 

They are what they are. Red Dot does not change that, for me at least.

 

While I understand what you mean, I can't really agree with it.

If you can't see any difference in quality from the X-E1/X-Pro1 to the M then you must be either partially blind or not interested in the differences. And that's fine, but don't say that the differences isn't there. The X-Trans CFA is still a cause of annoyance in regards to fine detail, even after the RAW decoder fixes and so on (which improved the situation, but didn't really fix it completely). Do you print large?

 

Second, the lenses and the experience of using the system makes far more difference than the cameras nowadays. While the Fujinon lenses are excellent, they are also very neutral and don't have any signature at all. Very flat and dull output, but it is technically correct in most cases. the Fujinon 35/1.4 can't compare to a Summilux 50/1.4 in wide open rendering at all. The differences are huge, and nobody can deny that. If you only shoot at f/4 and above, then there might not be any difference ofcourse... But why would anyone purchase a Summilux to shoot at f/4 and above?

 

Wether you need improving or not has nothing to do with the cameras or lenses that are discussed. The point is - there is a difference. Some see it more than others, due to different demands and needs.

 

Throw a Noctilux 0.95 on a M240 and you have a combination that any Fuji can't come close to, for example. It's just not possible on the Fuji's to get the same creative results as from that combination. So there are differences.

 

I'll gladly post some test and comparison shots between my M240+Nocti and the X-E1+35/1.4 next week, also the original raw files, so that everyone can import the shots into Lightroom and compare them.

 

PS! I'm not saying the Fuji is bad. I've had the Fuji X-series lenses and cameras since the initial first release of the X-Pro1, and I'm still keeping them as they are superb value for money and great cameras and optics. A great backup and casual camera that I don't have to be careful with.

[viramati]

Here we go again!!! Of course they are different they are different cameras, lenses, sensor sizes and MP output etc. That being said I am seeing levels of detail, IQ and DR from the fuji that truly surprised me. I see no point in defending one against the other as they are both different tools but hey that is what forum posts seem to be about a lot of the time. Personally I find the X-pro1 fits nicely into my work flow with the leica M and I am happy to use both at the same time.

[fursan]

While I understand what you mean, I can't really agree with it.

If you can't see any difference in quality from the X-E1/X-Pro1 to the M then you must be either partially blind or not interested in the differences. And that's fine, but don't say that the differences isn't there. The X-Trans CFA is still a cause of annoyance in regards to fine detail, even after the RAW decoder fixes and so on (which improved the situation, but didn't really fix it completely). Do you print large?

 

Second, the lenses and the experience of using the system makes far more difference than the cameras nowadays. While the Fujinon lenses are excellent, they are also very neutral and don't have any signature at all. Very flat and dull output, but it is technically correct in most cases. the Fujinon 35/1.4 can't compare to a Summilux 50/1.4 in wide open rendering at all. The differences are huge, and nobody can deny that. If you only shoot at f/4 and above, then there might not be any difference ofcourse... But why would anyone purchase a Summilux to shoot at f/4 and above?

 

Wether you need improving or not has nothing to do with the cameras or lenses that are discussed. The point is - there is a difference. Some see it more than others, due to different demands and needs.

 

Throw a Noctilux 0.95 on a M240 and you have a combination that any Fuji can't come close to, for example. It's just not possible on the Fuji's to get the same creative results as from that combination. So there are differences.

 

I'll gladly post some test and comparison shots between my M240+Nocti and the X-E1+35/1.4 next week, also the original raw files, so that everyone can import the shots into Lightroom and compare them.

 

PS! I'm not saying the Fuji is bad. I've had the Fuji X-series lenses and cameras since the initial first release of the X-Pro1, and I'm still keeping them as they are superb value for money and great cameras and optics. A great backup and casual camera that I don't have to be careful with.

 

Of course they are different. One is a Fuji with its sensor, the other is a M with its sensor!!

Did I say anything else.

 

Partially Blind? The refuge of someone who has to justify their purchase or an effete snob to whom Leica remains the holy grail and/or a wannabe photog living in the past.

 

Both these are equally excellent image making machine. Both are very capable.

 

How good are you to make use of the cam capabilities?

 

edit: Print large? What is large for you?

I also take underwater photography? Can I can see the difference with my lux 50 asph or nocti? or the Fujinon 35/1.4?

 

Visit an modern photographic exbition of good photogs; guarantee you could,t tell which camera took what. Unless you want to lie to yourself.

[Guest borge]

Of course they are different. One is a Fuji with its sensor, the other is a M with its sensor!!

Did I say anything else.

 

Partially Blind? The refuge of someone who has to justify their purchase or an effete snob to whom Leica remains the holy grail and/or a wannabe photog living in the past.

 

Both these are equally excellent image making machine. Both are very capable.

 

How good are you to make use of the cam capabilities?

 

I don't have to justify anything. I have used the Fuji X system for 1 1/2 years since the X-Pro1 was launched. It's becoming a great system now, even though it started out really badly. I've also been using a Monochrom, 50 and 35 Lux for a year, as well as an M9-P somewhat. Even though I am quite happy with what the Fuji system delivers, there is a big difference between the systems. Both in output - all depending on your shooting style and lens selection of course, and the experience of using the system (AF vs MF, EVF vs OVF, Rangefinder, etc).

 

Every camera today is a very capable imaging making machine as you say it. You can throw Sony, Panasonic and Olympus in the mix as well. That doesn't make the machines and the experience of using them similar though.

 

I love both camera systems for what they are. And I'm a very neutral guy that neither has to justify the purchase of an expensive system or try to do the opposite as a reason for considering selling the expensive system because I might be stuck with the feeling of "do I really need this expensive camera and lens?" which I guess is a feeling that a lot of Leica adopters are feeling when they start comparing the M system to much cheaper and modern systems. Neither am I a pro, nor do I want to be, and I don't want to work within photography at all, nor do I want to earn any money from it. It's a hobby and a passion for me and nothing else.

 

Anyway, I'll just upload a few identical samples from each camera and lens next week when I have both of the systems available and let people decide for themself

[K-Photo]

While I understand what you mean, I can't really agree with it.

If you can't see any difference in quality from the X-E1/X-Pro1 to the M then you must be either partially blind or not interested in the differences.

 

...But anyway. The output from the Fuji's can't in any way be compared to the output from the M's in my opinion, especially if you look at the images at 100% (pixel level, which nobody really should do). ....

...And if you compare the Fuji's output to that of the M Monochrom there is absolutely no comparison at all. The MM is just in a total different league all together....

 

Sorry, but I've to disagree. You say someone has to be blind not seeing the difference compared to a M and compared to the MM it would be a total different league.

 

I've owned a X-Pro1 and a MM side by side for a while using the Fuji as "color-backup" in my Monochrom bag.

 

Yes, you'll see a difference when it comes down to A3 prints and larger, but using the same lens with both cameras it is a lot harder to see the difference ( even if you are not partially blind ).

 

Two 100% Crops using the 90mm Pre-ASPH Cron.

 

MM

 

 

X-Pro1

 

 

I'm not using the X-Pro1 as a "color-backup" anymore because I'am a lot faster using the rangefinder compared to the EVF and magnifier missing any image stabilization with the Fuji+Leica lens, the new added focus peaking could be better in my opinion and in my opinion using a Leica wide angle lens + a Fuji X is a pain in the ... .

 

 

Jochen

[Guest borge]

I've owned a X-Pro1 and a MM side by side for a while using the Fuji as "color-backup" in my Monochrom bag.

 

We have pretty much used the same setup then!

 

Yes, you'll see a difference when it comes down to A3 prints and larger, but using the same lens with both cameras it is a lot harder to see the difference ( even if you are not partially blind ).

 

If you read one of my posts you will see that you have to compare the systems with their lenses as well. It's not just about the cameras themself. Actually it's more about the lenses that are available for the cameras. The Fujinon optics are great for their price, but they have zero signature. Very flat and technically good output.

 

I can't put the Fujinon optics on the M, but I can put the M lenses on the Fuji and suddenly the output is a bit more comparable of course. And for special occasions that is fine, but working with the EVF and focus peaking is a pain in the backside. It's not something I would do for every day use even though it is possible.

 

Regarding output: I'm not just talking about pixel sharpness, noise, or dynamic range. I'm talking about lens and color signature as well. And in regards to the MM vs X-Pro1 output: You have owned one, you know how good the MM's raw files are. Could you do the exact same with a X-Pro1 raw file as you can with a MM raw file in post? Are the X-Pro1 files as solid when it comes to extreme post processing? Can you push the files +5 stops in post and still have a natural looking image? ... Now wether a person needs that flexibility is a totally different matter of course...

[K-Photo]

We have pretty much used the same setup then!

 

 

... for special occasions that is fine, but working with the EVF and focus peaking is a pain in the backside. It's not something I would do for every day use even though it is possible...

As I wrote that is why I don't use the combo anymore.

 

Could you do the exact same with a X-Pro1 raw file as you can with a MM raw file in post? Are the X-Pro1 files as solid when it comes to extreme post processing? Can you push the files +5 stops in post and still have a natural looking image? ...

Of course you can't.

And of course it is really difficult to compare. The workflow with the MM files has a lot of possibilities, but there are minors, too. Once the lights are burned out with the MM there is know way to recover them. The colored image out of the Fuji has the different channels which are giving me the possibility to do so.

But is not only the post processing, which is different between these cameras, you have to have the different behavior in mind when you are looking for the right exposure.

 

But I've searched my files for an example showing what happened if you push the Fuji X files +5.

 

Fuji XE-1 + 18-55 2.8-4 @18mm using a too light tripod.

 

Uncorrected image using LR5.

 

 

Crop from the right bottom corner.

 

 

Exposure pushed +5 ( maximum with LR ).

 

 

With a 2min post.

 

 

In my opinion the Fuji is showing a very nice reaction being pushed +5.

Doing this with a lot of other cameras would show a lot more color noise .

 

If you read one of my posts you will see that you have to compare the systems with their lenses as well. It's not just about the cameras themself. Actually it's more about the lenses that are available for the cameras. The Fujinon optics are great for their price, but they have zero signature. Very flat and technically good output...

Here I agree and that is why my first choice here is the Leica.

 

Jochen

[Ulev]

Bought a X-E1 with M adapter and sold it !

 

Main reason is the EVF. During daytime, it wasn't that bad, but in the evening, at night ... as if you're looking on a small TV and behaving very "weird" ( brightness changes when you take backlit pictures, and so on ...)

A shame, because I love my X100 ( has and EVF as well as a OVF)

And as said, a men that's far too complicated, compared with an M

 

But off course, it's a cheap alternative, in order to use M lenses

[dwbell]

Push an M240 file like that and you get pea soup. Green and mushy. Impressive from the Fuji.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[viramati]

Push an M240 file like that and you get pea soup. Green and mushy. Impressive from the Fuji.

 

on this I agree at higher iso's (1600 and above) I get horrible banding if you try to push shadow detail with the M and have founded that it is better to keep to lower iso's underexpose and then push the file