Fuji X vs MM...here are my test shots.

[Guest Marc G.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I pay ~£7 per roll for developing & scanning 3000px wide (~$11) and £1 for a roll of agfa ($1.60) it'd take a few rolls to get to £6k - but I understand your point.

 

In all honesty, being forced by my M6 to change the way I shoot and also to use manual has I think helped me a lot. I understand the basis of exposure better now and I like that.

 

click click snap snap doesnt move me anymore.

 

And the digital Leicas bring this feeling into the digital world. As far as this is possible at least.

[Advertisement]

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

[MattMaber]

And the digital Leicas bring this feeling into the digital world. As far as this is possible at least.

Id like to believe that, but I can't test it for £6k

 

That said, I also can't afford £200k to find out what its like to drive a ferrari.

 

My little X100 is the perfect accompaniment to my M6 - I've even started to use it in manual like my M6.

[Guest Marc G.]

Id like to believe that, but I can't test it for £6k

 

That said, I also can't afford £200k to find out what its like to drive a ferrari.

 

My little X100 is the perfect accompaniment to my M6 - I've even started to use it in manual like my M6.

 

I had the same combo. X100+M6ttl, but with a 28 and a 50. I stopped using the Fuji because of autofocus and saved up for a M-E. Sold the Fuji and never looked back.

 

Since then I had the opportunity to test about all new models, at least in a shop for a few moments to get a feeling and some files to play with. Be it Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pana, Oly or Fuji. There is something special about the handling of a digital Leica that you wont get from another brand.

[MattMaber]

I have a 35mm on my M6 so theyre the same.

 

As for AF, the X100 fw has greatly improved it but I tend to pre/zone focus anyway - like 90% of the time.

 

M6, X100, Canonet 17 - I won't be buying another camera for a few years,

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!

[Guest Marc G.]

I have a 35mm on my M6 so theyre the same.

 

As for AF, the X100 fw has greatly improved it but I tend to pre/zone focus anyway - like 90% of the time.

 

M6, X100, Canonet 17 - I won't be buying another camera for a few years,

 

It was actually the time after the firmware improvement. I am faster with a rangefinder (or as fast) but the rangefinder always focuses on the exact point where i want it to. Fantastic system shooting without any hassle

[pop]

I don't think it's all that useful to compare the price of a Leica M to a Fuji camera, even though both are very good products, I presume.

 

I think it's much more useful to compare the prices of a new M7 to the price of - say - an M-E. Both are cameras with similar capabilities and for both the costs of development and tools are written off. The M-E appears to be about 20% more expensive than the M7.

[MattMaber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would certainly like a 'true' rangefinder patch on an X100 (even if its electronic) but I doubt this is a popular enough request.

 

 

oh and mechanical focusing, though again I think the market dictates otherwise.

[tookaphotoof]

Id like to believe that, but I can't test it for £6k

 

That said, I also can't afford £200k to find out what its like to drive a ferrari.

 

My little X100 is the perfect accompaniment to my M6 - I've even started to use it in manual like my M6.

 

Leica's can be rented as well as Sportscars but I think you might simply not feel the need to. Nothing wrong with that.

Everyone has it's own priorities and budget in life. If I didn't have the money for a Leica i'd be equally as happy with my Contessa LK.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dant]

Well simply put, the digital Leica's are technology, not mechanical and technology gets significantly better at least every 2 years.

Digital Leicas are old hat tech wise as soon as theyre out.

 

Now my X100 is indeed 3 years old, but it does not cost £6k!

 

 

I think you have to decide if the current tech is 'good enuf' For me it was and I have some extra $ to spend. I don't have anyone to leave it to and I'm getting old. So why not shoot lots of BW and not have to convert it all? I prefer to spend my own money and not have soemone else spend it for me. I get extra sharp BW results as well.

 

The other deciding factor is the manual controls of Leica. That is a big plus for me. I've missed many a shot on the Fuji when AF can't / or wrongly locks. The only thing I like about Fuji is the shutter speed dial. I have to use gaffers tape on my Fuji 14 to keep the aperture ring in place, I don't need to use gaffers tape on my Leicas.

[dant]

I imagine this is where a lot of the clamour for fuji to introduce a FF system comes from. Judging by Fuji's words though, and of course in the end they have to make money - I can't see a FF Fuji any time sure.

 

Yeah sure FF is technically better than APS-C but APS-C is pretty damn good now and most of these photos end up on Facebook. People use their phones where once they'd use a camera, its a tough market.

 

The only FF Fuji of interest to me would be a Leica FF 24mp knockoff that took Leica glass and was a true rangefinder and priced at $3000.

 

No more Fuji 'focus by wire' for me and loose goose Fuji lenses. The Fuji lenses are sharp, but they have many design problems with them.

[dant]

You've not convinced me to spend £8k on a b&w camera, sorry.

 

 

Don't think anyone is trying to convince you. You sould like a film man. I had to give up film eons ago. I could never hope to keep up with film.

 

But the next best thing to film in a M O N O C H R O M! I'm looking for a deal on a second body right now.

[AB007]

If I have money to burn, I would definitely buy a MM.

[tookaphotoof]

Never got money to burn, yet I can imagine to pick one up if second hand prices come down a bit more in one or two years time.

[Loren]

So what makes leica digital so special that it's 10x the cost?

Im sure they're well built. But is that better photos?

I just can't square that circle - personally

 

 

Mattmaber.com

 

1. The cost is mostly due to the production numbers. Nikon sells more D800s in a month or two than Leica has sold total numbers of M9s. Leica's purchasing power is lower due to the quantity.

 

2. Leica also tends to design and build their cameras with more expensive materials.

 

3. Rangefinder technology is simply more expensive to manufacture.

 

4. There are no FF cameras at 1/10 the price of the Leica M240. The M240 retails for $7,000. The Sony A7 is $1,700 or approximately 1/4th the cost of the M240 and 1/3 the cost of the M-E.

 

That explains the cost. However, if you specifically want a manual camera, then Leica is really the only game in town.

 

Yes, you could buy a Fuji, but with exception to the X100s, everything is EVF and all Fuji cameras are APS-C, so you can't get the narrow DOF that FF offers.

 

Sony A7 is not a mature product and has its own issues, among them is that it does not play well with Leica M lenses due to ray angle and you may get a better EVF, but it is still inferior to OFVs. Sony ergonomics are not that good, either, and the A7r is plagued with shutter vibration.

 

For Leica film users that want to go digital with their M lenses there are really are no good alternatives besides the digital M cameras. Everything else is a compromise to one degree or another.

 

The only other small FF camera that comes close is the fixed lens Sony R1X, which is $2,800, but has no viewfinder. Using Live View is a poor option if you want sharp handheld shots or in bright sunlight, so you are left with paying another $450 for the external EVF viewfinder or $600 for the optical equivalent, which raises the price to $3,250 and $3,400 respectively for a fixed lens camera. That is only $1,000 less than a new M-E.

 

You could buy a Nikon D610, but you won't be using your M lenses, so be prepared to spend a good chunk of change on good FF F-Mount lenses, which will significantly raise the total cost of the system.

 

Or, you could buy a Sony Alpha system with their lenses. Again, the cost goes up pretty quickly and there are not a lot of native lens choices availed for the A7 as of yet.

 

So, it depends on your needs and wants and where you are. If you have a substantial investment already in M mount lenses, your choices are not as rich nor inexpensive as it may seem. If you are starting from scratch, you could invest in many excellent FF systems at a lower overall cost than Leica.

[2wk]

I have compared my X-Pro to my Monochrom and X-Vario. I was most interested in the latter, since they both use the same or similar sensor. From a first glance the results appear very similar but upon closer investigation the Vario is able to reproduce much finer detail. I think it has to do with the Xtrans array, because on fine repeating patterns the Xpro goes to mush because of moire. I am talking about the Jpegs right out of camera which should be better than the adobe processed raws. I also preferred the rendering of the Vario lens over any of my Fujis. It handles flare much better, sharper (everywhere) and I prefer the colors. Also the Leica raw files are much more malleable than the fujis. You can be heavy handed on the sharpness slider for example and it doesn't look bad at all.

 

The Monochrom is a whole other ballgame. There are levels of detail that maybe only comes to shine on Large prints, but it is there.

[dant]

I had the same combo. X100+M6ttl, but with a 28 and a 50. I stopped using the Fuji because of autofocus and saved up for a M-E. Sold the Fuji and never looked back.

 

Since then I had the opportunity to test about all new models, at least in a shop for a few moments to get a feeling and some files to play with. Be it Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pana, Oly or Fuji. There is something special about the handling of a digital Leica that you wont get from another brand.

 

Sure, the Leica feels like a brick...maybe a gold brick. the others feel like a sardine can. Although some days the sardine cans come in handy.

[dant]

1. The cost is mostly due to the production numbers. Nikon sells more D800s in a month or two than Leica has sold total numbers of M9s. Leica's purchasing power is lower due to the quantity.

 

2. Leica also tends to design and build their cameras with more expensive materials.

 

3. Rangefinder technology is simply more expensive to manufacture.

 

4. There are no FF cameras at 1/10 the price of the Leica M240. The M240 retails for $7,000. The Sony A7 is $1,700 or approximately 1/4th the cost of the M240 and 1/3 the cost of the M-E.

 

That explains the cost. However, if you specifically want a manual camera, then Leica is really the only game in town.

 

Yes, you could buy a Fuji, but with exception to the X100s, everything is EVF and all Fuji cameras are APS-C, so you can't get the narrow DOF that FF offers.

 

Sony A7 is not a mature product and has its own issues, among them is that it does not play well with Leica M lenses due to ray angle and you may get a better EVF, but it is still inferior to OFVs. Sony ergonomics are not that good, either, and the A7r is plagued with shutter vibration.

 

For Leica film users that want to go digital with their M lenses there are really are no good alternatives besides the digital M cameras. Everything else is a compromise to one degree or another.

 

The only other small FF camera that comes close is the fixed lens Sony R1X, which is $2,800, but has no viewfinder. Using Live View is a poor option if you want sharp handheld shots or in bright sunlight, so you are left with paying another $450 for the external EVF viewfinder or $600 for the optical equivalent, which raises the price to $3,250 and $3,400 respectively for a fixed lens camera. That is only $1,000 less than a new M-E.

 

You could buy a Nikon D610, but you won't be using your M lenses, so be prepared to spend a good chunk of change on good FF F-Mount lenses, which will significantly raise the total cost of the system.

 

Or, you could buy a Sony Alpha system with their lenses. Again, the cost goes up pretty quickly and there are not a lot of native lens choices availed for the A7 as of yet.

 

So, it depends on your needs and wants and where you are. If you have a substantial investment already in M mount lenses, your choices are not as rich nor inexpensive as it may seem. If you are starting from scratch, you could invest in many excellent FF systems at a lower overall cost than Leica.

 

I was told it cost $3500 to make a M240. If so, Leica has to make a profit. To me the Leica is worth about $3500. But as things are that would only pay for a Japanese Leica.

[jdlaing]

I was told it cost $3500 to make a M240. If so, Leica has to make a profit. To me the Leica is worth about $3500. But as things are that would only pay for a Japanese Leica.

 

If there was one.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I am talking about the Jpegs right out of camera which should be better than the adobe processed raws.

Why? That is opposed to common knowledge. The reason being that the processing power of a full computer will enable more elaborate algorithms.

[kdriceman]

Why? That is opposed to common knowledge. The reason being that the processing power of a full computer will enable more elaborate algorithms.

 

 

That... And you are conceding to Fuji's interpretation of the final image. Which, for me was a bit over saturated and at higher ISO - over done with noise reduction.