Jump to content
Snowman

Leica Q or Fujifilm X Pro 2?

Recommended Posts

Well, the XT1 with its little 16mp sensor is capable of photos every bit as "good" as the M(240) unless you insist on judgements based on maximum print size alone. (The same probably goes for most current cameras with APS-C sensors or larger. Lenses are a different matter, but many of Fuji's happen to be spectacular.)

 

So I imagine the X-Pro 2 will be a match for the Q. But they are so different in concept that the comparison on iQ is not the most helpful way to compare these wonderful cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the XT1 with its little 16mp sensor is capable of photos every bit as "good" as the M(240) unless you insist on judgements based on maximum print size alone. (The same probably goes for most current cameras with APS-C sensors or larger. Lenses are a different matter, but many of Fuji's happen to be spectacular.)

.

I have to fundamentally disagree

 

I have an X-t1 and a M240

 

The M240 is significantly better, at the pixel level, clarity, annuity and micro-contrast in conjunction with the Leica and Zeiss lenses which are far superior to Fujis wide open.

 

Listen I love the X-t1 and its my preferred zoom solution, but it is what it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i guess this dead horse can be beaten a bit more

 

I sold my Fuji gear because of the X-Trans sensor, i tried and extensively compared the following RAW converters with Fuji RAF files: 

 

- Adobe Camera Raw / Photoshop / Lightroom (yes, with all the "detail: 100" tricks for deconvolution etc)

- Apple Aperture / Photos

- Silkypix

- Capture One

- Raw Therapee

- DCRaw

- Photo Ninja

- Iridient Developer

 

The only converter that in my eyes produced acceptable results from the RAF files was Iridient Developer, i took so many comparison pictures and tried all the tricks in the book to extract the last drop of detail from the files. 

X-trans renders a lot of stuff just fine. But some things like foliage and organic shapes like hair and skin pores seriously lack fine detail and micro contrast and look like a watercolour mess, this seems to vary in intensity depending on object distance, atmospheric distortion and light quality and happens at all ISO values. This is without question a X-trans issue as testimages i shot at the same time and the same equivalent focal length and DOF with a bayer sensor is completely free of this problem.

 

I really hoped the new X-trans III sensor in the X-Pro 2 would be better, and it is to some degree, thanks to the higher resolution.

 

But lets be real here. X-trans and RAW is a hassle. It's been ever since X-Trans was introduced, and the converter improvements over these years have been marginal. Fine detail especially in foliage is a mess, and it still is with the X-pro 2 if you inspect landscape samples. It's too bad, because the Fuji lens lineup is great, and the x-pro ticks all the boxes for me except the sensor/IQ. 

 

To even say that the APS-C X-trans produce comparable results with a Leica FF sensor is like saying the iPhone 6 produce comparable results to Fuji.

Something thats true if we talk about downsampled 2mpx images for web and take pixel peeping or large printing out of the equation. 

 

Sorry, but i'm just tired of people glorifying Fuji X-trans. Misunderstand me right, Fuji is not crappy cameras, quite the opposite, after all i stuck with them for over a year. Just don't say it produce same or better images as a FF Leica/Canon/Nikon. Because it just doesn't. 

Edited by Forth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person considering the X-Pro2 has the opportunity to discover, rather inexpensively, whether or not that camera is an acceptable alternative. I recently purchased a used- but practically unused- X-Pro1 for less than Fuji's cheapest X lens. Granted, the X-Pro2 has some nice upgrades, but the X-Pro1 is essentially the same camera. If you determine the X-Pro1 is not a good fit, there is a good chance the same will be true of the X-Pro2. Manual focus on the X-Pro1 is not so bad in my experience. I have enjoyed the camera so far. It has made the absence of my M8- away for CLA- bearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually recommend trying an X-E2 as an introduction to Fuji cameras, they can be picked up pretty cheap second hand and the latest FW makes them a very very good camera for the money. The XP2 is obviously a notch up again but I have really enjoyed the X-E2 as a Q companion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person considering the X-Pro2 has the opportunity to discover, rather inexpensively, whether or not that camera is an acceptable alternative. I recently purchased a used- but practically unused- X-Pro1 for less than Fuji's cheapest X lens. Granted, the X-Pro2 has some nice upgrades, but the X-Pro1 is essentially the same camera. If you determine the X-Pro1 is not a good fit, there is a good chance the same will be true of the X-Pro2. Manual focus on the X-Pro1 is not so bad in my experience. I have enjoyed the camera so far. It has made the absence of my M8- away for CLA- bearable.

 

hmm

different sensor

different cpu

different backscreen

different focus

different VF

different back controls

 

the  x-pro2 is quite different and its also "the sum of the parts"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Hopefully all set to get my Q next month, here in the UK.

 

However a spanner in the works has been thrown in by the newly launched Fujifilm X Pro 2, that see, to be getting very good

previews at the moment.

 

I understand it does not have a full-frame sensor like the Q, but the X Pro 2 does seem to have advantages to me at least such

as waterproofing, lens options and a rangefinder.

 

I'm curious on what Leica Q or future Leica Q users have to say about this new camera.

 

Many thanks,

 

Nick

 

the "problem" is that once you enter in the full frame world you are not satisfied anymore about APS-C quality

and if you are not already into the FF i advice strongly to try and test both "worlds" before to choose 

my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "problem" is that once you enter in the full frame world you are not satisfied anymore about APS-C quality

and if you are not already into the FF i advice strongly to try and test both "worlds" before to choose 

my 2 cents

 

 

I'm the opposite way round.

 

Never until recently have I seriously used anything smaller than "full frame". I bought a Fuji XT1 a few months ago and I've been astonished at how good the APS-C sensor is.

 

I'm not suggesting it is better than the sensor in my M cameras, but in most cases it is just as good, and occasionally is the better choice, depending on subject matter and lighting conditions, and, of course, the lens in use. As I said above, which I think was misinterpreted by more than one person, the choice of camera based on the intrinsic differences between APS-C and FF sensors would need to be made on the grounds of very specific requirements that demand one or the other. In general terms, I do not believe there is a clear superiority in FF over APS-C any longer, and not to the extent that it should outweigh all the other important considerations in your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Pro1 vs M240 - IQ-wise, handling and build quality - no comparison, lived with both for few months, Fuji system has been sold now (and 28 Cron added). Liked Fuji's colours more than Leica's for skin tones but that can be fixed in post processing.

 

The lenses were driving me nuts, fly-by-wire manual focus is just horrible, no feedback and sometimes one needed manual focus as AF on X-Pro1 was quite, well, bad.

Edited by hexx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a look at the x-pro2. Its a beautifully made camera and actually it looks a little different from the x-pro1, much better IMHO. Event the switches and dials are better placed and look better from the front.

It is slightly bigger and heavier but actually this helps the look and feel IMHO

Its very nice to use and feels distinctly zippier then the x-pro1

 

However I feel this comparison with a Q, and in fact an M system, say a M7 or M9, is artificial.

 

I can't get away from the fact, however many times I think about it, that the X-pro2 is a hefty system which is APS-C. with the Q, or the M9 and the ridiculously small RF lenses, you have an ultra sharp FF system. Which is also bayer rather then x-trans

 

Now if FF, for whatever reason, is not important, you will be very happy with the x-pro2. but I want a small system with FF and its really either the M or Q, or a A7x with one of the smaller lenses (e.g. the 35mm f2.8 which is ridiculously sharp and weights nothing) which does it for me at the moment I'm afraid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided that I no longer needed or wanted a bag full of choices for the kind of shooting I do, so have sold all M equipment and now shoot primarily with the Q. No regrets whatsoever. No more lens changing and no more sensor cleaning.

 

 

Fair enough but it is of course also possible to enjoy the same simplicity by using just a single M lens on an M body. That way you also get the nice bright view of the optical RF and have a lens that can last for an entire photographic lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against APS-C cameras (indeed my X100s sees about as much use as my Ms) but to me the X-Pro represents the worst of all worlds - big body, slow AF, small sensor (as compared with A7, Q, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get away from the fact, however many times I think about it, that the X-pro2 is a hefty system which is APS-C. with the Q, or the M9 and the ridiculously small RF lenses...

 

Here is the Fuji X-Pro 2 with a Leica Summaron 35/3.5. You decide whether camera and lens are in proportion and make a package of good size. (I didn't have a pfennig handy for comparison, but everyone here knows the lens.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Leica M-P and Leica S system owner.

I am receiving my Xpro2 today.

I am going to try to do some side by side comparisons with my M-P fitted with a 50MM Summicron and the XPro2 with there newer 35/2 lens.,

Gong to shoot the M-P at F8 and the Fuji at F5.6 to try to match DOF.

 

I do agree there is for sure the "hassle" factor when converting RAF files.

 

I love my M-P yet if I can get similar results with the new Fuji, as much as I don't want to I will sell my M-P and lens to fund a XPro2 kit then with the left over money put it towards another lens for my Leica S kit which I absolutely love...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Leica M-P and Leica S system owner.

I am receiving my Xpro2 today.

I am going to try to do some side by side comparisons with my M-P fitted with a 50MM Summicron and the XPro2 with there newer 35/2 lens.,

Gong to shoot the M-P at F8 and the Fuji at F5.6 to try to match DOF.

 

I do agree there is for sure the "hassle" factor when converting RAF files.

 

I love my M-P yet if I can get similar results with the new Fuji, as much as I don't want to I will sell my M-P and lens to fund a XPro2 kit then with the left over money put it towards another lens for my Leica S kit which I absolutely love...

 

 

I suggest comparing them both at f/2 and f/2.8 for sharpness.  And then comparing the Fuji at f/2 and the Leica at f/2.8 for depth of field.  The thing about comparing them at f/5.6 and f/8 is that pretty much every lens looks good stopped down that much.  As you already know, the DOF match will take a difference of about one stop, maybe a little more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First post! 

 

I just returned the Fuji XPro2 (and Fuji 35mm f2 lens) and purchased the Leica Q. Here are my thoughts...

 

Quick background - I've always shot digital, never film. I started with DSLR"s (Canon 5D, then 5D mkii, then 5D mkiii) before switching to Fuji X cameras. I've owned the Fuji Xpro1, X100S, XT1, and recently the Xpro2. My favorite Fuji X was the X100S because it forced me to work with a single lens and the fill flash with the leaf shutter allowed that extra bit of light to do some amazing adjustments post edit. Hope this background helps take the below into context. 

 

Fuji XPro2

 

Positives:

+ Felt great in my hand

+ Price was great (body + lens was $2k)

+ Improvement in auto focus speed over the other X cameras I've owned

+ Improvement in image quality over  the other X cameras I've owned

 

Negatives:

- Something about the optical viewfinder I couldn't get use to. Maybe it was just me and not understanding all the tricks, but when using autofocus, the frame would jump around. I ended up shooting using the EVF the entire week I had it. 

- 35mm f2 (effective 50mm), I understand this is specific to this lens, but here it goes - If you want to manual focus, it was about two full turns to hit infinity. Not practical. Also, all my shots at 50mm ended up looking the same, cropped image with blown wild bokeh. To be more fair, I probably should have tried with a lens that yielded an effective 35mm.

- Tons of menu options and custom function buttons. I put this as a negative for me as I like the simplicity. Granted this is still nowhere near a Sony A7 series camera. 

 

So why sell it? Why not try another lens? Why?

 

Something just didn't click for me with the camera that made me excited to go out and create images. I would by no means knock the Fuji XPro2 as I think it is a great camera for many users. 

 

Leica Q in comparison over the last two days I've owned it:

+ Detail in images is an improvement over the XPro2. Yes I am pixel peeping a bit but I can even tell when looking at them on my computer at "regular" resolution.

+ Build. Not a huge advantage, but Q is definitely built sturdier.

+ Manual focus - You can focus with half a turn on the Q vs. two full turns of the Fuji 35mm f2. 

+ Simplicity - I like the fact the menu options and buttons are light.

+ EVF is clearer in the Q

+ Auto focus is quicker in the Q

 

Again, just sharing my personal experience over the last two weeks. If you have specific questions I will try to address them based on my limited experience with both. 

 

Looking forward to the forum. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Q and wanted an interchangeable lens system and wasn't going to drop close to 20k in CDN funds to purchase the SL system with the 24-90.

 

Being familiar with Fuji's system, I picked up the XP2 and bought the 35f2 and 56f1.2 to complement the Q.  

 

Both cameras together are fantastic and aren't menu heavy (ahem Sony).  You could live off with just the Q, but if you do portraits, you are going to need that reach.

 

XP2 isn't perfect by any means, but what camera is today.  However, I think the XP2 might put a slash in the DSLR's jugular that DSLR are going to die a slow death.

 

Leica Q and XP2 are like a steak and good glass of red wine.  Having both, I could say adios to my D810 and never have to look at another DSLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbie to this forum having just picked up a Q last week. I love it for what it is: simple.  I've shot Fuji as a second system since the inception of the XE1, XE2, XT1, X100S and lastly the X100T.  Sadly, I'm selling all my Fuji gear, except the X100T, and will be using the Q for travel.  I still shoot with Sony A7R2 with lenses from Zeiss, Leica and Sony and some remaining Canon DSLR bodies and lenses.

 

The Q is a great camera, again for what it is designed for.  It's fast, sharp and has enough options to keep it simple and direct.  I was going to add a Leica M240 or 262 but decided my Sony could cover that ground with the Leica glass.

 

Now that the Fuji XPro2 is out, I do think many will consider this over the Q for reasons noted above.  Lastly, Fuji has the best AWB I've ever used. Leica is second, but you just can't beat the Fuji colors for flesh tones IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been shooting weddings with the Q and Fuji for a while now (XT1 last year, XPRO2 this year). I love my Q and around 70% of shots delivered to my clients are with it.

 

I generally shoot with the 35mm (50mm equiv) on the XPRO2 and find the combination with the 28mm of the Q perfect. The XPRO2 is much better than the XPRO1, when a bride walks down a dark aisle towards me, the AF will hit focus the majority of the time. Also the 2 memory card slots on the XPRO2 provide me with and extra level of assurance!

 

They are completely different beasts, but together form a nice team :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...