Any one replace their Fuji X100F with the Leica CL w/18mm

[budjames]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased my first Leica, the M10, and a few Leica lenses. I also own Fuji X cameras and excellent Fuji XF lenses.

 

if anyone has replaced their Fuji X100F with the Leica CL and 18mm f2.8 lens, please share your experiences.

 

Regards,

Bud James

 

www.budjames.photography

Edited June 21, 2018 by budjames

[Tobers]

I didn’t replace my X100 with a CL but I did have an X100 and now have a CL so I can compare.

 

I got an 18mm for my CL specifically to attempt to replicate the experience (size, shape, usability) of the X100. I ended up selling the 18mm and getting the 23mm instead. Key findings:

 

- The CL lacks the marked up dials of the X100 so it doesn’t feel as much like an “M” as the X100.

- The CL feels a lot more solid than the X100

- The 18mm L lens isn’t as “nice” as the X100’s built in lens IMHO. The 23mm is nicer but a bit deeper size-wise. A tricky compromise, but the 23mm is “closer” to the X100’s optic.

- Obviously you can change lenses on the CL which is a BIG plus point. If you just wanted 35mm then a Q or RX1 or X100 is a more focused tool.

- I do still yearn for an X100 - beautiful camera. Bit too close to the CL I have now. I also have the medium and long zooms which are excellent if a little slow.

[Advertisement]

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

[rfunnell]

I have both the X100F and the Leica CL  and love both of them.

Having had the original X100 several years ago the X100F is certainly a big improvement.

 

For me I find that the Fuji is nice when you want a very light camera to go.  The fuji film simulations was one of the deciding factors for me 

 

I concur with 'Tobers' above totally regarding the 18mm lens sold my 18TL and replaced with the 23 TL  it makes the camera a little bigger but the performance is there for me.

 

They are both worth keeping in my opinion.

[JTLeica]

I recently purchased my first Leica, the M10, and a few Leica lenses. I also own Fuji X cameras and excellent Fuji XF lenses.

 

if anyone has replaced their Fuji X100F with the Leica CL and 18mm f2.8 lens, please share your experiences.

 

Regards,

Bud James

 

www.budjames.photography

 

I have done just that recently. Like you I have an M10 and that is my main camera... I replaced the X100F for a few reasons...

 

- I knew my father wanted my X100F

- The CL enables me a 1.5x crop on every M lens I own, which was extremely attractive.

- The CL has a 1/25,000th second shutter so I can shoot the Noct 50 wide open in the sun etc

- Most importantly IMO, the CL inspires me to shoot more than the Fuji X100, and most of that is due to the fact its a Leica, and I appreciate the quality - as sad as this may sound, there is something special about the Leica stuff that I have not found in any other brand.

- I hate processing Fuji Raw Files, its another step in the process for me, and it annoys me.

 

If you like, I am happy to compare these cameras for you with a few samples and share them in Dropbox? I have the CL with 18mm and 23mm and I can re-borrow my Fathers X100F?

 

I really do think the single most important aspect of camera choice now, is buy the camera that inspires you to go out and shoot, or take it with you. 

 

Some of your images on your site are brilliant by the way!

[PDP]

I have both the X100F and since some days the CL. My approach is to have the CL with 11-23mm lens, meaning "below" the Fuji. I use the Fuji for family and street, everyone loves the old style, that is an opener in street (the Q is a too large black block). And the CL with 11-23 is wide-angle for landscape, architecture, and street. For me a perfect fit, which inspires me, they both do.

best

Philipp

[Stonewall Brigade]

Would like to hear opinions (from Fuji X100 owners who also have the CL) to compare the Leica's native DNG Raw files, verses the Fuji Raw files, in terms of any CL advantage in post processing.

[PDP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The dng quality from Leica is by far better, there is less to do in Lightroom especially when it comes to colors, I like my Fuji x100f but I still struggle with post processing. The dng‘s Out of the CL are really great. Philipp

[Stonewall Brigade]

The dng quality from Leica is by far better, there is less to do in Lightroom especially when it comes to colors, I like my Fuji x100f but I still struggle with post processing. The dng‘s Out of the CL are really great. Philipp

Thanks, I agree regarding the higher quality of Leica's DNG Raw files and my use with Capture One Pro for post processing, verses my experience with Fuji Raw images.

[neild100]

I moved from the X100F to the CL but with the 23mm and 18-56 zoom. The 18mm is too wide for me as a "standard"

The main reason was I wanted a simpler camera - the CL is the simplest (advanced) digital camera I've found. I have no wish to have to delve into pages of menus, I'd rather just take photographs without being hampered by dozens of options. Much as I liked the X100F and the preceding models, it seems to me that Fujifilm have lost their way in trying to cram every option in

[Stonewall Brigade]

I moved from the X100F to the CL but with the 23mm and 18-56 zoom. The 18mm is too wide for me as a "standard"

The main reason was I wanted a simpler camera - the CL is the simplest (advanced) digital camera I've found. I have no wish to have to delve into pages of menus, I'd rather just take photographs without being hampered by dozens of options. Much as I liked the X100F and the preceding models, it seems to me that Fujifilm have lost their way in trying to cram every option in

 

How do you find the CL's RAW files compared to the X100F's Raw images?  (assuming you shoot raw)

[Boojay]

How do you find the CL's RAW files compared to the X100F's Raw images?  (assuming you shoot raw)

 

Think most would agree that Leica DNG's are easier to process than Fuji's RAF's, certainly my experience anyway.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Think most would agree that Leica DNG's are easier to process than Fuji's RAF's, certainly my experience anyway.

That's probably true with LR, but with Capture One, both work well.  I add a little post processing with either type of file.

[Marcial]

I had a Fuji X100 (the initial version) and found it to be a great companion when I wanted to keep the equipment to a minimum. It was also a much less expensive camera to be carrying around than a M9+summilux pre-aspheric 35mm which was my other 1 camera/1 lens solution. I sold it 3 years ago in preparation to purchase the anticipated upgraded X100 model. But then the CL came out and being able to use my M lenses on another body was a better overall solution. I did not buy the pancake lens package due to less than favorable reviews; also for the price of the lens one could buy a Fuji X100F used. You may consider that option. I did end up buying  the 18-56mm zoom (used-on eBay) which is a great travel lens and much appreciated by my wife. The Fuji is more pocketable than the CL and I prefer a 35 F2 to a 28 F2.8 so I may still wind up buying that camera- it's way better than a phablet camera and not that much bigger.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Marcial

[Stonewall Brigade]

I had the Fuji X100F and found it to be excellent at 100-400 ISO, but it really let me down at my daughter's wedding.  The dark room setting required an ISO of 1000-1600 which I read would be OK.  It wasn't, and that X100F got traded in for a new CL last weekend. I thought I'd really miss the Fuji, but after using the CL and seeing my RAW results, there are NO REGRETS.  I have the very sharp Leica 18-56mm zoom lens and I am amazed at its' image quality.  Consider that lens over the 18mm for added utility (and I read, better sharpness).

 

A few CL examples of mine:

 

 

https://triumph.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-CL-Photography/

[Stonewall Brigade]

Think most would agree that Leica DNG's are easier to process than Fuji's RAF's, certainly my experience anyway.

 

ABSOLUTELY.  I use Capture One Pro and while it recently updated to do a better job with Fuji RAW images, there is no question that Leica's DNG are so much more easy to be rendered, and give outstanding final results.

[Balivernes]

 I realise that this thread is over a year old, but since both options are still sold new, and I just spent a month with a borrowed CL,  I thought I’d add my grain of salt to the debate you guys had on the IQ front (construction, haptics, looks are not my point here): the Fujifilm’s main unique selling point in IQ terms is the film simulations, which are stellar, extremely flexible and very hard to improve on if you shoot raw only, while the CL jpeg engine is just plain boring (same for most current Leicas by the way, the Q2 being just bad in that single respect).

If you setup/customise  an X100F properly (you can tweak the default film simulations’ parameters to personalise your output) and maintain old school exposure discipline, you can forget about postprocessing chores in 90% or more of use cases, and get stunning results. You can even automatically bracket film simulations for each shot (astia /velvia/acros for example), decide later what suits subject best and keep a raw version for backup.

Not being forced to deal with LR or C1 editing at all (apart from occasional crop) is a liberating bonus.

So, even if Leica DNG files are somewhat “easier” to deal with than Fujifilm RAF files, that is not where the debate really is. And please, none of that “real pros only shoot raw” stuff. That is simply not true.

I borrowed a CL and decided not to purchase, for the reason above. I own a M10 and love that. But my punny little X100F really kicks ass!

Apologies if this forum considers it bad form to react to older threads.

[Marac]

I just picked up a Fuji X100F, seems like a very nice bit of kit thus far.

[jaapv]

On 9/13/2019 at 8:39 AM, Balivernes said:

 I realise that this thread is over a year old, but since both options are still sold new, and I just spent a month with a borrowed CL,  I thought I’d add my grain of salt to the debate you guys had on the IQ front (construction, haptics, looks are not my point here): the Fujifilm’s main unique selling point in IQ terms is the film simulations, which are stellar, extremely flexible and very hard to improve on if you shoot raw only, while the CL jpeg engine is just plain boring (same for most current Leicas by the way, the Q2 being just bad in that single respect).

If you setup/customise  an X100F properly (you can tweak the default film simulations’ parameters to personalise your output) and maintain old school exposure discipline, you can forget about postprocessing chores in 90% or more of use cases, and get stunning results. You can even automatically bracket film simulations for each shot (astia /velvia/acros for example), decide later what suits subject best and keep a raw version for backup.

Not being forced to deal with LR or C1 editing at all (apart from occasional crop) is a liberating bonus.

So, even if Leica DNG files are somewhat “easier” to deal with than Fujifilm RAF files, that is not where the debate really is. And please, none of that “real pros only shoot raw” stuff. That is simply not true.

I borrowed a CL and decided not to purchase, for the reason above. I own a M10 and love that. But my punny little X100F really kicks ass!

Apologies if this forum considers it bad form to react to older threads.

Problem is,I don’t want my images to look like film. I have film cameras for that. 

[Le Chef]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Problem is,I don’t want my images to look like film. I have film cameras for that. 

Agree. I’m not interested in taking pictures “In the style of Whistler” or other such nonsense. Much prefer to leave jpegs to my phone and enjoy working on RAW images shot with my camera in LR.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Marac]

I never shoot in jpg only. Most of the time it's RAW only but on occasions I have used RAW+jpg The Fuji has great RAW files.