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

[Balivernes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/26/2019 at 11:31 AM, jaapv said:

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

Fujifilm's  "film simulations" do not make "images look like film". There is no compulsory fake grain for example forced on you by any of the default settings for those "simulations" (they are an option). What they do is offer to the photographer a number of embedded (& customisable) processing options that refer back to tonal and colour renditions that are reminiscent of some well known film stocks, while, in fact,  playing exactly the same role as your presets in LR for example. The only difference is that the "post processing" is done on the fly, in-camera. 

Same as  "picture control" settings in Nikons for example. What Fujifilm calls "Velvia" could be called "Vivid" by Nikon, etc. 

The unique selling point of Fujifilm in that respect is that the embedded JPEG engine options are so good and predictable that they can absolutely dispense a careful and experienced photographer from being forced to spend hours trying to do exactly the same thing later on, on a non photographic device, in LR or C1.

Because, at the end of the day, what does raw shooting mean? It means that you are delaying access to your own pictures, including sales and distribution, and offloading the processing  to a third party piece of software (Adobe usually) with its own default interpretation of what should be done, from which you are then allowed to deviate manually, through presets or individual slider manipulations.

The beauty of Fujifilm's embedded JPEG engine is that it works better than the default settings and many customised presets used on that third party post processing software platform. They also work better and more consistently than any of the JPEG engines provided by other makers, starting with Leica's own, which are at best unoffencive and at worst poor, depending on the camera.

And you get to keep the raw file for backup, to fix shooting errors post factum or to provide some ultra special tweaks on post-processing platforms.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Balivernes

[Peter_S]

Just a site-note: In Capture One, the  Fuji film profiles can be applied to RAW files. It is not 100% the same as the jpg processing, but close and it gives freedom to change them to your liking.


 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Balivernes said:

Fujifilm's  "film simulations" do not make "images look like film". There is no compulsory fake grain for example forced on you by any of the default settings for those "simulations" (they are an option). What they do is offer to the photographer a number of embedded (& customisable) processing options that refer back to tonal and colour renditions that are reminiscent of some well known film stocks, while, in fact,  playing exactly the same role as your presets in LR for example. The only difference is that the "post processing" is done on the fly, in-camera. 

Same as  "picture control" settings in Nikons for example. What Fujifilm calls "Velvia" could be called "Vivid" by Nikon, etc. 

The unique selling point of Fujifilm in that respect is that the embedded JPEG engine options are so good and predictable that they can absolutely dispense a careful and experienced photographer from being forced to spend hours trying to do exactly the same thing later on, on a non photographic device, in LR or C1.

Because, at the end of the day, what does raw shooting mean? It means that you are delaying access to your own pictures, including sales and distribution, and offloading the processing  to a third party piece of software (Adobe usually) with its own default interpretation of what should be done, from which you are then allowed to deviate manually, through presets or individual slider manipulations.

The beauty of Fujifilm's embedded JPEG engine is that it works better than the default settings and many customised presets used on that third party post processing software platform. They also work better and more consistently than any of the JPEG engines provided by other makers, starting with Leica's own, which are at best unoffencive and at worst poor, depending on the camera.

And you get to keep the raw file for backup, to fix shooting errors post factum or to provide some ultra special tweaks on post-processing platforms.

I can do better myself. I don’t use Lightroom and certainly no presets. Jpgs severely limit your post processing options by data loss. Time and effort-saving for a mass market, as you note, but not for optimal quality prints.  I don't buy expensive cameras capable of outputting over 40 MB of data, only to have the camera chuck two-thirds into the bin.

[AndreasB]

Its nice to see you fighting like hell against nearly every critical remark to a Leica or against an advantage of another brand...

[jaapv]

Just now, AndreasB said:

Its nice to see you fighting like hell against nearly every critical remark to a Leica or against an advantage of another brand...

What, pray, has my remark to do with camera brand?

[AndreasB]

it makes no sense to discuss this...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, AndreasB said:

It makes no sense to discuss this...

Quite. I'm happy that your are aware of the true value of your post.

[Kim Dahl]

I think it makes good sense to discuss the pros and cons of different systems. I am a frequent user of Leica M and Leica SL with  lenses. So we can each make a judgment, to what we will use.
There are several possibilities today and Leica's advantage with a fantastic image quality, technically - is matched by several brands today. It is a new world. 

So I think - if I am to be a user of this forum - both negative and positive comments are welcome. With  respect for each other.

Sorry but English is not my native language, but I hope I have expressed myself kindly but definitely. Tanks 

[M11 for me]

Possibly the question is allowed if CL user who use primarily a 23mm lens on their camera could imagine to change to the newly announced X100V with its new lens (23mm f/2.0). As on my M10 I frequently use my 35mm Summilux as the only lens that I have with me I imagine that the Fuji could be at least a backup. This for me has a real background as my wife and I are looking for a second camera instead of the iPhone of my wife. Should it be an X100V or a CL or a Q? However the X100 is an old and new very interesting player. 

But this thread is about changing from CL to Fuji. I would not do that. The form factor is very similar. To big to put into Jeans pockets.

[Kim Dahl]

Hey. And tanks

I don't want to change either. I always return to my Leica M. 
I really have doubts about the TL / CL \ SL system. So It is a good question you ask.
I have the Laica TL2 and a 35 summulux. A fantastic combination. But slow AF. And no firmware updates - that stopped long ago. Maybe AF could be improved mm.

And I really miss a bright wide angle ala 18 mm Summulux. 
And I sometimes wonder if leica, in my lifetime -can provide what I need. For example, also improve their Af system. Fuji update their firmware frequently.

I have lived as a Press photographer, all my life and as a press photographer I can not only use a leica Sl / Cl.
I need for example Nikon, as I have today for quick pictures, sport /Quick events. Leicas AF is way too slow for my use. 
So my thought falls also on the new Fuji 100 or Leica Q as well, not the TL or CL. And then combine it with Fx. Nikon.
The short answer: I would buy a Q / Q2 if money is not a problem. Otherwise, I'm sure a Fuji can handle most for much less money.

[joteroar]

Here another one having both. I just can’t sell the X100F, I absolutely adore it. The weight, form factor, IQ, simulations, this hybrid VF, how it looks like, the leaf shutter and how quiet it is, the integrated ND filter 🙌🏽🙌🏽 I love it so much...I don’t think I’ll ever sell it.

The CL is pretty similar but a complete other world at the same time. You get some things you can’t have with the Fuji. It can act as a replacement for the X100F if you use it with the TL 18mm 2.8, but it also can be a replacemet for an M. Using M lenses with the CL is absolutely a joy!  The IQ is also very impressive

[pilu]

Goodmorning everyone.

I own both Leica CL and Fuji x100f and the differences are many, too many! I personally would never give up my CL to switch to Fuji. The two rooms are profoundly different in my opinion. I don't feel like defending Leica but the CL's OVF viewfinder is a hundred times higher! There is no comparison!! That of Fuji is poorly defined and has a color change towards purple and often "flashes". The Summicron 23mm lens is crisp, has no noticeable distortion and is impeccably constructed. The Fuji 23 f2 of the x100f in my opinion is not an exceptional lens. It distorts a lot (barrel distortion) is less defined than the Summicron ... this is my opinion. And last but not least, aesthetics. The Leica Cl is much, much more robust and better built. It is true that the x100 series (...) Fuji is quite beautiful but for several years Fuji has been trying (in vain) to copy the Leica aesthetic. See also the Xpro series! It is no coincidence that the Fuji are called the Leica of the poor!

[g2van]

Does the original post change now that the X100V is out? I think it sure does!

Faster AF, better EVF and weather sealing! Weather sealing has taken a whole new perspective for me - my M10 was damaged by a splash of water so disappointingly easily; so, the CL stands way less of a chance.

For 35mm shooters, the x100V is smaller than CL+23 and is "jacket pocketable" while the CL+23 would look weird in a pocket.

Other factors for the X100V

- tilt screen

- AF+release shooting which CL's firmware upgrade has removed

- "snap mode" with AF range limiter

Sure, not all these factors are relevant to everyone but they are to some of us, like me.

[Le Chef]

Even if you thought the X100V was outstanding, you still can't change lenses on it. The advantage is still with the CL in that you can change your mind about what field of view you want to shoot. With the X100 you have no choice but to replace the camera. 

"Pocketable" in my definition means it fits into one of the pockets in a Barbour jacket which are big enough to put pheasants in, so a camera and lens is not that hard to fit in.

I have a CL and typically pick one lens to go out with, depending on what I think I might want to shoot and the light available; so I can go wide (TL 11-23) middling (TL 23) or broad (TL 18-56). All options pass the Barbour test.

I still would like to add either the TL 60mm or something not called 55-135. The CL + TL 60 also passes the Barbour test.

 

[bags27]

10 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Even if you thought the X100V was outstanding, you still can't change lenses on it. The advantage is still with the CL in that you can change your mind about what field of view you want to shoot. With the X100 you have no choice but to replace the camera. 

"Pocketable" in my definition means it fits into one of the pockets in a Barbour jacket which are big enough to put pheasants in, so a camera and lens is not that hard to fit in.

I have a CL and typically pick one lens to go out with, depending on what I think I might want to shoot and the light available; so I can go wide (TL 11-23) middling (TL 23) or broad (TL 18-56). All options pass the Barbour test.

I still would like to add either the TL 60mm or something not called 55-135. The CL + TL 60 also passes the Barbour test.

 

The other day, I took my M 35 f/1.4 off the CL and slapped on the M 135 f/4. Suddenly I saw the world very differently. 

As they say, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Well, ditto when you change lenses. It's a great mind-stretching exercise. Especially when using primes rather than zooms. 

[huwm]

15 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Even if you thought the X100V was outstanding, you still can't change lenses on it. The advantage is still with the CL in that you can change your mind about what field of view you want to shoot. With the X100 you have no choice but to replace the camera. 

"Pocketable" in my definition means it fits into one of the pockets in a Barbour jacket which are big enough to put pheasants in, so a camera and lens is not that hard to fit in.

I have a CL and typically pick one lens to go out with, depending on what I think I might want to shoot and the light available; so I can go wide (TL 11-23) middling (TL 23) or broad (TL 18-56). All options pass the Barbour test.

I still would like to add either the TL 60mm or something not called 55-135. The CL + TL 60 also passes the Barbour test.

 

Why not the 55-135?

I resisted for ages and having finally succumbed have found it wonderful.

I don't take it if the light is poor but in reasonable conditions it gives a bit of reach and fabulous iq.

It's funny, I came from Oly em1.2 system including the 12-100 f4 so I theoretically need pretty much all 3 zooms to replace just the one do it all lens (i actually have ended up with all 3) but I am happier with one tl zoom and a prime chosen accordingly.

Do I miss image stabilisation and waterproofing? Hell yes and the ergonomics weren't  bad, but I never 'enjoyed' taking photos as much as I do now.

My most used Oly lens was in fact the 12-40 f2.8 but the 18-56tl trashes it (reviewing old stuff last night, hopefully without too much bias)

Sorry, wandered off 

[Le Chef]

I borrowed one for a weekend and it felt big and clumsy. In addition the zoom ring felt gritty - very cold day affecting it maybe? I just couldn’t get comfortable with it. My preference would be something like the 60 which is shorter and lighter. I’m not shooting sports or wildlife so long length is not essential. I still miss my old Canon film 85mm and 135mm lenses which were light short and fast enough for my uses. My AD is very patient and accommodating so I suspect if I asked again he would be willing to loan me the 55-135 again, assuming no one has bought it.

[rob_w]

The X100V looks very attractive and Sean Reid gives it a good review.  I just cannot justify another camera in the same focal range, and roughly the same size, as the CL+23mm.  I suspect Fuji have an uphill battle to displace established system cameras owned by many people, just as I do. 

It would however be great if they  introduced a monochorme version.  No more X-Trans hassles.  Increased mp and sharpness.  I would snap one up in a moment, as my mono alternative.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

I borrowed one for a weekend and it felt big and clumsy. In addition the zoom ring felt gritty - very cold day affecting it maybe? I just couldn’t get comfortable with it. My preference would be something like the 60 which is shorter and lighter. I’m not shooting sports or wildlife so long length is not essential. I still miss my old Canon film 85mm and 135mm lenses which were light short and fast enough for my uses. My AD is very patient and accommodating so I suspect if I asked again he would be willing to loan me the 55-135 again, assuming no one has bought it.

Strange - mine feels perfectly smooth and of excellent build - and it has been around the block a few times. Nor do I find it clumsy for the focal length. It is about the same size and lighter than the 135/2.8 R, and should be compared to FF SLR 70-200 lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Guest]

On 2/17/2020 at 12:20 PM, g2van said:

Does the original post change now that the X100V is out? I think it sure does!

Faster AF, better EVF and weather sealing! Weather sealing has taken a whole new perspective for me - my M10 was damaged by a splash of water so disappointingly easily; so, the CL stands way less of a chance.

I was more thinking of the new lens.

I used to own the X100S.  The softness of the lens wide open and up-close was horrible.  I sold it for that reason.

My understanding is that Fuji addressed this and that (at least for me personally) would be a game changer.