Jump to content

Fujifilm vs Leica


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is my experience in case you ever wondered if "Fuji is the new Leica". (I previously owned an X, T, and a TL2 with the 11-23mm, 23mm and 35mm)

 

-Leica has better glass. Unquestionably. Fuji glass is terribly soft in comparison.

 

-Leica has better quality control. Had to return an XE-3 that had a misaligned sensor. My second XE-3 now has a dead red pixel in every photo.

 

-After market "Like new condition" is not the same to the masses of Fuji photographers as it is for Leicaphile photographers.

 

-Fuji menus and controls are overdone. I have to worry about accidentally bumping something out of place or forgetting to switch something back. Opposite of simplicity.

 

-Fuji autofocus blows TL2 out of the water.

 

-Fuji's colors!!!

 

-Fuji design is just "retro". Leica is a designer's camera. It's a camera you can admire.

 

-Fuji pumps out firmware updates quicker...unlike Leica and the TL2.

 

 

I am currently switching to the Sony A7 III. Leica still has my heart.

Edited by rchrd
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

-Fuji menus and controls are overdone. I have to worry about accidentally bumping something out of place or forgetting to switch something back. Opposite of simplicity.

 

yeah sure, but once setup properly one rarely has to dive into the menus...same repetitive arguments about fuji/sony all the time

 

-Fuji autofocus blows TL2 out of the water.

 

-Fuji's colors!!! and fuji's high ISO quality [on the XH1]

 

-Fuji design is just "retro". Leica is a designer's camera. It's a camera you can admire. that's subjective...some people think the SL looks horrible..i personally love it..but the fuji XH1 is so much more comfortable to use and looks cool too

 

-Fuji pumps out firmware updates quicker...unlike Leica and the TL2. and they actually listen to user feedback on every firmware update

 

 

I am currently switching to the Sony A7 III. Leica still has my heart.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my experience in case you ever wondered if "Fuji is the new Leica". (I previously owned an X, T, and a TL2 with the 11-23mm, 23mm and 35mm)

 

-Leica has better glass. Unquestionably. Fuji glass is terribly soft in comparison.

 

-Leica has better quality control. Had to return an XE-3 that had a misaligned sensor. My second XE-3 now has a dead red pixel in every photo.

 

-After market "Like new condition" is not the same to the masses of Fuji photographers as it is for Leicaphile photographers.

 

-Fuji menus and controls are overdone. I have to worry about accidentally bumping something out of place or forgetting to switch something back. Opposite of simplicity.

 

-Fuji autofocus blows TL2 out of the water.

 

-Fuji's colors!!!

 

-Fuji design is just "retro". Leica is a designer's camera. It's a camera you can admire.

 

-Fuji pumps out firmware updates quicker...unlike Leica and the TL2.

 

 

I am currently switching to the Sony A7 III. Leica still has my heart.

Which Fujis are 'terribly soft', none of mine seem like that to me, and tests don't seem to show that.

 

Gerry

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the A7 III vs the TL2 once you’ve been using it. I find myself sticking with the TL2 because I hate how big the good lenses are on the Sony, and the layout of the camera. TL2 is really a joy to handle, the trade off is that depth of field and Sony autofocus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I first bought a X100F as an AF compliment to my M cameras.

However I was forever unintentionally pushing buttons and the AF missed on grab shots.

I also struggled with the X100 in the dark.

 

On announcement of the TL2 1.4 FW, I bought one of those.

My hit rate with MF 21,28 and 35mm M lenses is way higher than the X100.

I tried the 23mm TL lens - but that makes thing worse : CA and the dial assignments changing.

So I’m going to stick to MF M lenses with emphasis on the 28mm summicron.

I am however disappointed at how much worse the TL2 screen is in sunlight, compared the the Ricoh GR - that makes me contemplate the CL.

 

Meanwhile I am still waiting for the perfect EVF camera optimized for MF and M lenses.

A M10 like body with EVF and focus cam magnification and Ricoh GXR-M like B&W high pass edge detect.

 

Always wary to the point of never trying one, of the Sony cameras and the thick sensor glass restricting glass choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manual focus with M lens and others is perfectly fine on the T and its variants..the OP was talking about TL lenses and mentioned fuji glass is soft.

 

 

I first bought a X100F as an AF compliment to my M cameras.
However I was forever unintentionally pushing buttons and the AF missed on grab shots.
I also struggled with the X100 in the dark.

On announcement of the TL2 1.4 FW, I bought one of those.
My hit rate with MF 21,28 and 35mm M lenses is way higher than the X100.
I tried the 23mm TL lens - but that makes thing worse : CA and the dial assignments changing.
So I’m going to stick to MF M lenses with emphasis on the 28mm summicron.
I am however disappointed at how much worse the TL2 screen is in sunlight, compared the the Ricoh GR - that makes me contemplate the CL.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for the perfect EVF camera optimized for MF and M lenses.
A M10 like body with EVF and focus cam magnification and Ricoh GXR-M like B&W high pass edge detect.

Always wary to the point of never trying one, of the Sony cameras and the thick sensor glass restricting glass choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Manual focus with M lens and others is perfectly fine on the T and its variants..the OP was talking about TL lenses and mentioned fuji glass is soft.

Softness was one of many points he mentioned.

The combination of X-trans matrix and pancake lens makes it seem like the 24 Mpixel X100F pulls in similar detail to a 16 Mpixel Bayer sensor camera. Cannot comment on Fuji’s interchangeable lenses : but was not impressed by the 23mm TL lens I used so hate to imagine what a tier down from that looks like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The X100 lens is an unique design .. the lens is intended (acknowledged?) to be soft at close focus distances, and sharper at infinity and sharp stopped down.

 

The optics in the Fuji X line are far superior to the X100 optics. I looked at the CL with the 35/1.4. I did not find it better than the equivalent X 35/1.4 or 35/2 although the CL//35 1.4 had a combination of both. What I missed was that the CL operation was slower and less responsive than the current X lineup.

 

You have to jump to the Q, which I owned, to beat Fuji glass for autofocus. I never liked the Q colors. On sRGB monitors it is fine, but on wide gamut monitors there something wrong with the calibration in Lightroom.

 

The modern M glass is very good but even Fuji glass can compete well with a classic 50/2 non APO and predigital 75/2 APO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My post is just my experience, maybe some of you have better ones

 

I own and can speak only for the X-E2 and X-E3 with:

 

XF 16mm f/1.4

XF 23mm f/1.4

XF 23mm f/2

XF 35mm f/1.4

XF 56mm f/1.2

 

I am not saying Fujifilm is a failed company because Leica is better. Leica X and TL glass was simply sharper corner to corner, wide open, with less flaring, on equivalent focal length lenses to Fujifilm's. What I am saying is that Leica is not "an overpriced brand name, therefore buy fuji #fujiisnewleica #newleicaisnotoldleica" like so many Fuji evangelists claim. When I switched to Fujifilm, it was noticeably softer at the edges than what I was used to and did some brick wall tests to make sure it wasn't some snobby Leica elitist anti-asian bias I had. (I'm half white-half asian by the way). I like to have my Fujifilm lenses stopped down to at least f/2.8. Peter Karbe was right when he said the TL glass is meant to be shot wide open. I will have to say the XF 56mm is an excellent lens though.

 

 

frame-it: yeah sure, but once setup properly one rarely has to dive into the menus...same repetitive arguments about fuji/sony all the time

 

I was thinking the same when I switched to Fujifilm. I have my camera setup properly. Maybe its being repeated because it is true, not because it is false. I am not fumbly Scooby Doo, but aside from the menu system, aperture rings are loose, exposure compensation dial gets knocked out of place. You have to fiddle with the joy stick because the focus point inevitably ends up in the corner. When you are in the middle of a session, these kinds of things takes you out of the moment, always constantly having to check your gear or regrettably forgetting to check because you are so absorbed in the moment only to find you could of taken a better picture. Sometimes options can end up being distractions or barriers to the moment. Just my experience.

 

frame-it: that's subjective...

 

I agree, taste is subjective. Design isn't a field that takes only "taste" into consideration though. Ask any industrial designer what their job involves. You don't have to "like" something to see that it is well designed and executed. Some objects are made with more care, craft, detail, and consideration than others. For example, the XE-3 is an improved version of itself, the XE-1 or 2, not just in upgraded sensors, but in the quality of dials, materials, button placement, less buttons, etc. There can be no sense of this improvement unless there is some objectivity in design.

 

 

Michaelbogdan: I hate how big the good lenses are on the Sony

 

I agree! I was like "That 35mm looks like a telephoto!" I am also worried about their tortuous menu system I keep hearing about. I will post an update on my experience with the Sony A7 III. My idea is that if I am going to have a camera with all the bells and whistles, might as well do it right and get the benefits of full frame, insane autofocus, ibis, and the option of Zeiss glass.

Edited by rchrd
Link to post
Share on other sites

sure

 

 

i see i miss-communicated...i use Leica M lenses on my Fuji XH-1...so i don't care about the menus and other things once they're setup for an MF lens ;)

 

 

 

 

 

My post is just my experience, maybe some of you have better ones

 

I own and can speak only for the X-E2 and X-E3 with:

 

XF 16mm f/1.4

XF 23mm f/1.4

XF 23mm f/2

XF 35mm f/1.4

XF 56mm f/1.2

 

I am not saying Fujifilm is a failed company because Leica is better. Leica X and TL glass was simply sharper corner to corner, wide open, with less flaring, on equivalent focal length lenses to Fujifilm's. What I am saying is that Leica is not "an overpriced brand name, therefore buy fuji #fujiisnewleica #newleicaisnotoldleica" like so many Fuji evangelists claim. When I switched to Fujifilm, it was noticeably softer at the edges than what I was used to and did some brick wall tests to make sure it wasn't some snobby Leica elitist anti-asian bias I had. (I'm half white-half asian by the way). I like to have my Fujifilm lenses stopped down to at least f/2.8. Peter Karbe was right when he said the TL glass is meant to be shot wide open. I will have to say the XF 56mm is an excellent lens though.

 

 

frame-it: yeah sure, but once setup properly one rarely has to dive into the menus...same repetitive arguments about fuji/sony all the time

 

I was thinking the same when I switched to Fujifilm. I have my camera setup properly. Maybe its being repeated because it is true, not because it is false. I am not fumbly Scooby Doo, but aside from the menu system, aperture rings are loose, exposure compensation dial gets knocked out of place. You have to fiddle with the joy stick because the focus point inevitably ends up in the corner. When you are in the middle of a session, these kinds of things takes you out of the moment, always constantly having to check your gear or regrettably forgetting to check because you are so absorbed in the moment only to find you could of taken a better picture. Sometimes options can end up being distractions or barriers to the moment. Just my experience.

 

frame-it: that's subjective...

 

I agree, taste is subjective. Design isn't a field that takes only "taste" into consideration though. Ask any industrial designer what their job involves. You don't have to "like" something to see that it is well designed and executed. Some objects are made with more care, craft, detail, and consideration than others. For example, the XE-3 is an improved version of itself, the XE-1 or 2, not just in upgraded sensors, but in the quality of dials, materials, button placement, less buttons, etc. There can be no sense of this improvement unless there is some objectivity in design.

 

 

Michaelbogdan: I hate how big the good lenses are on the Sony

 

I agree! I was like "That 35mm looks like a telephoto!" I am also worried about their tortuous menu system I keep hearing about. I will post an update on my experience with the Sony A7 III. My idea is that if I am going to have a camera with all the bells and whistles, might as well do it right and get the benefits of full frame, insane autofocus, ibis, and the option of Zeiss glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Something else emerging from this thread is how mature Fujis APSC lens lineup is. Leica's TL system is still relatively new, but the current lens line up is, after 4 years, rather stale with only the 11-23mm zoom and 35mm 1.4 looking like premium outfits. 

 

It could really do with a 2.8 constant normal zoom and a 23mm 1.4 prime, among others. Glass has always been Leica's edge against its competitors. It's surprising that they are not investing more into this for their APSC lineup, and more surprising that there is not a lot of noise coming from the TL/CL owners. 

Edited by jonatdonuts
Link to post
Share on other sites

The surprise is not that big. Regarding lens acceptance these are the most versatile cameras in Leica’s lineup. They accept hundreds of lenses.

As for the native L lenses you are making a big mistake in discounting all but the two you mention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jaap,

 

Not surprising that Leica hasn't invested more in APSC or the (lack of) reaction from owners? 

 

Granted you can use M and R lenses on the TL systems to good effect, but for those who already have the M, those lenses are better suited to the rangefinder. The main advantage I see in the CL / TL system is AF, zooms, and comparatively lighter and cheaper systems than their full frame counterparts. 

 

And in this regard I'm still struggling to see how the other TL lenses match up to expectations. No complaints about their optical quality, which is generally excellent across the board, but the aperture values are ordinary at best. A 3.5-5.6 variable aperture for an 18mm-56mm is one such example. 

 

We know that APSC systems, while getting better every year, compromise the level of control you have over the depth of field (due to the native lenses being wider than their full frame equivalent) and low light performance. Good quality, fast lenses can help to compensate for these losses, and it is after all good quality fast lenses that has been the hallmark of Leica ever since they scaled down from large format to 35mm. 

 

The technical capacity of the TL camera bodies are already more than good enough for a variety of applications. It is the limited lineup of lenses which restricts their potential. 

 

The surprise is not that big. Regarding lens acceptance these are the most versatile cameras in Leica’s lineup. They accept hundreds of lenses.
As for the native L lenses you are making a big mistake in discounting all but the two you mention.

Edited by jonatdonuts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether a FF sensor works better in low light (i.e 'high iso' settings) depends far more on individual sensor design than on the size of the sensor.

I have seen a comparison between fuji 24mpx aps-c and Sony FF 24mpx that showed no difference of consequence, and older sensors (such as M9?) Are likely worse than newer ones in general.

The most important differences IMHO, are in the dof possibilities and the weight and size of the equipment. 24mpx Sony A7 and 24mpx Fuji Xpro2 show no discernible difference in my experience in the high iso performance or in the sharpness of A2 prints.

 

Gerry

Edited by gyoung
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, point taken. But I was referring to current technology, i.e. CL sensor versus M10 sensor. When shot at the same settings with the same lens, there is still a noticeable difference at high ISOs. 

 

But yes, I have had the same experience in good light. Print the same image with the same lens with a CL and M10 body at A2 (even A1) and I wouldn't  be able to tell the difference. 

 

In regards to your comment on weight, I'm not sure that will continue to hold true in the future if this current weight-gaining trend continues. Some of those Fuji X series cameras are sizable beasts!

 

Whether a FF sensor works better in low light (i.e 'high iso' settings) depends far more on individual sensor design than on the size of the sensor.
I have seen a comparison between fuji 24mpx aps-c and Sony FF 24mpx that showed no difference of consequence, and older sensors (such as M9?) Are likely worse than newer ones in general.
The most important differences IMHO, are in the dof possibilities and the weight and size of the equipment. 24mpx Sony A7 and 24mpx Fuji Xpro2 show no discernible difference in my experience in the high iso performance or in the sharpness of A2 prints.

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a Fuji X100F on impulse but love it for snapshots. The quality it gives my makes me think twice before lugging around my Leica S and 3 lenses on a hiking trip.

 

This is why I used to have the Leica X series cameras. But those seem to lack some progression and are not renewed in ages. 

 

I still like the output of my little Leica X-E (X2) though.

 

The Fuji X100F files are strange to work with though, I'm not sure why... is it the X-Trans sensor? I find them hard to colour correct. 

 

Take a look here at an album of pictures from the Fuji X100F: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jipvankuijk/albums/72157669337312637

Edited by jip
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh I do miss my X. Put the TL sensor in an X body with that 23mm 1.4 lens with good AF and I'll keep quite about the limited TL lens lineup. 

I bought a Fuji X100F on impulse but love it for snapshots. The quality it gives my makes me think twice before lugging around my Leica S and 3 lenses on a hiking trip.

 

This is why I used to have the Leica X series cameras. But those seem to lack some progression and are not renewed in ages. 

 

I still like the output of my little Leica X-E (X2) though.

 

The Fuji X100F files are strange to work with though, I'm not sure why... is it the X-Trans sensor? I find them hard to colour correct. 

 

Take a look here at an album of pictures from the Fuji X100F: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jipvankuijk/albums/72157669337312637

Edited by jonatdonuts
Link to post
Share on other sites

The weight of an Xpro2 or xt2 is about 500 grams, I think the X1H is an aberration, if you 'need' IS in camera, ok, but all the Fuji zooms have OIS built in anyway.

I don't think Fuji has any significant weight advantage over Leica M, C or T, but the full frame SL and Sony cameras suffer from weight problems, especially with regard to the lenses, as do dslrs. Thus making the total weight carried around significantly higher.

Even with Fuji there are some which don't suit the system too well IMHO, but the ones I am interested in which are 'equivalent' for my purposes to what I have used most of my adult life on M film cameras (the 14, 23 and 35 f/2s and 60) are good, light and relatively small. I might have taken the Ts and CL more seriously if they had lenses to match those.

 

Gerry

Edited by gyoung
Link to post
Share on other sites

“... it is after all good quality fast lenses that has been the hallmark of Leica ever since they scaled down from large format to 35mm.”

 

Remind me, when did Leica scale down from large format? Or when Leica make large format cameras?

 

If you search Thorsten Overgaard’s website, you’ll find a blog of him taking a walk through Wetzlar with Leica’s head of lens design, Peter Karbe. He makes the comment that aperture selection is all about setting depth of field. The point is that ISO can largely be left to itself with modern sensors. More so now.

 

In another interview (I forget where), Peter Karbe makes the comment that fast zooms are simply too big for the APS-C system. The 35 Summilux-TL is a case in point. Nice lens, I don’t mind the size, but it is huge for such a system. A fast AF zoom for the TL would be impractically huge.

 

I tend to think Leica knows what they’re doing with lens design, and the nice thing is for all the L mount cameras, we have access to 60 years of M mount lenses, longer with LTM mount, 40(?) years of R lenses and any L mount lens. Older M and LTM lenses can be interesting and relatively cheap - I have two old lenses (135 Elmar from 1960 and 50 Summitar from 1948) that cost me less than $500.00. I’m currently considering an 85 Summarex from 1949.

 

Lots of choices, while the existing zooms cover 11-135mm, and there are 4 primes (18-23-35-60). Sounds like a system to me, with more to come, no doubt.

Edited by IkarusJohn
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.

×
×
  • Create New...