Fujifilm vs Leica

[jonatdonuts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies for my unclear passages. The point was that Leica scaled down the film size to 35mm format, and was able to compensate for the loss in quality with excellent lenses that got faster as technology progressed. 

 

Now, in regards to the argument on size, it's not very consistent. The SL is a mirrorless camera which was supposed to offer a more compact alternative to the mirror box offerings. However, Leica went in completely the other direction with their 'quality at all costs' concept.

 

In regards to the CL/TL line, I completely understand and appreciate the need to have compact zooms. However, give people some choice. I am sure there are more photographers willing to sacrifice a little bit of size and weight for more flexibility on the APSC system, without having to break the bank (and backs) for the SL. This is after all the point of inter changeable lens cameras. Different lenses for different needs.

 

Besides, Leica have already demonstrated they can make excellent fast, compact primes for APSC as with the 23mm 1.7. If Fuji can make a relatively short and stout 23mm 1.4 to which others here have reported is of high quality, I'm damn sure Leica have the technical capacity to pull it off, providing that they had the resources and will power to do it.  

 

But then again, this Thorsten does seem like a very reliable chap that certainly doesn't position himself as a corporate apologist whilst trying to flog us USD 5,000 elephant skin handbags....

 

“... 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 August 15, 2018 by jonatdonuts

[gyoung]

Yes adaption of old lenses is fine, and I like using my 50 Summicron, 90 and 135 Elmarits and even 200 Telyt.

But the 35 is huge isn't it? and it doesnt help with wide angle, the 18 is reputedly not so good (although possibly better than Fuji's) but where are the equivalents to the 14 and 16 Fujis? And there are other wides available from Laowa etc. Adaption is no good at those fields of view.

And I agree fast zooms don't seem to work, they seem to be too heavy and large for the bodies, but Fuji has an 18-55 2.8-4, which is a good compromise.

 

Gerry

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

I can’t imagine how big a faster zoom would be. But it would be huge. On the one hand, the 35 Summilux is too big (I don’t mind it, but it is big), but the even larger zooms are too slow? And the diminuitive 18 & 23 lenses aren’t as good as the zooms (read comments elsewhere on the forum). Add to that the condemnation of all of the SL lenses being over-priced, heavy behemoths!

 

Take a cruise through the Leica compendium (particularly the R lenses) and consider the size and weight of the 28-90 zoom, or the 180 Summicron-R f/2 (that will make your eyes water), or the legendary 280/4. Then look at what other manufacturers produce - Otuses (Otae?), and they don’t even have AF!

 

Quality doesn’t come cheap, and physics can’t be ignored.

Edited August 15, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[gyoung]

But you're ignoring the point, the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 isnt too big or heavy IMHO. And what about the 14 and 16? It can be done. Its dissaponting to hear that the 23/2 Leica isn't too good, both Fuji 23s are good.

If you need fast long lenses then as you say physics cant be ignored. And Fuji's 200 f/2 will make your shoulder ache,

Compact cameras need compact lenses, if its a big heavy lens than it doesn't matter much whether the camera weighs 500g or a kilo.

 

Gerry

[RomeoBravo]

But you're ignoring the point, the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 isnt too big or heavy IMHO. And what about the 14 and 16? It can be done. Its dissaponting to hear that the 23/2 Leica isn't too good, both Fuji 23s are good.

If you need fast long lenses then as you say physics cant be ignored. And Fuji's 200 f/2 will make your shoulder ache,

Compact cameras need compact lenses, if its a big heavy lens than it doesn't matter much whether the camera weighs 500g or a kilo.

 

Gerry

I'll add my 2 cents if anyone cares...

The cameras and lenses I've owned relevant to this thread are:

Fuji X-Pro2 with 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/1.3, 35/2, 56/1.2 APD, 90/2, the kit, and the two pro zooms

Leica T & Leica CL with 18/2.8, 23/2, 35/1.4

 

With the Fuji I was extremely relieved to not have to work for HOURS in post on skin tones (coming from a Sony).  I was very content.  The only thing I was "wowed" by with Fuji was the Bokeh of the 56 APD, and the sharpness of the 90/2.  Other than that, I was pretty underwhelmed.  After about a year, I started to think my shots had become rather stale and bland.  I went back through my library and noticed how much more detail, 3D pop, and Microcontrast my other pictures had (from Leica and Sony).  So I did a few comparisons, confirmed my suspicions, and sold ALL of my Fuji gear.

I really like the Leica 23/2.  I can't say it blows the Fuji lenses out of the water, but it is small, sharp, and fast.  I think it renders more detail than the Fuji 23/1.4.  Granted it is a lot more expensive than the Fuji lenses, but that applies to all of the other gear too.

 

...and to Gerry's point about the Fuji kit lens.  Yes, it is small, light, and quite good for a kit lens.  But the files it produces were so bland and mushy I sold it almost instantly.

Edited August 16, 2018 by RomeoBravo

[miro]

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

 

 

Where is the Leica Baby Q ?

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

I often look for images taken by Leica made lenses.

Flickr has tens of thousands for each lens. Often comes as on Sony A7 series cameras.

And here is something in A7 series sensor which put me off.

Also, every time I have A7 series camera in my shopping cart, I'm starting to look for lenses and Sony made lenses makes me to empty shopping cart.

Zeiss Sony mount lenses have no AF and they are kind of ugly in design. Even more ugly and seems to be bigger than in ZM mount.

[david strachan]

Hello Romeo

The 2nd generation X-trans sensor had plenty of complaints about mushiness. Those sensors were put into Fuji cameras after the XE-1 and the X Pro 1.

 

You might like to pick up an XE-1 body sometime...their sensors are very good, with excellent colour and skin tones. No mushy vegetation issues either.

 

All best...

[stray cat]

It's no competition at all: Velvia 50 output from my M6TTL looks wonderful.

[david strachan]

Yep. I still like using film, B&W or colour.

Love the different mediums, and using a film camera too.

 

Haven't done any slide film for a while though...usually MF in my

Fuji SW690...boy do those negs pop on a light box. Great for astronomy star trails.

 

...

[gyoung]

It's no competition at all: Velvia 50 output from my M6TTL looks wonderful.

Prefer Provia in my M3 and III...

 

Gerry

[stray cat]

Yep. I still like using film, B&W or colour.

Love the different mediums, and using a film camera too.

 

Haven't done any slide film for a while though...usually MF in my

Fuji SW690...boy do those negs pop on a light box. Great for astronomy star trails.

 

...

 

Yes David those Fuji beasts are incredible - I had a SW680 for a short time but decided I was more of a Mamiya 7 guy. Now that's gone too as I discovered I am really at heart a 35mm shooter.

 

Don't forget to post some astro shots on the I Like Film thread - they'd be a welcome and much appreciated addition! Same goes for those M3 and III Provia shots Gerry - would love to see some.