Jump to content

Leica and Fuji Image Resolution


Mike Hawley

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having been a fan of Leica for fifty years and owning a number of non-M Leica digital cameras I have recently developed the Leica M “itch”. I am hoping to buy an M10 and a couple of lenses. I currently use Fuji cameras as well.
While researching which Leica lenses to choose I compared their image resolution characteristics with similar Fuji lenses and the Leica lenses came a poor second to the Fuji lenses. Lenstip.com clearly shows a significant difference in their Image Resolution capabilities both graphically and in photo crops. Am I missing something in interpretation here. I would appreciate any help that the forum could give me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Lenstip must be a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. If I were you I would look at some more reliable sites. Nothing wrong with Fuji lenses, in fact they are mostly quite good, but Leica clearly is in a different class.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 That is a good point. Before you believe the Leica Marketing department you can as well check the data from lenstip. I have no indication that the site is not serious. There is probably another point that is very important: DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2 LENSES? Manly in this forum we read such a lot about Leica colors or 3 dimensional Leica look. I must say that with my Canon lenses I make as 3 dimensional pictures. To be serious: In Lightroom I can change colors so that no one sees any  difference between the 2 cameras. Of course Leica lenses are of very good quality; whatever this means. A friend of mine had a photograph of 120cm x 80cm at an exhibition in Zurich. That friend is a Leica photographer. But his picture at the exhibition was taken by a Fuji X100F. He did not mind. But if you train yourself as a pixel peeper you will become very good at it and you will see some differences . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do keep in mind that on-screen 100% crops are one thing, and blowing up an APS-C image and a full 24x36 (M9/240/10) image to the same final print size is another.

The Fuji XF lenses have to be at least ~50% "better" than lenses for FF (full-frame) cameras - in terms of the absolute MTF they produce - just to keep up.

E.G. a given Leica lens for FF that gets 50% contrast at 50 lpmm will only be beat by a Fuji lens that gets 50% contrast at 75 lpmm. (Approximately).

This is true across all formats - "35mm" lenses have always had to be better than medium-format lenses, and MF lenses have to be better than large-format (4x5 film) lenses, and tiny-sensor P&S or 'phone lenses (or Minox 8mm film lenses) have to be better then either Fuji or Leica-M lenses. Simply because they start with the handicap of a smaller image area.

Some sites get around comparing apples to oranges by using a non-standard measure, usually something like "line pairs per picture height."

It is, of course, legitimate to compare Leica TL lenses (not M) and Fuji lenses, since those are both for the same format - APS-C. Apples to apples.

Lenstip.com is OK - they are just real short on actual Leica M lens tests. 28, 50, 75 Summicrons

But you can compare, say, the Leica-M 28mm Summicron MTF chart here: https://www.lenstip.com/233.4-Lens_review-Leica_Summicron-M_28_mm_f_2.0_Asph_Image_resolution.html

...with the Fuji 18mm f/2 chart (same equivalent field of view) here: https://www.lenstip.com/349.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_18_mm_f_2_R_Image_resolution.html

So let's look at those.

At f/2, the Fuji gets center MTF50 of 48% contrast

The Leica Summicron gets 33% (x 1.5 = 49.5%). slight but insignificant edge to Leica.

At f/5.6, the Fuji peaks at about 62% contrast - the Leica peaks at the same aperture - off-scale, but about 53% (x 1.5 = 79.5%!). Statistically significant difference in favor of Leica.

Edited by adan
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, adan said:

Do keep in mind that on-screen 100% crops are one thing, and blowing up an APS-C image and a full 24x36 (M9/240/10) image to the same final print size is another.

The Fuji XF lenses have to be at least ~50% "better" than lenses for FF (full-frame) cameras - in terms of the absolute MTF they produce - just to keep up.

E.G. a given Leica lens for FF that gets 50% contrast at 50 lpmm will only be beat by a Fuji lens that gets 50% contrast at 75 lpmm. (Approximately).

This is true across all formats - "35mm" lenses have always had to be better than medium-format lenses, and MF lenses have to be better than large-format (4x5 film) lenses, and tiny-sensor P&S or 'phone lenses (or Minox 8mm film lenses) have to be better then either Fuji or Leica-M lenses. Simply because they start with the handicap of a smaller image area.

Some sites get around comparing apples to oranges by using a non-standard measure, usually something like "line pairs per picture height."

It is, of course, legitimate to compare Leica TL lenses (not M) and Fuji lenses, since those are both for the same format - APS-C. Apples to apples.

Lenstip.com is OK - they are just real short on actual Leica M lens tests. 28, 50, 75 Summicrons

But you can compare, say, the Leica-M 28mm Summicron MTF chart here: https://www.lenstip.com/233.4-Lens_review-Leica_Summicron-M_28_mm_f_2.0_Asph_Image_resolution.html

...with the Fuji 18mm f/2 chart (same equivalent field of view) here: https://www.lenstip.com/349.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_18_mm_f_2_R_Image_resolution.html

So let's look at those.

At f/2, the Fuji gets center MTF50 of 48% contrast

The Leica Summicron gets 33% (x 1.5 = 49.5%). slight but insignificant edge to Leica.

At f/5.6, the Fuji peaks at about 62% contrast - the Leica peaks at the same aperture - off-scale, but about 53% (x 1.5 = 79.5%!). Statistically significant difference in favor of Leica.

Thanks, Andy. I didn't realize that this was comparing between different formats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mike Hawley said:

Having been a fan of Leica for fifty years and owning a number of non-M Leica digital cameras I have recently developed the Leica M “itch”. I am hoping to buy an M10 and a couple of lenses. I currently use Fuji cameras as well.
While researching which Leica lenses to choose I compared their image resolution characteristics with similar Fuji lenses and the Leica lenses came a poor second to the Fuji lenses. Lenstip.com clearly shows a significant difference in their Image Resolution capabilities both graphically and in photo crops. Am I missing something in interpretation here. I would appreciate any help that the forum could give me. 

Either camera system can produce great photos - I’d argue a pro with a Fuji could make nicer photos than me with a Leica.
 

Photography is about so much more than graphs and charts and quantifiable data. If buying an M makes you want to go out and take more photos, then buy one.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than getting hung up on charts, etc would it not be better to simply download raw files from each and make the comparison with your own eyes? To eliminate the difference in format and sensor, I believe some individuals have used Fuji glass on Leica M cameras, and have posted reviews - with images. I've owned a Fuji X100 and X Pro 1. Made some nice images and really liked the cameras, but no comparison to my Leica bodies and lenses...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Many thanks for your wisdom guys. I can see the argument for using the camera you love and enjoying your photography. I think my personal passion for Leica cameras is driven mostly by nostalgia. All the great photos shot as I was growing up were shot with Leica. I also have a love for compact well made objects. However I find being suckered by marketing jargon that obscures honest comparison leaves me less than happy.

I think Leica cameras appeal to my emotional side but my rational side has reservations. I suspect guys who claim Leica are a class above other makes are possibly a little more emotional than rational. Because it costs 5 to 10 times more doesn’t mean that it’s any better if there’s no data to support the view but if it answers some emotional need then hey what’s money got to do with it?

As a Yorkshireman I am atypical in being “canny with a Bob” and the thought that I spending 5 to 10 times more on something that isn’t any better in technical practical terms has me waking in a cold sweat. I would really like to buy an M10 because I’ve always coveted one but Mr Rational still isn’t convinced by terms like: special colour, 3D pop, and different class.


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a many reasons to want a Leica M, but only one, in my view, that justifies the cost.  One has to prefer to manually focus with a rangefinder over the other methods of achieving focus.  If that is not the case then the M won't be a practical purchase.  Put another way, if my digital Ms were autofocus bodies I would not own them. For the same reason I have no interest in Leica's other offerings in the 35mm (and smaller) formats.

Regarding Leica M-Mount lenses.  In order to see and focus the lens has to be relatively small in diameter in order to block as little of the view/rangefinder widow.  This can put constraints on the lens design that are not present in lenses that are designed for through-the-lens focusing.  Those constraints often result in higher costs. Are there better and less expensive lenses? Absolutely, but they are unsuitable for use on a rangefinder body. My experience is the Leica glass is excellent and fully equal to my needs.  I have also had very good experience with the less costly Voightlander m-mount glass.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot a Sony A7ii happily for 3 years and it was wonderful with the Zeiss and Sony lenses. Having tired of reading endless comparisons and so on of both, I bought an M10 two months ago and have not regretted it. I shot the Sony mostly in manual mode and used mostly manual lenses so it was fitting to transition to the M10 and two Leica lenses so far.

M10 and Leica lenses are probably better than Fuji or Sony but then again there is a major price disparity. I have a Zeiss Loxia for the Sony and a Distagon for the M10 both  these lenses would give Summicron a hard time.

Re Fuji v Leica - below is interesting

https://nwinspeare.com/2017/02/26/fuji-vs-leica/

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if someone loves photography and loves cameras and simple mechanical technique and loves style and best made quality and loves design . . .

Well that is Leica M10 and a 35mm Summilux to start with. 

What else is there out there to compete? But photography hast to be your hobby not just a flash in your head. I bought one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2020 at 3:30 PM, Mike Hawley said:

Am I missing something in interpretation here.

I don't think so, but I would like to suggest you perhaps consider reframing the discussion a bit.

Over the last couple of years I've disposed of three different medium format systems including Fuji,  Hasselblad, and Pentax.  Sold a bunch of Leica equipment paying for them.  One of those things in life you can only look back upon and think "Well, it looked like a good idea at the time."  :)

Fuji lenses feature demonstrably world class optics.  So do a bunch of other makes.  Personally I don't think the "feel" of their construction/mechanics/operation approaches that of the finely crafted Leica offerings, but that's certainly a personal preference and Fuji unarguable makes some fine stuff.  The cameras themselves produced some truely wonderful files.  All three systems did.

But, for me, they wern't fun to use.  PITA in fact.  They've been replaced by pretty much the same stuff I sold in order to buy into medium format.  I had my facts straight, they just weren't the right facts. :)

Unless you have some particular problem you are trying to address, I'm not convinced that maximum technical correctness is the most important consideration.  

I think the facts you are evaluating are pretty much correct, I'm just not convinced that, for you (as in "Having been a fan of Leica for fifty years" and "I am hoping to buy an M10" ) they are the appropriate set of facts :) 

Use the one that's the most fun. 

And Lenstip.com can kiss my Tri-Emar :)

(in the interest of full disclosure, I kept the Nikons :) )

Edited by Good To Be Retired
  • Like 1
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...