From Fujifilm to Leica: My Experience with the M11

[LanceR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Henners I had a similar experience with the X-E3.  Wonderful camera except for the autofocus.  Since I had a complement of X system lenses, I actually tried the Xpro3 for sometime.  I didn't feel the tradeoff was right for me, exchanging the Xpro OVF for the increase in size.  I got a Leica M11 last January and sold my entire Fuji collection a few months later.

[Tailwagger]

On 1/7/2023 at 4:08 PM, robsonj said:

Small but mighty

True, until inevitably the dust gets sucked into it.  Then its just a lovely brick.

[Alberti]

Our Fujifilm X100S looked terrible in Lightroom 6.14. But all at once in Lightroom classic it performs again. There must be a good profile, too bad they are not exporting these to LR 6.14 users.

Not that I nor my wife use it . . .

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, Alberti said:

Our Fujifilm X100S looked terrible in Lightroom 6.14. But all at once in Lightroom classic it performs again. There must be a good profile, too bad they are not exporting these to LR 6.14 users.

Not that I nor my wife use it . . .

The demosaicing of the X-Trans file was much improved. If you are still on the old Lightroom versions, you can use Iridient X-transformer to demosaic X-Trans files.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

16 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The demosaicing of the X-Trans file was much improved. If you are still on the old Lightroom versions, you can use Iridient X-transformer to demosaic X-Trans files.

It certainly is but I still find that the latest version of DXO is better now it supports my XH2 and XT5. Soon it will support the SL APO Summicrons as well. For a file I really like a quick round trip to DXO is giving really good results. I like them more than LR alone.

Gordon

[SrMi]

Just now, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It certainly is but I still find that the latest version of DXO is better now it supports my XH2 and XT5. Soon it will support the SL APO Summicrons as well. For a file I really like a quick round trip to DXO is giving really good results. I like them more than LR alone.

Gordon

Yes, DxO works well for X-Trans and has the additional benefit of excellent NR.

DxO tends to apply different lens corrections than LrC, which sometimes leads to wider images than JPEGs. Otherwise, an essential tool, IMO.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, jqian6 said:

I am on this route too.

I currently have a Fuji X-T30, plus 4 prime lenses.

I am going to sell the body, and one of the least used fjicon lens to partially finance my purchase of M11.

In about one year, I will decide from:

1), Sell the reset of my fujicon lenses to finance a new Leica M lens.

2), Buy a newer body maybe X-T6. (I really don't like X-T5)

Interesting. Why don’t you like the XT5? I really like the XT5. I just wish the 33mm was better. Going to try the SIgma 35 1.4.

Likely the XPro4 will get the XT5.XH2 sensor. Maybe that’ll suit better.

Gordon

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jqian6 said:

one is that autofocus of x-t5 is not as good as x-t4.

besides, the lowest iso is 125 which is really weird.

I would rather wait for pro4

My brief experience, the general consensus, and the specifications say that X-T5 has better AF. How long did you test X-T5?

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

5 hours ago, jqian6 said:

one is that autofocus of x-t5 is not as good as x-t4.

besides, the lowest iso is 125 which is really weird.

I would rather wait for pro4

I think you have that backwards. The AF of my XT5 is significantly improved over my XT4. Maybe the camera was set up wrong.

As far as the ISO they’re both weird (if that even matters). Base ISO on the XT4 is 160.

I’m also looking forward to the XPro4, if they fix a few of the XPro3 quirks. I like viewfinders on the left.

Gordon

Edited January 13, 2023 by FlashGordonPhotography

[RMF]

The XT5 is intriguing to me and I’m going to pick one up to try: looking forward to adapting both modern and vintage Leica glass on it, and combing it with the the multitudes of film simulation recipes that the Fuji community creators have developed.  Check out Fuji X Weekly site for what some are doing with the X-trans v sensor. Pretty cool.

Edited January 13, 2023 by RMF

[FlashGordonPhotography]

18 hours ago, jqian6 said:

one is that autofocus of x-t5 is not as good as x-t4.

Above is you

12 hours ago, jqian6 said:

Maybe you are right. I have never handled X-T4…(snip)…

and again….

If you don’t like the XT5 fine. But you’re saying things you can’t back up.

The XT5 focus is better than the XT30, or any other Fujis except the XH2 and XH2-S.

[Ne314satel]

On 1/7/2023 at 12:49 PM, Fatih said:

Fujifilm user who switched to a Leica

At first I thought that we were talking about changing from GFX 100 (S) to m11. And I was surprised, because these are cameras for different uses and usually people have them together rather than moving from one to another. But good luck with the m11, it's a different world in terms of money)) and also in terms of photographic technique.

[PeterGA]

Nice review and nice shots to go with it - enjoy your camera and thanks for posting.

Edited January 17, 2023 by PeterGA
spelling

[colint544]

On 1/7/2023 at 9:08 PM, robsonj said:

Small but mighty

Agreed. I have a GR3 that I bought back in January 2020, just as a pocket camera. I've ended up using it an awful lot more than I ever expected to. The picture quality is great, and it's lightning fast in operation. An APS-C sensor camera that fits in your pocket.

It's pretty tough too. I dropped it in the road one time, and put a dent in the metal ring around the front of the lens housing. This turned out to be a good thing, because the ring can come off and be lost, but the dent seems to have permanently welded it to the housing. 

It's a fabulous little image-making machine.

[colint544]

8 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I am a Fujifilm GFX user and the autofocus is at 2017 level, but I love using M lenses on mine, since my most used GFX lens is the Mitakon 65/1.4 and totally MF.

 

Just curious - are they easy to use with the GFX, Al? Can you use the full sensor area, is there vignetting?

[sometimesmaybe]

the M to GF mount adaptor can be a faff to use. i prefer using m42 glass on the GFX instead. a lot of the 50mm lenses will cover the whole GFX sensor, but the corners can get really wild. for me that's part of the fun. there's something oddly satisfying about pushing 100mp through vintage glass

[colint544]

3 hours ago, Al Brown said:

There is a wafer thin adapter to match the flange distance and some lenses do cover the 44x33 sensor, some do not. Of course when I say cover I mean without hard vignetting and smeared edges. Really depends on the focal length of each M lens.

 

3 hours ago, sometimesmaybe said:

the M to GF mount adaptor can be a faff to use. i prefer using m42 glass on the GFX instead. a lot of the 50mm lenses will cover the whole GFX sensor, but the corners can get really wild. for me that's part of the fun. there's something oddly satisfying about pushing 100mp through vintage glass

Thanks, guys. That's very helpful. I've been shooting Kodak Gold and Portra in my Plaubel Makina 67 these past couple of years. I calculated that - including developing and scanning - it's costing around £3.40 every time I press the shutter release. Never mind what it costs me in time going to the lab, and going to the facility to scan my negs.

Kodak are about to increase the prices of some of their films again, this time by 40%. It's becoming unsustainable for me, and the more I look into the GFX100s, the more appealing it looks. Thank you.

[Spohndre]

2022 was a medical nightmare for me. (This is relevant, I promise.)

After 3 surgeries and admonishment from my doctors about lifting and carrying too much, I had to seriously rethink the amount of kit I carried for work. (Nikon Z7II along with the "trinity" zooms.) My primary gig is with a local newspaper, covering everything newsworthy in my small corner of the world. 

So my search began for a way to carry less and still be able to do my job. 

In the 90's I was fortunate enough to be able to borrow an M6 several times, and was amazed by the experience. But I need to shoot digital now, and the Leica price tags can be frightening. The X-Pro3 looked on paper to be a reasonable compromise, with a similar shooting experience and a cost that wouldn't keep me up at night. So I ordered an X-Pro3 along with Fujifilm's 16mm f2.8 and 35mm f2.0

To be kind, it was underwhelming. The best way I could describe the files was thin. That coupled with a shooting experience that never felt right, quickly led me to realise I had made a mistake. 

So after some soul (and wallet) searching, I bought an M11 along with a 35mm Summilux and a 21mm Super-Elmar. The difference is worlds apart. The files are rich and brilliant, better than anything I've shot before. 

As for the shooting experience; The way I described it to my SO was, "Shooting with the Leica is a reminder that the work I do is important."

And now I have an X-Pro3 for sale.

 

[grahamc]

On 1/18/2023 at 8:43 PM, colint544 said:

 

Thanks, guys. That's very helpful. I've been shooting Kodak Gold and Portra in my Plaubel Makina 67 these past couple of years. I calculated that - including developing and scanning - it's costing around £3.40 every time I press the shutter release. Never mind what it costs me in time going to the lab, and going to the facility to scan my negs.

Kodak are about to increase the prices of some of their films again, this time by 40%. It's becoming unsustainable for me, and the more I look into the GFX100s, the more appealing it looks. Thank you.

Hi Colin

They are shocking costs aren't they .  Regarding the Makina 67 ... Some reviews mention the focusing dial to be tricky - would you mind sharing your experience?  

I plan to buy a portable MF rangefinder (for street portraiture) and down to PB67 or Mamiya 6.    

I played with a Mamiya 6 at the weekend and found it extremely intuitive for a Leica user.   But in looking through the Flickr galleries for both cameras I am far more drawn to the images from the Makina 67, they are just lovely and remind me more of classic Leica glass.   

All personal preferences I know, but any thoughts on the ease of use of the PB67 would be appreciated. 

Thanks 

G 
 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[colint544]

8 hours ago, grahamc said:

Hi Colin

They are shocking costs aren't they .  Regarding the Makina 67 ... Some reviews mention the focusing dial to be tricky - would you mind sharing your experience?  

I plan to buy a portable MF rangefinder (for street portraiture) and down to PB67 or Mamiya 6.    

I played with a Mamiya 6 at the weekend and found it extremely intuitive for a Leica user.   But in looking through the Flickr galleries for both cameras I am far more drawn to the images from the Makina 67, they are just lovely and remind me more of classic Leica glass.   

All personal preferences I know, but any thoughts on the ease of use of the PB67 would be appreciated. 

Thanks 

G 
 

Hi Graham,

Cheers, yes. OK, here's my experience of the Makina 67..

I bought mine from a guy I know in Glasgow, just over a couple of years ago. It was in lovely condition, and I found it immediately easy to get on with. The rangefinder patch is large, and I'd say even easier - for me anyway - to nail focus with than a Leica M. The greatest thing about the Makina 67 is the lens. It's hard to describe precisely why. It's not overly sterile, like the Mamiya 7 lenses can be. It's certainly very sharp, but it blends that with an old-school charm that defies description. And it's still lovely at 2.8, an aperture that few medium format cameras can go to.

I also like that the lens is fixed. I shot an entire project on this camera, and the fixed lens gave the images a uniform quality. Another advantage is that the camera is very slim - although heavy - when folded shut, so it's fairly portable.

Sadly, halfway through my project, the film advance jammed, and I had to get the camera repaired. It turned out that the shutter wasn't re-cocking correctly either. My project films were all in a big box awaiting processing. When I got them developed, there were nine films with nothing on them. Other ones had occasional blank frames. That was a bit of a disaster, but I took it on the chin, and the camera has behaved faultlessly since the repair.

This is not uncommon with the Makina 67. The bodyshell, the bellows, the tongs which support the bellows, and the lens are all solidly constructed, and almost over-enhgineered. The trouble is the internals, which are known to be a bit fragile. The film advance is a known Achillies heel. So you have to wind on very smoothly, and not just let the lever spring back by itself. And, like most bellows cameras, you must remember to set it to infinity before you fold it shut.

So, it's not a perfect camera. I love mine, and since I've spent £220 (about a year ago) on repairs, it's been fine. The big beautifully detailed negatives it produces make me forgive it pretty much anything. The design is superb. It's so minimalist, and even the font where it says Plaubel and Makina is Helvetica, the standard font today for Apple Macs. It's a beautiful picture-making machine, simple to use and carry. You just have to take a bit of care with it.