David_Manning
Well-known
Lasse,
My point wasn't that it's crazy to spend so much money for a Leica. My point was I think it's crazy to spend so much money for "dated" technology. Nothing Leica introduces is cutting edge...in fact, it's usually been done on other cameras for a while. That's ok for a camera who's selling point is "featureless basics," but they're now selling a camera which is, by all accounts, "fully-featured." They've re-created the 5DmkII for $8,000.
Some people won't bat an eyelash, and that's great for them and for Leica. But as a compact, high-quality image-making device, there are other, possibly better, options.
I like Leicas, and if they were the same price (or nearly so) as the X-Pro 1, I wouldn't hesitate. But spending quite a bit more money for a noisier, slower chip doesn't really make sense to me at this time (maybe if I win the lottery
)
My point wasn't that it's crazy to spend so much money for a Leica. My point was I think it's crazy to spend so much money for "dated" technology. Nothing Leica introduces is cutting edge...in fact, it's usually been done on other cameras for a while. That's ok for a camera who's selling point is "featureless basics," but they're now selling a camera which is, by all accounts, "fully-featured." They've re-created the 5DmkII for $8,000.
Some people won't bat an eyelash, and that's great for them and for Leica. But as a compact, high-quality image-making device, there are other, possibly better, options.
I like Leicas, and if they were the same price (or nearly so) as the X-Pro 1, I wouldn't hesitate. But spending quite a bit more money for a noisier, slower chip doesn't really make sense to me at this time (maybe if I win the lottery
)
CaptZoom
Established
***DELETED***
LSS said it better and without the sarcasm.
LSS said it better and without the sarcasm.
Lss
Well-known
That's exactly my point, though. As long as it does what you need, it can be a good buy. Being "dated" makes no difference, when competition doesn't even play the same game.
Herjulfr
Established
I was in a similar position, but instead of a digital leica, i was on the verge of buying a Zeiss Ikon.
So far i' happy. I thought i would use leica m mount lenses, but after all i'm more than happy with the native AF fuji lenses, although they are a bit larger due to the Af mechanism. I would miss AF now, and the evf.
So far i' happy. I thought i would use leica m mount lenses, but after all i'm more than happy with the native AF fuji lenses, although they are a bit larger due to the Af mechanism. I would miss AF now, and the evf.
Mcary
Well-known
Keep thinking how great it would be to have a Leica M9 or M-E, but also keep wondering if I'd really get my money's worth out of it. Don't mean that its isn't worth what it cost but rather wondering if I'd be using it enough to justify putting $5000-6500 into a system vs $1800-3000 for an X system kit. Right now I'm kind of in a wait and see mod as I want to see which of the new X100s focusing features end up on the X-1 Pro V2.
I've also thought of getting an M8+wide angle and 50mm to use a long sized my X100. M8 when I get use an ISO of 640 or lower and the X100 for high ISO situations, but worried about getting on with the dead pixel lines.
I've also thought of getting an M8+wide angle and 50mm to use a long sized my X100. M8 when I get use an ISO of 640 or lower and the X100 for high ISO situations, but worried about getting on with the dead pixel lines.
David_Manning
Well-known
Just to clarify, I'm not picking on Leica products. I'm just stating my own opinion...I would choose (and did choose) the best compact RF-like system for the money. My opinion is digital Leica bodies are overpriced. If your budget allows, enjoy it. I chose performance over cachet.
CaptZoom
Established
Fair enough.
^No longer an opinion, rather an empirical claim that may or may not be true.
Quite a demeaning statement to make, especially considering there's another empirical claim within that statement isn't shown to be true.
Lss
Well-known
Perfectly clear there.
I'm only interested in performance. But performance comes in many forms, and not everyone views each aspect the same.
David_Manning
Well-known
I'm sure we can all agree, performance has many different aspects regarding photography. At the end of the day, each photographer will decide based upon their own definition of performance which camera feature is most important.
CaptZoom, I'm not making any empirical statements. These are all my own opinions. Nico, the OP, asked for opinions. I apologize if I made you feel defensive about Leica with my opinions.
CaptZoom, I'm not making any empirical statements. These are all my own opinions. Nico, the OP, asked for opinions. I apologize if I made you feel defensive about Leica with my opinions.
N.delaRua
Well-known
... I am interested in this thread purely as a stalker and as a person who has contemplated selling my M6 for a Fuji X series.
For me, the interest in the X-series is pretty simple. Small, great IQ, optional OVF/EVF, great fix focal length lenses, good value for the quality and size.
The facts are pretty simple, owing a Leica is expensive, buying a digital Leica is prohibitively expensive for me. If I had expendable income would I be interested in a M9 and 35 Lux... sure. For me, its not going to happen for at least ten years, if ever. Please do not interpret these comments as envy. I love the rangefinder, fully manual ethos. The M9 seems to be the nearest digital interpretation of a M6.
However, what strikes me most about the Fuji X-series is the innovation. I love the idea of the X-Trans although it leads issues in the future... I love that it spits out non-hard disk destroying beautiful JPEGS. I love the manual controls. I love the high iso performance, its almost comical... especially after just shooting illford 3200 in the darkest of dark music venues. God, I wish I had 6400...
I think technical superiority in the digital world is converging. All cameras/optical systems have trade offs, but I have made lots of pleasant 8X10 and even 11X18 prints that look great from a proper viewing distance from 5 mp film scans. That blows my mind, and makes me realize that a 16 mp APS-C camera has more than enough resolution to satisfy me...
I even like Illford 3200 printed huge... So iso 6400 probably looks great on paper...
Just get the Fuji and enjoy life. You probably are not missing out on anything actually worthwhile.
For me, the interest in the X-series is pretty simple. Small, great IQ, optional OVF/EVF, great fix focal length lenses, good value for the quality and size.
The facts are pretty simple, owing a Leica is expensive, buying a digital Leica is prohibitively expensive for me. If I had expendable income would I be interested in a M9 and 35 Lux... sure. For me, its not going to happen for at least ten years, if ever. Please do not interpret these comments as envy. I love the rangefinder, fully manual ethos. The M9 seems to be the nearest digital interpretation of a M6.
However, what strikes me most about the Fuji X-series is the innovation. I love the idea of the X-Trans although it leads issues in the future... I love that it spits out non-hard disk destroying beautiful JPEGS. I love the manual controls. I love the high iso performance, its almost comical... especially after just shooting illford 3200 in the darkest of dark music venues. God, I wish I had 6400...
I think technical superiority in the digital world is converging. All cameras/optical systems have trade offs, but I have made lots of pleasant 8X10 and even 11X18 prints that look great from a proper viewing distance from 5 mp film scans. That blows my mind, and makes me realize that a 16 mp APS-C camera has more than enough resolution to satisfy me...
I even like Illford 3200 printed huge... So iso 6400 probably looks great on paper...
Just get the Fuji and enjoy life. You probably are not missing out on anything actually worthwhile.
Pete B
Well-known
Why is it that people often suggest that the only reason to spend a fortune on a Leica digital camera rather than a better performing digital camera is because it's a status symbol? Why can't I just buy a camera I like the look of because I've got the money and it's got the features I want and takes the lenses I own and focuses mechanically just the way I like?
Pete (not yet a digital Leica owner because I don't think they've made one worth buying yet)
CaptZoom
Established
When you use the term "best at x", you're making an empirical claim. When you say "x has better performance", you're making an empirical claim. On the other hand, if you were use terms such as "like" than you're stating opinions without empirical claims. Contrary to your opinion, I'm not defensive about my M9 (doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks about my choice of camera system). However, the OP deserves to have empirical claims justified.
aldobonnard
Well-known
None of them as of now.
Epson R-D1.
;-)
Epson R-D1.
;-)
bhop73
Well-known
I have been using my X100 since Sept. 2011. It handles a lot like a rangefinder, it's the only digital camera I actually like using, and it's taken away any digital Leica lust that I once had and left me wanting an X-Pro1 (or 2 if I wait long enough).
Mostly it's the cost aspect. I mean, I do love rangefinder focusing that i'd miss out on with the Fujis.. but there is the 'dated technology' reasons as well. I have an M6 and love shooting film through it, but considering how well my X100 handles my photography needs, I don't think digital Ms are worth the cost.
Mostly it's the cost aspect. I mean, I do love rangefinder focusing that i'd miss out on with the Fujis.. but there is the 'dated technology' reasons as well. I have an M6 and love shooting film through it, but considering how well my X100 handles my photography needs, I don't think digital Ms are worth the cost.
I'm a X100 and X-Pro1 user as well as a M8 user (and a former M9 user). The way I see it, the Leica Digital M is for those who absolutely prefer manual focus lenses, rangefinder focus, and the closest thing to a film M camera ergonomics in digital. Outside of that, the Fujis are great. Both are high quality cameras that you cannot go wrong with (well, at least for amateurs).
morgan
Well-known
I have an x100, an R-D1, and a Canon 7D. I've been debating an xe-1/xp1 but I just can't get past the slow AF. It's ok in certain circumstances, awful in others. I find myself going back to my R-D1 because I just prefer using the rangefinder if I can't get speedy AF (like from my 7D). I came into a little money recently and I'm debating a used M9 or M-E, or alternatively waiting for the second versions of the xe1/xp1, which will hopefully have some of the upcoming x100s features.
To the OP, go and handle the XP1 first to make sure you can live with the AF, as I find the manual focus on the x100 and the lenses I've tried on the xp1 to be awful. That and the lack of proper raw support in LR (I'm not switching raw processors or adding steps to my workflow) keep me from buying one. The JPG IQ looks fantastic though, especially with the 35.
To the OP, go and handle the XP1 first to make sure you can live with the AF, as I find the manual focus on the x100 and the lenses I've tried on the xp1 to be awful. That and the lack of proper raw support in LR (I'm not switching raw processors or adding steps to my workflow) keep me from buying one. The JPG IQ looks fantastic though, especially with the 35.
back alley
IMAGES
the af on the fujis is about as fast as i was with my rd1...works ok for me.
morgan
Well-known
True, but for me it's a control thing. I'd rather be the one charge of focusing and have the ability to quickly pre-focus rather than the sometimes agonizing wait as your subject moves on as the AF tries to lock. I just find it frustrating sometimes. I'd rather blame myself for missing the shot than have the camera be limiting factor. I know lots of people are fine with it, but for me there's a confidence I have using my R-D1 that I don't have with the x100, especially when shooting anything moving.
If the fuji's had better manual focus or distance scales on the lens, I could work with that, but for me it doesn't add up to a purchase. The x100s looks to improve the autofocus and manual focus significantly, so I'm really looking forward to that and the next revs of the xp1 and xe1.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm right there with you, complete agreement.
What I've found over the years of equipment buying, using, and selling, and the thousands of exposures made with all of them, is that two things really stand out that elevate a camera:
- Consistency in operation :: I want to make a setting and have it stay there until I change it, I don't want the camera to second guess my settings or change them without my explicit intent to do so. AF by its very nature is always changing the focus setting ...
- Responsiveness :: This came home to me when I took the ancient Robot II out for my first shooting session with it. Set the exposure, set the focus for the conditions, wind it up. The camera is now immediately ready for the next 10-15 exposures, as fast as I can hit the*shutter release button. Talk about a way to capture nuances in facial expression! I may miss on a few exposures because I forgot to focus critically, but like as not I've caught the expression I wanted.
The inconsistent behavior and lags in cameras with a lot of automation are what have motivated me use simpler, manually operated cameras with direct, responsive controls more of the time. I find they give me results that I've had a hard time achieving otherwise.
G
jody36
Well-known
Digital I choose fuji cause i would rather throw away 1299 than 6999?