I think with M lenses, it's best to go with a M.
DwF
Well-known
+1 regarding Fuji and M lenses. I used to use my M lenses when I first got my X E2 but find the native lenses just work better with the Fuji cameras.
This is an interesting discussion for me because I am using the MM and considering upgrading from my X E2 to X Pro 2.
I had an opportunity today to play with an X Pro2 and liked it a lot. I was struck after reading so much fuss about the design of the ISO dial -I found it easy to use.
Relating to the OP, at least in comparing these very different cameras but from a user aspect, I having been shooting with my MM for a while now, and came away thinking I'd need to focus on just shooting with and learning my way around the X Pro2 to get it to feel second nature. I have made some really nice enlargements from my X E2 too but I always come back to Leica for the images it produces but also the simplicity of design and operation.
As an aside, at the store today were two others who shoot M9 and handling the M10, we all found it to be considerably heavier than the M9 ...sigh of relief I won't be lusting for that camera anytime soon.
JHutchins
Well-known
Your M lenses will no longer have the same field of view when used on the Fuji. Do not underestimate how important this is. In addition, all of your wide lenses will perform markedly worse as you move to the edge of the field on the Fuji than they will on the Leica (this is true even though the Fuji uses a smaller part of the image circle produced by the lens).
If what you're looking to do is save money the Fuji may still be a solid choice -- I can't know how much of an issue money is for you. From any other perspective, though, given your desire to continue using your M lenses it's hard to see how the Fuji would not ultimately be unsatisfying for you.
Which is not to say it isn't a wonderful camera. It's just that it's hard to see how it's the camera for you.
Lss
Well-known
The image quality from the Leica will be noticeably better. The biggest difference regarding the result however is that the framing will be very different for the same perspective as the Fuji has a smaller sensor.
Using a Fuji lens will actually improve the image quality of the Fuji in most cases. Despite the crop, it does not perform particularly well with wide/widish M lenses.
MIkhail
Well-known
I currently own a Leica M6 and a Fuji X-Pro1. I am considering a purchase.
Leica M6 & Fuji X-Pro1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
That's a cool grip. May I ask where do they sell?
Thank you.
narsuitus
Well-known
If I remember correctly, I purchased it from a Chinese seller on eBay.
MIkhail
Well-known
Thanks, but I did a search and not found specifically one like that. Really liked the shape.
If you have a chance, can you look up the name? No rush.
Thanks.
shawn
Mentor
If you use a glassless adapter. There is an adapter coming out which will keep the FOV almost the same.
http://www.kipon.com/en/articledetail.asp?id=100
Can't say how they work though as I have never tried that one. I do use a Lens Turbo II Nikon to Fuji adapter though.
Shawn
shawn
Mentor
MIkhail
Well-known
Thank you again.
shawn
Mentor
Not sure why buy my link is being redirected. Search e bay for LB-XPRO1 and you will find the grip for about $17 delivered.
Shawn
Shawn
vha
Isn't it coffee time ?
I have the Xpro2 and the 1 gen monochrome, think both of them are great cameras, each on it own terms.
Bought the monochrome because I started to look in my albums (paper not screen) and after a while I realized that I missed the style a rangefinder got me (had a Fuji X-E2 at the time) but also the signature of those lenses (50mm elmar-M 2gen and 35mm nokton 1.2)
So to make it simple, same glass as "the good old times" but a Monochrome instead of a M6 with Kodak BW400CN or Delta 100.
For me the signature of the lenses, less buttons an nobs, and that it acts as black and white filme is the key. And full frame, almost forgot that.
Fuji has nice lenses, great colors, easy to use, fast and weather sealed, a bargain compared to anything leica.
But it´s not a leica, not a rangefinder, thou it is convenient, does have arcos simulation and wifi for easy sharing of images
(birthdays, holidays and so on) Also the Fuji did work right of of the box, to afford the monochrome I bought it second hand,
took me a year and 3 visit to weslar to bring it back to shipshape. Now its better than new, a new monochrome would not have these challenges (no ccd corroding or shutter problems)
Get both if you can afford it, or at least a monochrome and a Fuji X100T/F
Xpro-1 was a great camera but did not get "in touch" with the fujis before the X100T (perhaps this time i used it all manual?)
Anyway thats my two cents (or should I say two Norwegian Kroner?)
Also great to be back again after years of playing with landrovers instead of Leica. .
Bought the monochrome because I started to look in my albums (paper not screen) and after a while I realized that I missed the style a rangefinder got me (had a Fuji X-E2 at the time) but also the signature of those lenses (50mm elmar-M 2gen and 35mm nokton 1.2)
So to make it simple, same glass as "the good old times" but a Monochrome instead of a M6 with Kodak BW400CN or Delta 100.
For me the signature of the lenses, less buttons an nobs, and that it acts as black and white filme is the key. And full frame, almost forgot that.
Fuji has nice lenses, great colors, easy to use, fast and weather sealed, a bargain compared to anything leica.
But it´s not a leica, not a rangefinder, thou it is convenient, does have arcos simulation and wifi for easy sharing of images
(birthdays, holidays and so on) Also the Fuji did work right of of the box, to afford the monochrome I bought it second hand,
took me a year and 3 visit to weslar to bring it back to shipshape. Now its better than new, a new monochrome would not have these challenges (no ccd corroding or shutter problems)
Get both if you can afford it, or at least a monochrome and a Fuji X100T/F
Xpro-1 was a great camera but did not get "in touch" with the fujis before the X100T (perhaps this time i used it all manual?)
Anyway thats my two cents (or should I say two Norwegian Kroner?)
Also great to be back again after years of playing with landrovers instead of Leica. .
Gregm61
Well-known
Less wide view from the APS-C sensor would put me off from the start, let alone anything from an image quality stand-point. I think selling the MM for any Fuji would be a foolish thing to do.
willie_901
Mentor
The X-Pro 2 has a higher signal-to-noise ratio (especially above ISO 800 (link). The X-Pro 2 has two ISO invariant ranges 200 - 636 and above 800. This means the The X-Pro 2's shadow region IQ should be significantly improved compared to the X-Pro 1.
The higher pixel density should have a positive effect as well.
Anyway, when I directly compare results from my X-Pro 1, X-T1 and X100T the latter two cameras clearly have superior IQ. The differences increase as ISO increases. So when the meter predicts ISO 200 images will have optimum exposure, the IQs are more similar.
willie_901
Mentor
The Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) will have superior B&W rendering for one fundamental reason.
The Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246)'s model for image creation is more direct than any other camera's (except those few others that don't use color-filter arrays). There is only one modeling step and that model is less complicated..
Cameras with color-filter arrays create monochrome images with an indirect model. That is RGB information is not what a monochrome photographer needs or wants. In general when the model for the data more closely maps onto the data (no RGB information in for the MM) the model parameter estimates' uncertainties decrease. In our case the parameter estimates of interest are a spatial array of the digital numbers (the raw file).
Secondary reasons could be differences in micro-lens optics and other non-electonic characteristics of the sensor assembly.
While post-production rendering and signal-to-noise ratio will play a large role in perceived IQ, the MM starts off with a significant advantage.
The Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246)'s model for image creation is more direct than any other camera's (except those few others that don't use color-filter arrays). There is only one modeling step and that model is less complicated..
Cameras with color-filter arrays create monochrome images with an indirect model. That is RGB information is not what a monochrome photographer needs or wants. In general when the model for the data more closely maps onto the data (no RGB information in for the MM) the model parameter estimates' uncertainties decrease. In our case the parameter estimates of interest are a spatial array of the digital numbers (the raw file).
Secondary reasons could be differences in micro-lens optics and other non-electonic characteristics of the sensor assembly.
While post-production rendering and signal-to-noise ratio will play a large role in perceived IQ, the MM starts off with a significant advantage.
roscoetuff
Well-known
FWIW Dept.: As an ex-XPRO2 user, XPRO-2 is a good camera capable of excellent shots. Lots of people love Fuji colors and JPEG's (Acros sim). Fuji fans scream about Fuji's firmware upgrades, but frankly neither of these are as unique as the buzz. There are many who find Fuji colors not to their liking, too, or difficult to manage. And as Leica fans will note, the hybrid viewfinder is definitely NOT a rangefinder, and even most X-PRO users will rely on the EVF most of the time according to polls on the Fuji forum. Fuji seems to be of several minds on how to use these cameras, and there is something in this that results in a mix of handling matters that either fit you requirements, and meld with what and how you want to use it or not. I'm a fan of rent-to-buy as a trial, and lensrentals.com has a decent program for purchasing keepers as well. I can attest that if you do buy and you buy with the service contract they offer, the service is both first rate and speedy: one-week door-to-door in my case.
That said, I'd argue that if you like the rangefinder style, the Leica's whole style is designed on this basis, and the handling issues likely more consistent with the approach for which it is optimized. Fuji will open the box and allow you to use your camera for a wider variety of things... more readily, but again, at a cost in terms of fitting the dedicated form and shooting style. It's close, but not going to be the same. And if you're considering a Monochrom M, you're pretty far down the path to favoring a definite shooting style that I would think the Leica will fit more readily. Note that I don't have a Leica.
FWIW, I believe shooting begins with lenses - the sharpest and best handling you care to buy, and then looking for an optimized body to shoot them on. Shooting on the native body is best, but you can usually run them more widely - but there is a cost. And you can adapt your shooting within a range of workflow, but it takes some time to get comfortable. If you want full frame, and if you're printing, and I think full frame adds more than an academic difference in this, the Fuji's APS-C may not fill the bill. It's good, but there are other options; and without IBIS, it's not as good at adapted lenses as some alternatives (e.g. Sony A7 series).
All in, there's a difference between a B&W raw image and a B&W jpeg, and it is NOT academic. Leica is also one of the few I believe that runs the histogram on the RAW image rather than JPEG. Ditto - not academic. If you want to really find your shooting channeled into an optimized fashion for B&W, you're going to drive down toward the M Monochrom... even the 18MP version. Fuji will not do this for you. I'm thinking of this hard myself, but also like the M10. It's a question of $'s, and I have to ebay some old model trains first to justify the re-allocation of time, space and $.
End of the day, I think the question is more one of whether you see this as a keeper camera or whether it would be a "phase" or "stepping stone". Any one of these can justify the decision in my view. By today's standard, it's merely tuition and cheap at the price if you'll commit to it and use it. In some measure, ANY camera can be constrained to teach you certain things you want to learn, but if you want to be restricted so that you HAVE to do it, then by all means a Monochrom (or maybe even a B&W film M) seems an excellent bet. Worth every penny, and from my perspective, the lenses are waaaaaay better than Fuji by design... as their form follows their function. With Fuji... form is whatever they want it to be... and focus by wire is a toss-up decision rather than true-to-purpose given.
That said, I'd argue that if you like the rangefinder style, the Leica's whole style is designed on this basis, and the handling issues likely more consistent with the approach for which it is optimized. Fuji will open the box and allow you to use your camera for a wider variety of things... more readily, but again, at a cost in terms of fitting the dedicated form and shooting style. It's close, but not going to be the same. And if you're considering a Monochrom M, you're pretty far down the path to favoring a definite shooting style that I would think the Leica will fit more readily. Note that I don't have a Leica.
FWIW, I believe shooting begins with lenses - the sharpest and best handling you care to buy, and then looking for an optimized body to shoot them on. Shooting on the native body is best, but you can usually run them more widely - but there is a cost. And you can adapt your shooting within a range of workflow, but it takes some time to get comfortable. If you want full frame, and if you're printing, and I think full frame adds more than an academic difference in this, the Fuji's APS-C may not fill the bill. It's good, but there are other options; and without IBIS, it's not as good at adapted lenses as some alternatives (e.g. Sony A7 series).
All in, there's a difference between a B&W raw image and a B&W jpeg, and it is NOT academic. Leica is also one of the few I believe that runs the histogram on the RAW image rather than JPEG. Ditto - not academic. If you want to really find your shooting channeled into an optimized fashion for B&W, you're going to drive down toward the M Monochrom... even the 18MP version. Fuji will not do this for you. I'm thinking of this hard myself, but also like the M10. It's a question of $'s, and I have to ebay some old model trains first to justify the re-allocation of time, space and $.
End of the day, I think the question is more one of whether you see this as a keeper camera or whether it would be a "phase" or "stepping stone". Any one of these can justify the decision in my view. By today's standard, it's merely tuition and cheap at the price if you'll commit to it and use it. In some measure, ANY camera can be constrained to teach you certain things you want to learn, but if you want to be restricted so that you HAVE to do it, then by all means a Monochrom (or maybe even a B&W film M) seems an excellent bet. Worth every penny, and from my perspective, the lenses are waaaaaay better than Fuji by design... as their form follows their function. With Fuji... form is whatever they want it to be... and focus by wire is a toss-up decision rather than true-to-purpose given.
RF-OG
Member
I previously have had both the X-Pro1 and 2, but now I have a M240. Regarding monochrome capabilities of the Ms and MMs, I found this test very useful.
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/
roscoetuff
Well-known
RF-OG's review is of interest. One real question is the extent to which B&W matters to you. I think someone else noted that earlier. If it is a primary expression, I think it won't just be about the camera, but about printing... as many B&W folks seem to be using the Cone custom ink sets for the "right" tones and details. Paul Roark has written that most digital sensors tend to be blue sensitive and less red sensitive, and he's had a Kolarivision Astrophotography modified non-Leica for that purpose. I asked about the Monochrom, and he shifted away from Leica for different reasons, but presumably, the dedicated sensor of the Monochrom rebalances the spectrum sensitivity toward Kodak Tech Pan. Yet everyone has their own "good enough for me" standard. FWIW, I find it hard to resolve the balance between a lower cost M Monochrom (18MP) vs. a more balanced but more expensive M10 at present, and admit I'd be drawn to the latter.
borge
Established
I've owned X-Pro1, X-Pro2, MMv1 (twice, once when it was launched in 2012, and I bought a brand new old-stock recently), M240, and also own an MP that I use with B&W film.
I love the MMv1. I sold the X-Pro2 and all my Fuji glass to re-purchase it. There's just something about those files. I also wrote many reviews on the MMv1 some years ago that is on my website.
The X-Pro2's files doesn't come close in my opinion.
I use the MMv1 with Zeiss ZM glass now (which I also use on the MP with film). Previously I've basically tried about every lens in the Leica catalog with my Leica bodies, but these Zeiss lenses are actually some of my absolute favorites, especially on the MMv1. The Biogon 35/2 on the MMv1 is much more appealing than the Summicron 35 ASPH for example. The same goes with the 35/1.4 Lux FLE. Non-aspherical lenses looks great on film and the MMv1. I can't speak of the MM246 as I generally never had interested in it. I had an M240 that I liked, but never was a big fan of, but I mostly only used it for color, and shot B&W film on my MP instead of using the digital files for B&W.
Finding a "brand new" MMv1 with full warranty and everything a couple of months ago was great! I simply love the results from this B&W CCD sensor.
I love the MMv1. I sold the X-Pro2 and all my Fuji glass to re-purchase it. There's just something about those files. I also wrote many reviews on the MMv1 some years ago that is on my website.
The X-Pro2's files doesn't come close in my opinion.
I use the MMv1 with Zeiss ZM glass now (which I also use on the MP with film). Previously I've basically tried about every lens in the Leica catalog with my Leica bodies, but these Zeiss lenses are actually some of my absolute favorites, especially on the MMv1. The Biogon 35/2 on the MMv1 is much more appealing than the Summicron 35 ASPH for example. The same goes with the 35/1.4 Lux FLE. Non-aspherical lenses looks great on film and the MMv1. I can't speak of the MM246 as I generally never had interested in it. I had an M240 that I liked, but never was a big fan of, but I mostly only used it for color, and shot B&W film on my MP instead of using the digital files for B&W.
Finding a "brand new" MMv1 with full warranty and everything a couple of months ago was great! I simply love the results from this B&W CCD sensor.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
I agree about the MM but I prefer the look of the files I get from the 35 Lux FLE over Zeiss glass.