X-Pro 2 or M 262?

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
3:51 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
I am debating buying an X Pro-2 or a Leica M 262. I have been a Leica shooter since 1991, and have a ton of M lenses. My first digital was the M8, I then migrated to the X-Pro 1, feeling the for the money, the M9 and X Pro were about equal regarding image quality, and I wanted autofocus, and the hybrid viewfinder. I have since migrated to the A7r, and that really has been an awesome camera for my Noctilux, but hence, I miss the rangefinder experience for my wide street shooting, so today I am debating should I buy the new X-Pro 2 and save a ton of money or should I bite the bullet and get the M 262. I have 2 Fujinon lenses , the 18-55 and the 35 1.4. My M collection is 15 lenses from 15mm to 280mm. Image quality is issue #1, #2 is usability in the street, #3 is cost, but I may overlook that if the M262 would offer greater benefits.
 
Having been a previous owner of both a Leica M9 and a Fujifilm X-Pro1, I can understand your dilemma. Both cameras were nice and had advantages and disadvantages too. I liked the purity of the Leica with its full frame sensor, manual focusing lenses and the viewfinder but I also liked the hybrid viewfinder & autofocus system. The price difference was a frightener as the Leica was more than double the cost of buying the Fujifilm X-Pro1 as you will know, so these factors have to be taken into count. Now that the X-Pro2 and the Leica M 262 are available would I choose the Leica over the Fuji… I don't know. If I hadn't bought an M9 then I'd probably stretch for the Leica but, like me, we've previous owned the Leica. As that is the case I'd go for the X-Pro2 over the M. Why, well, you can get more for your money for the one thing and buy more lenses and accessories too for the equivalent of the M body alone. You can use Leica lenses via an adapter on the X-Pro2, you have the ability to manually focus if you want or take advantage of the autofocus too. Reliability Is also in the Fiji's ballpark too as I've read about problems with Leica cameras and the customer service side too... I don't think you'd regret buying the X-Pro2 as its now a much more mature and grown up camera than the X-Pro1 was, as much as like that camera. For me, I now use an X-T10 after selling my X-Pro 1 and X100s to buy it but I'm now looking at replacing it with an X-T1, yes I know the X-T2 is due out, but I will get a weatherproof camera to go with my XF-35 and F2 and save money over the X-T2. Do I still have the urge to buy a Leica, boy do I! Yes but I've experienced the time with one.
 
I have the XP1 and an M9, I would/am going to go with the XP2 when my toy fund is built up rather than the M(240). I like the M9 for the crisp CCD images, the M has CMOS and isn't a big difference from any other modern camera. I had a tough time with Leica glass on the XP1 but eventually got used to the focus peaking method over the focus patch on the Leica. I make no recommendation but offer my experience.
 
Since a few weeks I have the X-Pro2 (bought it more or less the day it was available) and since then, my M240 very seldom sees any light...

Just a few months back, I wouldn't have thought, that this is even possible.

The Leica still has some advantages for some special purposes and the simulated rangefinder-experience of the Fuji is only 90% at it's best as what it is with a real mechanical rangefinder. But boy, it comes close! What I really missing a just a few special lenses for my special needs (if I could dream or get a free wish from the Fuji-guys, it would be a real mechanically coupled lens-focus in a fast 35mm-equivalent lens).

My M240 with the 35mm Summilux ASPH. FLE currently is not replaceable by any other camera/lens combination. But besides that, the Fuji beats the Leica in every aspect, I can think of. Besides manual focusing, which is (only a little) behind Leica, the handling is IMHO much better than the Leica, it feels much quicker and ergonomics is very good. The optical viewfinder is very nice and the information blended in, is useful and doesn't disturb. If you need to use a EVF also from time to time the Leica solution is just a bad joke compared to what Fuji has.

One drawback is, that I find the Leica-lenses not very usable on the X-Pro1. Granted, you can adapt them and the electronic RF simulation works pretty good. But with the adapter the lenses are not that small anymore on the camera, you don't have the same field of view (crop 1,5) and the camera just does't feel right with the non-native lenses (I think, this is very much your own experience, but for me...). Although Fuji has some really incredible lenses, it is not the same as Leica, yet...

So, if you search for a recommendation, or opinion: Take the X-Pro2, the value for photography, usability and much more is simply better. The camera is a real joy to use and it doesn't get in the way, just like a Leica. In recent years, Leica for me feels more and more like a luxury accessory and at least in the rangefinder department doesn't really try anymore to be a real photographers tool. The Fuji-guys do, and they did something right, I think.
 
I recently went through a similar decision and went with a M-P 240 instead of an XP2. The main reason was the sensor size - I want my 35 Cron to have the field of view of a 35, not a 50. If I were starting from scratch with no M lenses I would probably have gone XP2, though.
 
If you are in the U.S. consider renting them for a few days from Lensrentals. You are going to spend a nice chunk of change to rent both the Leica and the Fuji but it might save you money in the long run.
 
Like the X100T, the X-Pro 2 has instant access to a virtual 'Digital Split Image' preview via the front OVF/EVF lever. This is means one can view a simulated, monochrome, RF patch in OVF mode. The display is a an EVF projection located at the bottom right of the OVF finder. I find its size to be larger enough to function as a focus aid but not too large to impede composition. This 'Digital Split Image' view can be changed to focus-peaking display mode as well.

With my X100T I found this to be a significant improvement over focusing with the X-Pro 1. At the minimum one can quickly determine where the actual AF focus region is located.

Even though this is as close as one can get to an optical RF patch, it is only a digital simulation.

The X-Pro 2 and M 262 are very different cameras. I would never contend the X-Pro 2 ia a M 262 surrogate.
 
Live view is extrememly useful for working photographers even if it's not the primary method of composing and finding focus.
The M240 makes more sense than an M262.

Myself, I prefer AF and mostly produce for web use. ...I would choose the Xpro-2.
If choosing a new DRF the M240 is the most logical choice.
 
I was never a fan of the XP1 having had one when it was first released. Loved my M9, but after shooting with film M's and an x100t, the M9 was sold too. The XP2 is an amazing camera and I have grown to like it quite a bit. I'm not really tempted by digital M's anymore because of their large size. If Leica ever produces a digital M that's the size of their film M's, I'll probably buy one. Until then.... my M mount lenses get used on the film M's for my 'rangefinder fix'. Digital, the XP2 is damn near perfect.
 
I'm a film M user, have had bunch of digital Ms as well, and most recently had an M 262 for about 3 weeks. It had an issue and I was waiting for a replacement (was Certified Pre-owned). The store insisted that I could keep using it until whenever another one shows up, but none came up in time and I ended up returning it. I really liked it very much, but it's still a lot of money, and also I'm just never a fan of the whole size/shape/presence combination of digital M (IMHO!). I always grab my M4-P and feel "this is oh so perfect size." Anyways, I decided not to replace it with another one. I liked it very much, though.

Now, I also had X-Pro1 for a bit when it first came out. I've been an X-E1 user for a few years now including some work photoshoots with 2 bodies and the native XF lenses, which are really fantastic.

I just got the X-Pro2 a few days ago, and I must say I am really impressed. It's kind of amazing they could pull it off and release it as a consumer product as they did. It's hard to explain in words, but someone really loved that camera and went all the way with the concept of X-Pro line, and somehow convinced the high ranking Fuji execs to make the camera the way it is.

I currently don't have any XF lenses, and I'm just using the X-Pro2 with my M mount glasses using Fuji's adapter. This adapter is great with X-Pro2 because you can specify the focal length of the lens you are using, and the camera will bring up the closest matching frame lines in OVF. I know some people are not into that ERF, but I for one love it. I can really use the camera like I use film M when I want it to be (for my style of shooting YMMV), and it can still do pretty full-on modern day "digital camera stuff" when I need it, including using the native XF lenses. I know many people think the ISO dial is a bit too much, but I actually love it. I can really treat it like a film camera when I want to. And I'm so far very much liking the overall image quality (more of how it renders) of the new sensor/processor. I like the 1st gen sensor/processor like the X-E1 and X-Pro1, but I wan't into the 2nd gen one I tried on X-E2 and X-T1 for a few reasons.

I need to spend more time with it to really get to know it, but so far feeling pretty darn good. It's been a long while since I really fell in love with a digital camera, and I must say I am feeling it with X-Pro2, even just with my M lenses.

Just as a fun data, I bought a CLA'ed M4, a Summicron 35 8-element, an X-Pro2 and a brand new CV Ultron 28/2 for the cost of Certified Pre-Owned M 262 back in April. Now you need almost another $1k on top of that if you wanna buy M 262 new today (CP in April vs new today as the Euro savings now gone). Now that's a lot of money!!

27244941326_890f3cc423_c.jpg
 
Interesting discussion. I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum...Fujis made me convert from shooting Canon for years. I started with the original X100 and currently own the X-Pro1, X-E2 and XT-1. Then I made the "mistake" of deciding to go back to film and got an M4-P, which took me to the decision last year to get a Monochrom. I thought all along that I would get the X-Pro2 when it came out, but I've held out because frankly, I just prefer shooting with a rangefinder. I do use my Leica lenses on the Fuji M adapter, but I don't like the split image simulation...focus peaking is my preferred way to do it. However, it just doesn't feel the same. I'm now contemplating finding a nice used M9-P just so I can shoot color digital on a Leica!

All this said, if I were the OP, and if image quality really is the number one criterion, I think I'd actually end up with the Xpro2. But I would suggest sticking to shooting native Fuji glass and probably just use AF most of the time. I haven't been particularly happy with the results from adapted Leica lenses on any of the Fujis to be honest, and the split image simulation just feels like a video game version of the real thing. But that's just me.
 
For me...it is easy. If you want to use Leica lenses, buy a Leica. If want to use AF Fujifilm lenses, buy the Fuji. Another thought is that if you buy used, you can probably swing a M240 and the X-Pro2 for close to the the price of a M262 new.
 
coelacanth said:
I just got the X-Pro2 a few days ago, and I must say I am really impressed. It's kind of amazing they could pull it off and release it as a consumer product as they did. It's hard to explain in words, but someone really loved that camera and went all the way with the concept of X-Pro line, and somehow convinced the high ranking Fuji execs to make the camera the way it is.
Click to expand...

Agreed... and I don't even miss FF.
 
It's funny... even with my new M-P I'd still like an XP2 with a 23! I'll probably wait a few years until the prices come down on the verge of the XP3 - it's not like I need one, but it would make a good replacement for my X100s.
 
Ken Ford said:
It's funny... even with my new M-P I'd still like an XP2 with a 23! I'll probably wait a few years until the prices come down on the verge of the XP3 - it's not like I need one, but it would make a good replacement for my X100s.
Click to expand...

Funny, even with my XP2, I'd still like an M-A:)
 
Ken Ford said:
It's funny... even with my new M-P I'd still like an XP2 with a 23! I'll probably wait a few years until the prices come down on the verge of the XP3 - it's not like I need one, but it would make a good replacement for my X100s.
Click to expand...

Ken,

I'm loving my XP2 with 35 f2! I've had my eye out on that 23 I'll shall see.. If they come out with a 23 f2 that would make things interesting..
 
eleskin said:
Image quality is issue #1, #2 is usability in the street, #3 is cost
Click to expand...

I think most of us can generally agree that there's not a ton of difference in #1 and that the difference in #3 is blatantly obvious. What your decision will come down to is #2. Without more information, it's hard for us to say what is more usable for you and how you shoot.

For some, surely this means needing AF to get quick shots on a wide open lens with greater repeatability. For others, like myself, it means a lens that i can physically focus and not look at some digital representation of a DOF scale inside the viewfinder. To me, the focus by wire on the fuji camera's was never pleasing, except on the XF14mm. (and likely on the other clutch style lenses they make that Ive never used)

Really though, I think it would be important for you to go somewhere you can try an XP2 with a leica adapter so you can experience if the digital range finder will work for you. Otherwise, you know a bit about what to expect from the XP1 and Leica cameras you own\owned in the past.

And as a secondary note, unless you absolutely need and want to get a brand new camera, you should also consider buying a used M240. They regularly seem to be going for ~3700$ which reduces that gap on #3 by a good bit, especially when you consider how much glass you already own for that mount.
 
I shoot street, art, and some fashion type photography. My M9 at times didn't quite nail focus as did my D800 so I thought perhaps it was time for an autofocus camera. Enter the x-pro 2. I've had it for about a month and have shot street, studio, and location images. It can be a quirky little beast at times, not quite intuitive as the M9, same learning curve as a Nikon/Canon DSLR. Once you make mistakes you remember. Image quality and nailing focus has been high especially when using adapted Leica lenses. At times I miss the no nonsense of the M9 but I am about to head out to a shoot and the only digital camera in the bag is the Fuji. I always think it boils down to comfort and confidence in your equipment so that your creativeness comes to bear more on the images than the camera or lens in your hands. Use both and one will be there for you and if not flip a coin and live with it. Look forward to creating images but not backwards to some equipment decision.
 
To expand on what Tom said above, an unexpected (by me, anyways) advantage to my new M-P is the LV, or in my case the EVF - it's making using my 28 a real pleasure and is the root evil behind my deciding to splurge on a 21. I don't think I'll be using LV or the EVF with the 35 or 75, but for wider or longer it's a revelation. I'm even thinking about picking up a 135 at some point now that I have the digital Visoflex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top