Both of course!
shawn
Mentor
There is a Fuji/Leica adapter coming out that will get rid of the 1.5x crop factor while also increase the total amount of light that hits the sensor.
Shawn
danielsterno
making soup from mud
Hi- Shawn: Can you shed a little more light on that? I am about to rent a XP2 and being I have some Leica glass, I would be very interested in such adapter. Is it a 3rd party or Fuji adapter.... Thanks in advance
shawn
Mentor
3rd party adapter and I don't think it is available yet.
http://www.kipon.com/en/articledetail.asp?id=100
This is the same idea as the Speedbooster or Lens Turbo II adapters that are available for Nikon,Canon and m42 lenses on Fuji and other APS-C cameras.
XP2 is a *fantastic* camera. When you rent one your first step should be resetting it to factory default... just in case an earlier renter set it up funky.
In some ways it is similar to your x100, but in many other ways it is totally different.
Think x100 spirit but with the speed and ability of a very good DSLR. It outshot my D700 and I ended up selling the D700. (And I have shot Nikon since the 80s)
BTW, if you try adapted lenses on the XP2...
I like shooting adapted lenses and using the lower zoomed in focus point in the ERF mode. Put the camera in monochrome (shoot RAW if you want color images) and use red focus peaking. Just frame with the OVF and adjust focus... when you see red in the bottom corner you are focused. You don't even have to look at it, just watch for red in your peripheral vision. It lets you focus adapted lenses while still taking advantage of the OVF itself.
Shawn
http://www.kipon.com/en/articledetail.asp?id=100
This is the same idea as the Speedbooster or Lens Turbo II adapters that are available for Nikon,Canon and m42 lenses on Fuji and other APS-C cameras.
XP2 is a *fantastic* camera. When you rent one your first step should be resetting it to factory default... just in case an earlier renter set it up funky.
In some ways it is similar to your x100, but in many other ways it is totally different.
Think x100 spirit but with the speed and ability of a very good DSLR. It outshot my D700 and I ended up selling the D700. (And I have shot Nikon since the 80s)
BTW, if you try adapted lenses on the XP2...
I like shooting adapted lenses and using the lower zoomed in focus point in the ERF mode. Put the camera in monochrome (shoot RAW if you want color images) and use red focus peaking. Just frame with the OVF and adjust focus... when you see red in the bottom corner you are focused. You don't even have to look at it, just watch for red in your peripheral vision. It lets you focus adapted lenses while still taking advantage of the OVF itself.
Shawn
danielsterno
making soup from mud
Shawn: Thank You very much! Kind of you... Ill keep my eye out for the adapter.... Whats your opinion of which Fuji lens to rent with the camera? I was thinking of the 23mmf2 or the pancake 27. I am mostly a 35 guy on my m6 and of course on x100 (though I do have the tele converter)... Thanks again!
shawn
Mentor
I haven't tried the 23f2 but have the 23 1.4 which is honestly one of my less used lenses... partially because of its size.
If you want the 27mm be aware that is one of the few lenses that does not have an aperture ring. Supposed to be a good lens though.
The 14mm is great, I have both 35s. The 35 f2 is great for its small size, weather resistance and faster focusing (more so in low light) but the 35 f1.4 is optically the better lens and renders nicer.
You might consider *blasphemy* the 18-55 to see how flexible that one lens can be and still work well in OVF mode.
You might even consider one of the telephoto zooms (50-200 maybe) to see how many different types of shooting the XP2 can handle with ease. It is a very capable camera.
Shawn
If you want the 27mm be aware that is one of the few lenses that does not have an aperture ring. Supposed to be a good lens though.
The 14mm is great, I have both 35s. The 35 f2 is great for its small size, weather resistance and faster focusing (more so in low light) but the 35 f1.4 is optically the better lens and renders nicer.
You might consider *blasphemy* the 18-55 to see how flexible that one lens can be and still work well in OVF mode.
You might even consider one of the telephoto zooms (50-200 maybe) to see how many different types of shooting the XP2 can handle with ease. It is a very capable camera.
Shawn
danielsterno
making soup from mud
Thanks again!... placing the rental order tomorrow to get for the weekend/7 day rental.... Night!
adamjbonn
Established
FWIW I think that the 2 cameras are sufficiently different to make choosing between them very difficult.... (YMMV)
In some ways... choosing between a Leica M and another camera is a LITTLE bit like trying to chose between say a Tag Heuer quartz chronograph and an automatic Rolex submariner no date
They're both watches, they both tell the time !!
They both cost more than many people would be happy to spend on a watch
One will be more accurate, and will be more likely to stay accurate, if it needs a new battery then many places will be able to fit one for you.
The other will have accuracy that will wander about over time, and if it needs work will need to go to a specialised repairer that's either OEM or OEM approved
One has more features, but the other has only the features that one might actually want and use
One has superior build quality, but the other is not so poorly built that you'll have likely a problem
One has some brand cachet, the other has more brand cachet
They both do a similar job, look vaguely similar, but are actually aimed at completely different market segments and budgets
One may give the user a sense of occasion, the other may give the user a wry smile in terms of features/brand cachet/value
Some will own both
Some will snort at the which ever one they didn't buy, laughing at those who paid more for what the spec sheet says at least, is a lesser product or snort at those who paid less and got what they think is a lesser product
There's no easy answer really
If budget is no problem, then there's possibly an argument for owning both
If budget is a problem, then that might decide for you
If either is doable, but one is a stretch, then think very carefully
At the end of the day, one takes an image that looks like the first shot, the other the second
(One shot is a M262 and 50 cron, the other a X-Pro2 and XF35)
Now I might think I prefer the top image, or is it the second?
I forget...
But IMHO, it's kinda the same shot, but actually quite different... Some things are nicer in one shot over the other and vice versa - but neither is so far from the other for the gap not to be closed in PP or in camera exposure (IMHO, YMMV)
So, perhaps this is a decision that the heart not the head should decide?
In some ways... choosing between a Leica M and another camera is a LITTLE bit like trying to chose between say a Tag Heuer quartz chronograph and an automatic Rolex submariner no date
They're both watches, they both tell the time !!
They both cost more than many people would be happy to spend on a watch
One will be more accurate, and will be more likely to stay accurate, if it needs a new battery then many places will be able to fit one for you.
The other will have accuracy that will wander about over time, and if it needs work will need to go to a specialised repairer that's either OEM or OEM approved
One has more features, but the other has only the features that one might actually want and use
One has superior build quality, but the other is not so poorly built that you'll have likely a problem
One has some brand cachet, the other has more brand cachet
They both do a similar job, look vaguely similar, but are actually aimed at completely different market segments and budgets
One may give the user a sense of occasion, the other may give the user a wry smile in terms of features/brand cachet/value
Some will own both
Some will snort at the which ever one they didn't buy, laughing at those who paid more for what the spec sheet says at least, is a lesser product or snort at those who paid less and got what they think is a lesser product
There's no easy answer really
If budget is no problem, then there's possibly an argument for owning both
If budget is a problem, then that might decide for you
If either is doable, but one is a stretch, then think very carefully
At the end of the day, one takes an image that looks like the first shot, the other the second
(One shot is a M262 and 50 cron, the other a X-Pro2 and XF35)
Now I might think I prefer the top image, or is it the second?
I forget...
But IMHO, it's kinda the same shot, but actually quite different... Some things are nicer in one shot over the other and vice versa - but neither is so far from the other for the gap not to be closed in PP or in camera exposure (IMHO, YMMV)
So, perhaps this is a decision that the heart not the head should decide?
uhoh7
Mentor
262 is fantastic, but if money an issue plenty of used 240s and M9s etc. If you have the glass and enjoy RF, it's a no brainer.
X-pro2 is very nice camera. I've shot a bit with the XT-2, which many have left the A7 for. I shoot M9/A7.mod now and also RX1r2.
M is a window into a whole world, from the 30s to today. Good as the X-pro2 is, it can't go there. Not to deny in many circumstances, the output is excellent.
jamesbf
Established
I used an X-Pro1 between the M8 and M240 that I'm using now. I've been using the M240 for over two years and I haven't thought twice about that old XPro1. So happy and grateful to use such a fine camera for my personal work.
Really, for me, its the experience that matters most.
Really, for me, its the experience that matters most.
Gregm61
Well-known
The only way to deal with this dilemma, of course, is do what I do and have both an AF system (Olympus E-M1) and Leica (M262). I waffle back and forth using one system over the other, often for weeks at a time.
Lss
Well-known
adamjbonn
Established
Spot on, that's exactly what the decision boils down too
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Well, for OP more details in the photo was important. Best method to get more details is
to set lens on f8-11 and on the tripod with cable release. I think, M262 is perfect for it.
M is the nicest experience, IMO, even for just hold and look at it. But with my experience with MF and AF, I'm hitting same wall twice now...
My problem with Leica M series is to get details of the object which is moving and aperture is large. It is next to impossible with M MF and f1.5, while with X series it isn't big deal with AF and f1.4, I guess.
to set lens on f8-11 and on the tripod with cable release. I think, M262 is perfect for it.
M is the nicest experience, IMO, even for just hold and look at it. But with my experience with MF and AF, I'm hitting same wall twice now...
My problem with Leica M series is to get details of the object which is moving and aperture is large. It is next to impossible with M MF and f1.5, while with X series it isn't big deal with AF and f1.4, I guess.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Having been down the road of adapting Leica M (and R) lenses to other bodies several times, the best place for an M lens is on an M body, for me. And the second best place is on an SL body. In both these cases, the supplied Leica lens profile helps assure that the rendering qualities of the lens exhibit as they were intended and designed to, and you get the full field of view and depth of field characteristics that the lens was designed to provide.
If you have longer lenses, I'd strongly suggest the premium for the M typ 240 body is worth it because in that case live, TTL viewing and focusing makes a big difference.
G
If you have longer lenses, I'd strongly suggest the premium for the M typ 240 body is worth it because in that case live, TTL viewing and focusing makes a big difference.
G
Fotobot
Established
This is an old topic but still relevant. Related to the original question about "usability in the street" ...
How does the X-Pro2's optical viewfinder compare in size and eye comfort to the viewfinder of a Leica M240/M262/M9? Is it about as comfortable, or noticeably smaller? I know there's a lot of extra info in the X-Pro2's viewfinder. But this question is more about seeing the subject and composition.
How does the X-Pro2's optical viewfinder compare in size and eye comfort to the viewfinder of a Leica M240/M262/M9? Is it about as comfortable, or noticeably smaller? I know there's a lot of extra info in the X-Pro2's viewfinder. But this question is more about seeing the subject and composition.
shawn
Mentor
I can't compare directly to the Leica but based on specs for the 240 (.68 magnification) the Fuji will be either a lot smaller or a little bit smaller. The Fuji is either 0.60x or 0.36x. The Fuji's optical view finder changes magnification depending upon what lens you mount on it and you can also switch magnification yourself.
I think the frame lines are about 92% of the actual captured frame and they of course adjust for parallax and size as you focus and/or zoom the lens. If you use the ERF mode you can also have 100% framing coverage (and exposure) in the tiny EVF in the corner or magnified views of the focus point.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro2/features/page_02.html
That doesn't show the just OVF mode though where you don't have the small EVF in the corner.
Shawn
I think the frame lines are about 92% of the actual captured frame and they of course adjust for parallax and size as you focus and/or zoom the lens. If you use the ERF mode you can also have 100% framing coverage (and exposure) in the tiny EVF in the corner or magnified views of the focus point.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro2/features/page_02.html
That doesn't show the just OVF mode though where you don't have the small EVF in the corner.
Shawn
Fotobot
Established
Thank you!
Dogman
Mentor
I'm sure the decision has long been made but I'll join in with the opinions.
Personally, I would go with Fuji since I much prefer autofocus over manual focus. But...15 lenses for Leica vs 2 lenses for Fuji? Leica wins.
Personally, I would go with Fuji since I much prefer autofocus over manual focus. But...15 lenses for Leica vs 2 lenses for Fuji? Leica wins.
cz23
-
Fotobot, I'm going from memory here and assuming the XP2 framelines are sized like those of the XP1. The Fuji has two frameline magnifications for each set, so it really depends on which you use.
I find the 35mm (50 FOV) framelines to be perfect on the Fuji. About like the 35mm framelines on an M9. (You can see all of them on google images.)
I also use the Fuji 27 and Voigtlander 25. I'd say the unmagnified framelines are about like 50mm on an M9. Smaller than I'd prefer but still very nice. The magnified versions fill the OVF and do not work for me.
Maybe if you identify your primary lens, the X-Pro2 users here can be of more help.
Overall, though, I find the Fuji OVF and frameline experience to be a real pleasure. I use the OVF 90% of the time and always feel right at home.
John