Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leicia M240 vs Fuji X  (Read 10258 times)
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 290


« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2014, 11:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Forget about M7. It's focusing has never been accurate.
Yes, I'm talking about film. For digital? you bet.
Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 290


« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2014, 11:13:31 PM »
ReplyReply

If price is an issue, forget Fuji, go for Sony A7 or A7R.
Fuji is done, no future.
Logged
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2014, 06:13:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Leica is the only camera maker who understands what you need for manual photography. They truly suck for any automation. Unfortunately that lowers the keeper rate, but greatly enhances the pleasure of having it nailed.

The Fuji probably yields a higher success rate due to good AF, great exposure and decent WB, but I am still looking for greatness, which I am getting with the Leica, though rarely, but then worth it.

The Sony A7r might be technically superior, but using it is no joy. there's no magic.

If you look for best quality go Sony.
If you look for highest pleasure in photography go Leica
If you look for most reliable tool, go Fuji.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2014, 06:31:11 AM »
ReplyReply

How does the M240 compare to the M9 for you? Do you have a preference?  Thanks, Joris.

Joris, I think the best way to answer you is if I give you my feelings about the M9 first. I use it primarily as a walk-around camera and as such it is a joy. As I said in an earlier post, solidity combined with absolute simplicity. Truth is I fell in love with the rangefinder and I can honestly say Iíve never enjoyed using a camera more. Sure, critical framing can be a problem but for this use itís simply not an issue.

As others have said here on LuLa, the M9 out-of-camera files are very pretty, but you have to remember for many users they werenít always so, with complaints about colour issues when the camera was first released. Leica listened and updated the profiles to good effect. So why are the files so pretty? Some would say itís the CCD sensor, but if that were so then theyíd have been pretty from the outset. I think what people are seeing is a comparatively limited dynamic range which makes for punchy files combined with well made profiles which allegedly were based on Kodachrome. Whatever the reason the files have a lovely almost filmic quality.

Both the M9 and M(240) are of course rangefinders, but hereís the thing, the M is an even better rangefinder camera. It seems Leica have made improvements to the rangefinder ensuring greater accuracy and ensuring that the greater accuracy is sustainable.

Iím tending to use the two cameras for two different purposes. As I have said the M9 is my walk-around camera with 35mm lens almost permanently attached. The M is my tripod based camera for architectural based work with l-bracket permanently attached.

The biggest difference between the two cameras is of course the addition of liveview using the LCD or EVF on the M which was my main reason for buying and has transformed the M series, making for a much more versatile camera capable of a wider range of uses. I use either the EVF or rangefinder for focussing dependent on the lens being used. The EVF is particularly useful for un-coupled legacy lenses. Iím currently using my ancient 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor AIS, considered by many to be amongst the sharpest Nikon lenses ever made. I used this lens for many years and shot much of my film stock with it but I have to admit I didnít hold out much hope when used on a modern FF high MP sensor. How wrong I was, it is superb on the M and so easy to critically focus using the EVF. Critical framing is of course no longer an issue.

The other major difference is the CMOS sensor. As one would expect the M(240) files, have a wider dynamic range that gives the out-of-camera files a slightly different look, slightly less punchy but with better shadow detail. The files are more robust and far more flexible. Using the latest profiles I see little difference in colour between the two cameras when used for my subjects. At base ISO there is little difference between the cameras but higher ISO is much improved on the M. Resolution is increased a little with the M.

The bottom line is I donít tend to use out-of-camera files without post capture work and so can mix and match the files from both cameras without issue. The M has now all but replaced my digital medium format outfit and at a fraction of the heft and girth. Happy bunny.

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 06:59:10 AM by KLaban » Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2014, 07:03:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't miss anything with the Fuji X E-2 I recently got.
Leica is a nice camera - I once shot an M7 loaner and it was fun, but:
- No Autofocus
- No long telephoto or usable macro options
- No OIS
These are all features I don't want to miss anymore.

The Sony A7R: Most overrated camera ever ...

Cheers
~Chris
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2014, 07:21:36 AM »
ReplyReply

- No long telephoto or usable macro options

Are you sure? I described one eminently usable macro option in the post above and that's just one of many. Same with longer lenses. There are so many adapters and options out there.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2014, 07:59:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure? I described one eminently usable macro option in the post above and that's just one of many. Same with longer lenses. There are so many adapters and options out there.

It has somewhat changed with the EVFs now - but use a 300mm equivalent tele without OIS ...
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2014, 08:11:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It has somewhat changed with the EVFs now - but use a 300mm equivalent tele without OIS ...

I've no use for a 300m equivalent tele and if I did I wouldn't be using APS-C.
Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652


« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2014, 09:09:12 AM »
ReplyReply

It has somewhat changed with the EVFs now - but use a 300mm equivalent tele without OIS ...

My #1 setup is a 280mm on a 1.37x crop camera, for a field of view equivalent to 383.6mm.  No OIS, no problem if you learn a little technique.
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2014, 09:54:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Joris, I think the best way to answer you is if I give you my feelings about the M9 first. I use it primarily as a walk-around camera and as such it is a joy. As I said in an earlier post, solidity combined with absolute simplicity. Truth is I fell in love with the rangefinder and I can honestly say Iíve never enjoyed using a camera more. Sure, critical framing can be a problem but for this use itís simply not an issue.

That is pretty much also how I use my M9.  I took it with me to the desert around Las Vegas recently, drove around there for around a week and only took pictures with my M9.  As a walk around camera it is excellent.  Back to the basics, enjoying the simplicity and the pure joy of photography.

I am new to Leica and I am not comfortable yet with shooting people.  I use my Fuji or MFD gear for that .  I might actually never get really comfortable with it either.  Not sure yet.  I worked with rangefinders before (mainly Polaroid packfilm cameras like the Fuji FP-1) and although I always liked them I never got really fast with focusing them.  Perhaps if I were to use the M9 as my only camera for a long time...

For some reason on this forum there seems to be more resistance to the M240 than on other forums.  Not sure why.  I think I might get one at some point in time.  Not in a hurry though.
Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 290


« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2014, 12:37:38 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are comparing Leica M with Fuji and if you like Fuji, you should choose Sony A7/A7R.
But none of them has the uniqueness of the real Leica M.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2014, 09:26:15 AM »
ReplyReply

For some reason on this forum there seems to be more resistance to the M240 than on other forums. Not sure why.

It is more often than not the people who don't use the cameras being discussed who contribute the most criticism. It is also the case that forums in general attract complaint.
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 864



« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2014, 02:13:59 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are comparing Leica M with Fuji and if you like Fuji, you should choose Sony A7/A7R.
But none of them has the uniqueness of the real Leica M.

The A7(r) is a small SLR-style camera. The Fujis feel more like rangefinders due to the VF placement. But focusing is where a true RF camera stands out (or falls down, if you don't like the RF method). Leicas have the best RFs around, IMO, and the M240's is their best version yet. I just wish the $&@! EVF allowed you to move the magnified focus point around in the frame. If they'd got that right my photo $$ allocation over the past year likely would've been very different.

-Dave-
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2014, 02:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The A7(r) is a small SLR-style camera. The Fujis feel more like rangefinders due to the VF placement. But focusing is where a true RF camera stands out (or falls down, if you don't like the RF method). Leicas have the best RFs around, IMO, and the M240's is their best version yet. I just wish the $&@! EVF allowed you to move the magnified focus point around in the frame. If they'd got that right my photo $$ allocation over the past year likely would've been very different.

Agreed! I was probably Leica's most vocal critic when the specs were announced. There again I'm used to MFD cameras with single focus points. I guess you don't miss what you've never had!

I'll upgrade when they get it right, but in the meantime Iím just having the best fun.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2014, 11:35:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I worked with rangefinders before (mainly Polaroid packfilm cameras like the Fuji FP-1) and although I always liked them I never got really fast with focusing them.

Just a thought, are you using lenses with focus tabs? Makes all the difference.
Logged

geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2014, 01:09:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Focus tabs are the most brilliant thing about Leica lenses. I installed them on those Leica lenses that don't have them.

If you practice a bit, you can get to 90% focus accuracy just by muscle memory without even looking. The final 10% (or rather 6-9%) are achived by the rangefinder.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2014, 07:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Focus tabs are the most brilliant thing about Leica lenses. I installed them on those Leica lenses that don't have them.

If you practice a bit, you can get to 90% focus accuracy just by muscle memory without even looking. The final 10% (or rather 6-9%) are achived by the rangefinder.

where did you get the one you use?
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2014, 10:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a thought, are you using lenses with focus tabs? Makes all the difference.

Not using lenses with focus tabs and not familiar with focus tabs either.  How do they make the difference?

where did you get the one you use?

I have seen custom ones being sold on eBay already, not sure where else you would get them...
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2014, 11:37:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Not using lenses with focus tabs and not familiar with focus tabs either.  How do they make the difference?

Prior to getting my Leica lenses I'd never heard of focus tabs let alone had any experience with them and was not at all sure I wanted them. But as things worked out the lenses I bought - Leica Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH & Super-Elmar-M 21 mm f/3.4 ASPH - have tabs as standard. Difficult to explain why and how they allow for quicker and more intuitive focusing over the usual fingers-around-barrel method, but suffice to say they do and many swear by them. I know, not a particularly helpful explanation, but I'd certainly recommend giving them a go.
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 864



« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2014, 04:30:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Not using lenses with focus tabs and not familiar with focus tabs either.  How do they make the difference?

Say you're an urban ("street") photographer who has found that zone focusing at 2 meters with a 35mm lens at f/8 is often sufficient for a sharp result (given your prefered subject matter). Once you've internalized where your lens' focus tab is located with the focus at 2m you can focus at that point, or close enough to it, by feel very quickly. So you can focus accurately when possible and yet be able to react fast when needed.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad