Leica vs Fuji vs Sony

[AZWolf]

Hi All,

 

Coming from the film age and being an avid Leica (and other rangefinders) user over the years I decided to write an article on how Fuji might be my new Leica and where my Sony A7R II and Zeiss glass fit into all of this.

 

Is Fuji My New Leica? What About My Sony?, Fuji vs Leica vs Sony

 

I always appreciate comments and your insights.

 

Enjoy,

Joel

[Nick05]

Interesting read. I've never used a Leica, but I always liked the rangefinder design. It is what drew me to the X series initially. I didn't own the X-Pro1, but I did buy the X-Pro2. It is my favorite camera to use and the one I take with me most of the time. I take the X-T2 when shooting wildlife because it handles the XF100-400mm better with the grip. I've looked at the Sony A7 lineup some, but I hear the same opinions from just about everyone regarding the "computer" feel so I never bought one. The X-Pro2 just feels so natural.

[adzman808]

I think it boils down to what the rangefinder experience means to the individual...

 

If it's all about the mechanical focusing, and watching the split image merge to know you've got your focus, then the X-Pro range doesn't get close

 

If it's about frame lines, seeing outside the frame, corner mounted OVFs and a legacy style exposure system (SS, aperture ring etc) then the X-pro range is a VERY workable "RF" type solution

 

as ever YMMV

[langwiekurz]

Hi,

Yes, it depends, what the rangefinder-experience means. There are so many factors. I use both a Leica M (digital and film) and now the X-Pro2 as well.

For me, in some points the Fuji functions quite similar: First of all the size. It is small and doesn't get in the way between me and the world. And I love to have the clear view through the Viewfinder. The EVF of the Fuji helps in some situations, but actually I don't like it at all. Therefore, a camera with only EVF would be not for me at all.

On the other hand, so far I have been only using AF with the Fuji. I never missed AF when using the Leica, but is much easier to use with the Fuji (IMHO) than using MF.

For me the biggest difference, still, is the complexity of the Fuji. The Leica M is just more simple to use and I still have to figure out which functions the Fuji has to offer, I really want to use. I am still much faster, getting started with the Leica rather than with the Fuji, but I am working on this

Best Regards,

Florian

[AZWolf]

For me the biggest difference, still, is the complexity of the Fuji. The Leica M is just more simple to use and I still have to figure out which functions the Fuji has to offer, I really want to use. I am still much faster, getting started with the Leica rather than with the Fuji, but I am working on this

 

Best Regards,

 

Florian

 

One of the beautiful things about Leica M is the simplicity. You do have to log more hours on the X-Pro2 to figure out what aspects to use and which to ignore mainly because it has so many more features, bells and whistles. But once you do that it can be a natural (and simple) extension of yourself. I think because I was weaned on mechanical film cameras the physical controls seem simple to me on the Fuji. So once you set it up the way you work and eliminate all the extraneous stuff it can be just as pleasureable to use as a Leica rangefinder. I know my article says that for now the Fuji XP2 is my new Leica. BUT if I end up selling my Sony system, who knows, perhaps a Leica M is in my future?

[AZWolf]

I think it boils down to what the rangefinder experience means to the individual...

 

If it's all about the mechanical focusing, and watching the split image merge to know you've got your focus, then the X-Pro range doesn't get close

 

If it's about frame lines, seeing outside the frame, corner mounted OVFs and a legacy style exposure system (SS, aperture ring etc) then the X-pro range is a VERY workable "RF" type solution

 

as ever YMMV

 

Excellent points Adam. I hadn't thought tht much about the split image aspect, mainly because the framelines are the key thing for me for RF use. With my Leicas I liked using the DOF scales to zone focus in which case I wasn't using the split focusing, mainly only the framlines. Similarly I like the framelines on the X-Pro2 even when using AF. Using the focusing scale in MF on the Fuji has to be done through the viewfinder or on the back. Although I own two Fujinon lenses with clutch MF and DOF scales (14, 23 1.4), the scales are not that useful. But still possible to do MF/Zone focus.

[Chucktin]

Complex and then some!

The rule of thumb that I heard was that the software decision tree started in the upper left corner and when right with sub-decisions as drop-down legs of the tree.

Since there's not enough real estate on an LCD screen (or in a viewfinder) software engineers have modified that to suit (something). And as users we have to hunt for what this new "guy" thinks is the proper location for familiar functions.

Kind of fun as mental exercise. But ay-kayrumba during the learning curve!

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[r_kt]

nice read thanks for posting. I used a sony A7 for a time, never tried the II's or an R, I quickly divested of it for various reasons, mainly I didn't "need" another system.  I carry my Xpro2 with me literally everyday and that is the most endorsement I can give a camera.

 

Every camera I use I'm always yearning for that 60s/70s rangefinder feel.  Honestly, I think every camera should be an Olympus 35RC 

 

My normal weekend carry is: Xpro2 w/ 23 f2 and a leica m240 with 50 cron.  

 

manual focus is the fastest auto focus system out there, the lag is 0.000000000ms (zone, hyper focal, snap mode on the ricoh GR's!)

 

Joel has your mind changed with the new M10?

Edited February 22, 2017 by r_kt

[AZWolf]

Joel has your mind changed with the new M10?

 

I've got my eye on it...not literally...yet   Thanks for reading the post and glad you liked it. I like the lag time!!

[nvp155]

 

Hi All,

 

Coming from the film age and being an avid Leica (and other rangefinders) user over the years I decided to write an article on how Fuji might be my new Leica and where my Sony A7R II and Zeiss glass fit into all of this.

 

Is Fuji My New Leica? What About My Sony?, Fuji vs Leica vs Sony

 

I always appreciate comments and your insights.

 

Enjoy,

Joel

 

 

Yes an interesting read

Leica is an established camera system with a unique user features attached

The time and quality needed to make a camera system so precise needs great engineering

Nikon and Canon and other Camera manufacturers used to make it in older lenses but have steered away trying to stick to AF

You cannot make a Camera do everything and even so a lens but manufacturers seem to think so

Will Fuji be your new Leica !

Probably not or Maybe a cheaper needs a lot of work arounds substitute

[pizzaman]

I've used all of them (Leica film, digital, Fuji X pro, Sony A7RII) and I've got to tell you after over a year with the Sony the 'computerness' of it has melted away and it actually feels like a better and simpler camera than the X pro ever felt to me - and professionally are in a similar situation as you. I use it mostly with Contax G lenses and the techart adapter that actually improves on the AF that the Contax G system had, though it is not flaw free it's mostly quite solid, especially with the 45 and 90, which I use most. Combine that with the superior sensor, that makes it's difference known in all of the pictures I've made that couldn't have been made with the X pro - well, I feel like the Sony design gets a bad rap because it doesn't match the nostalgia of old designs -  but in real life use - for me - it actually is quite user friendly over time, has become quite intuitive to where it will not disrupt the flow of any shoots, and the results it gives are just hard to argue with. 

 

The Leicas are great but yea, the cost / quality equation - no practical justification these days, and the Sony still wins on IQ/resolution anyways. 

Edited March 5, 2017 by pizzaman

[AZWolf]

I've used all of them (Leica film, digital, Fuji X pro, Sony A7RII) and I've got to tell you after over a year with the Sony the 'computerness' of it has melted away and it actually feels like a better and simpler camera than the X pro ever felt to me - and professionally are in a similar situation as you. I use it mostly with Contax G lenses and the techart adapter that actually improves on the AF that the Contax G system had, though it is not flaw free it's mostly quite solid, especially with the 45 and 90, which I use most. Combine that with the superior sensor, that makes it's difference known in all of the pictures I've made that couldn't have been made with the X pro - well, I feel like the Sony design gets a bad rap because it doesn't match the nostalgia of old designs -  but in real life use - for me - it actually is quite user friendly over time, has become quite intuitive to where it will not disrupt the flow of any shoots, and the results it gives are just hard to argue with. 

 

The Leicas are great but yea, the cost / quality equation - no practical justification these days, and the Sony still wins on IQ/resolution anyways. 

 

 

Hi,

I have to agree on the IQ with the Sony. I still have my Sony and all the Zeiss glass as I haven't been able to get myself to part with it. I've logged a lot of time and exposures on the Sony and it's OK but I still prefer the X-Pro2 (ask 2 photographers, get 3 opinions ;-) I love the craftsmanship of the Leica gear but it's a tough ROI as a pro. I'm working on an article comparing Leica and Fuji directly- I will post when I finish it.