« IBIS Coming to Fujifilm Cameras? | Main | Happy 4th! »

Tuesday, 04 July 2017

Comments

Fuji X-Pro 2 with the 35/2.0 "snout-nosed" lens (using the slanted-forward optional lens shade to keep it as small as possible) handles, sees and shoots like a Leica should. The AF and the availablity of live view when it gets dark are nice bonuses. The lens doesn't do so well if you have reason to pixel-peep in the corners, but it really grabs a scene with the interest in the center and the setting suggested around it. The Fuji 23/1.4 is a lovely lens, and blows the 23/2.0 away. It's bigger, so it probably is most at home on the X-T2 (or X-T1). What else would you need? Well, Fuji makes an incredible, optically stabilized 100-400, which is just the thing for catching Chris Christie relaxing on his private beach. I have tried some other Fuji lenses but have not fallen in love with any. Just IMHO.

scott

I had the original Fuji X100 and its OOC jpegs were astounding. I rarely shot raw with that camera. I made the mistake of selling it and buying a Sony A6000 which was fine, but its pictures lacked the fullness of the Fuji. Ultimately, I realized that I like the color signature of Nikon cameras, so I purchased a D700 and use of a lot of old AI(S) manual primes which is a blast. That sensor with those lenses is glorious.

The Fuji remains tempting, and I have considered an X-Pro 1 (I usually buy used, one version behind). But as someone who started in film, I remain wed (or stubbornly loyal) to the compression that I can expect from the full frame point of view for each lens. Of course, this is silly since I just returned from five weeks in Europe with a Nikon 1 V1 and V3, and I am perfectly happy with the pictures. To buy Fuji gear, I would have sell the D700 and lenses, and I just can't give up the Nikon 105 2.5 Ai again (had it in the film days). I don't just love that lens, I think that I'm in love with it.

A fourth indicator doesn't match though, price :-)

there used to be a "texas Leica" which was a huge 6X9 Fuji. If I was a "real" photographer, whatever the hell that means, I wish I would have and OCOLOY one of those. But I'm just a dad these days...

Another argument.

Some of us where never collectors, we used Leicas to get smallish cameras with fast wide lenses. In the film era they were the smallest, and in some ways the fastest, full frame camera that focused, had more than 1 lens, etc.

Digital has changed a lot of things, but I find that Fuji works for me at a lot of things where MFT has failed *me*, with much less heft than the "Canon Artillery".

Canon is the new large format/medium format, Fuji the successor to Leica.

Mike may be right about Fuji. But I'll say this about Leica: They still know how to make the best viewfinders. The M10 has the best VF of any modern RF (.73 mag, big opening and great eye relief); the SL, still with the best EVF in town; and the S, with its incomparable OVF.

Too bad that Fuji didn't carry over that sleek form factor to its (mini) MF offering, the GFX, similar to Hasselblad's X1D. But perhaps more importantly, they did seem to win out on functionality, reliability and initial lens selection. We'll see if that's enough to win the hearts of the larger sensor aficionados.

I prefer the newer, slower Fujinon FX primes. The older, faster primes are optically better, but the oldest have inferior AF motor technologies. I don't like their size either. It's a trade-off with no single answer. Also, with older X-Series bodies the differences in lens AF technologies is less important.

With a newer body, the 56/1.2 Fujinon is a joy to use at events. The images can be striking.

The XF coatings aren't discussed much. But in my view the coating technologies play a significant role in how the Fujinons render.

I use my X100T as I used my Zeiss Ikon M body. I very much enjoy the X100 experience.

A few years ago I replaced my X-Pro 1 with a X-T1. My interests are different now. Someday I'll swap the X-T1 and a bucket of cash for a X-Pro 2.

After shooting pretty much exclusively with the 4x5 and the Hassy the last few years, I'm traveling with just the m7 and m9 today for a documentary shoot. I have 20 rolls of Neopan 1600 for the m7 and the m9 will be used for color works and where shutter noise does not matter. (Will be in hospital room at times). It's amazing how small the bag is. I will hang on to the m9 as long as possible but after that the xpro-xxx is high on the list for replacement

I fell in love with the X-Pro1 just for its form-factor. It had its drawbacks for sure, but after using it for a year and never even once fondling my Nikon gear, I was completely sold. The X-T1 took care of the drawbacks and lenses improved dramatically. And firmware updates? Am I nuts? Does anyone recollect any manufacturer before Fuji ever doing that?

I recently took a two week overseas trip on which having a complete (for me) camera bag with me every waking moment was essential. Two bodies, three f/2 primes, and a tele-zoom (which I could have done without) didn't cause a backache and I came home the same height as when I left.

And..... who ever heard of firmware updates before Fuji?

Fuji makes some very tasty cameras and lenses and silent shooting with Fuji gear is hugely appealing for all sorts of event photography. It sure beats putting your big Nikon or Canon inside a bulky silencer bag and fumbling around blindly to set up your next shot.

I'm also starting to see photographers carry Sony equipment for the same reason. The a6300/a6500's are now commonplace as a small silent shooter. The A7R is also good for silent shooting, but the lenses tend to be a bit bulkier. A friend of mine has turned to a Sony A7 to shoot on TV sets because of the quality of the camera in low light and its silent shutter.

Now that Sony's lens selection is starting to fill out, I would not be surprised to see more and more Canikon event shooters switching to Sony a7 and a9 cameras for all uses, not just silent shooting.

In my case, I do a lot of classical music events and shutter clatter is a huge problem. My little Sony is really good at taking stealth photos without disturbing the audience or the performer. Now, if I could only make myself invisible, I could really take some cool shots!

MP should write more for TOP

Posts like this will give Fuji a big head. :-) Clearly they can raise their prices with all this "new Leica" stuff going around these days. Give them that special cachet and they will be able to get more for their gear. :-)

Over at Rangefinder Forum there are a lot of PJs who have been using the X100 variants on assignment, shooting exactly the sort of stuff that Leicas used to do.

There are also a couple of M9 and M typ240 using PJs,but they're older and established guys, kind of like Peter Turnley.

Adorable how those who can't afford some things, need to make themselves feel better with less!

Speaking of Leica, I was just thinking the other night, while checking new Mac prices vs specs, that Apple is the new Leica in computers.

Anyway, since the x100 introduction, many have proclaimed it the "poor man's Leica," something that would anger both Leica fans and poor men/women. Truly poor folk don't buy expensive cameras and Fuji ain't cheap.

I think---although not pertaining to journalists' use of Leica---that Fuji is indeed approaching Leica status among its fans. The mystery, the magic that is attributed to the Fujis---and I suppose now "Fuji glow" lenses---is something that is hard to logically explain, even harder to see or understand. And to criticize one in certain circles (like Apple) is likely to get you strung up.

I have never owned a Leica. I don't own a newer Fuji, just an X100 and a NIB X-E1 from last year. For some reason, I like to use those cameras---well, at least the X-e1---as they are fun to use and nice to look at. There is the sense of nostalgia too. But if I am really serious about getting photos in even the slightest challenging situation, those two are the last I would choose.

But they are darned purty and have dials and aperture rings.

I own a "pseudo" Leica.(The D-Lux T109) Basically a Panasonic LX100 with a Leica dot on it. It's a great camera but I recently swiched to Fuji with the purchase of an X70 and an X100F. I really do think that Fuji has out-Leicaed Leica. The company actively listens to what their customers want. For those who may be interested, I wrote a blog post about it a few months ago. http://refractivereasoning.blogspot.ca/2017/03/the-cult-of-brand.html

I don't know. Discounting the momentary hype what remains? Exorbitant price for what it is and some glitches in the quality: JPEGs could be better and RAW-software is not there yet. Maybe interesting for weddings, but definitely not for landscape and big prints. As second camera for those walks without real plans to shoot I would have tried it, but not for the price. If I need something small, I take my DX body with me and still have the whole system at my disposal should I need it. P.S.: I love tilt lenses too..

The only Leica I owned, I owned for less than three months and then sold it off. It was a M7 with a 35mm lens. It was expensive and overrated IMO. It had a nice weight and feel to it, but loading the film was a chore unlike any other camera. The images it produced were nice, but if a photographer knows how too use and choose their gear, they can make good images with most any camera. So if I compare using my Fujis against using the M7, I'll take a Fuji over a Leica any day.

I'll agree with the comparison to the extent both are brands I view from afar with a heart full of lust and a wallet full of dust after investing in Canon gear over the years.

I rented an X100S last year just to see how it "felt" and though I kept thinking, "I don't see the big deal" while I was using it, photos from my brief time with the Fujifilm ended up being among my favorites from 2016.

Might have been better titled as "Fuji is the autofocus Leica alternative". Leica's APS format interchangeable lens camera is certainly out-classed by the Fuji X-Pro. If you need AF and want a smaller camera it is the way to go. The OVF of the Leica is un-matched and the size difference between the X-Pro and my recently acquired M10 was not so much as to make me switch. Fuji's Professional line of cameras have always been top-notch - I've used several with great results.

Back in the day you bought your Leica and a lens or two and you kept it for a decade or two and shot the heck out of it until it became an extension of you. Today you buy a Fuji and enjoy it for 18 months of constant firmware improvements until the next one shows up. They are VERY different camera ideologies. I think Fuji is the New Fuji, well deserving of being celebrated for itself.Perhaps its time we allowed it to come out from Leica's shadow.

Different ideologies for a different era. Old-school Slide rule technology could never evolve as fast as computer-driven technology; hence the rapid changes. Just keeping up is a challenge.
What is suggested the go-to equivalence; the immediacy, the capability in a small, easy to handle package. The strap of my X100t ends up around my neck so incidentally, the potential so great and no question about quality.

Alex(in the featured comments) nails why I love my Fujis so much - I'm tired. I clamored for the EOS line when it was brand new(and at 14, so was I:), but now, I want to be able to swap between digital and film without having to synchronize gears - while the X-T1 does have a ton of options, you can treat it like my F2 or M6, and get great results. I've always used a mixed set of gear - Nikon and Canon, sometimes with a Leica thrown in, and then medium format gear on top of that - but with kids, I just don't have the bandwidth.

So now, I can go out with my M6 and X-T1, sharing lenses, and if my eyes get tired or my kids get faster, pop an AF lens on the Fuji and keep going. Choices. the best gear doesn't fix everything for you, it gives you choices.

Panasonic is the new Leica -- because they put function first, copying others second/last.

"Back in the day, a well turned out "local cheesehead" had a bag full of Nikons and at least one M-series Leica, usually with a 35mm ƒ/2 attached, for those chores that only a Leica could do."

Guilty as charged - although the 90/2 got a lot of use, too.

The comments to this entry are closed.