« Yellow Crack | Main | How to Buy a Film Leica »

Thursday, 24 May 2018


Rangefinder, for both questions.

Mike, interesting question, will be fun to see the responses.

For me, I'll start with the digital question first: I went with the X-T2 over the X-Pro2. The DSLR style feels more like the effective "all-arounder" to me, and was a more natural transition from Nikon DSLRs to going all mirrorless.

That said, my X100S showed me that I do enjoy the rangefinder-style camera a lot, and my one film camera still in my possession is, in fact, a Yashica Electro 35. For me personally I find that I shoot the two cameras in a similar manner (in terms of composition, not exposure) and that the X100S has truly been a suitable replacement for the fussy old Yashica. Add to that the convenience of effective AF and Fuji's color science and I rarely have a desire to shoot film anymore.

1.) SLR/TLR for medium format film. Love waist-level finders and slowing down my compositions. My only remaining film camera is a late 50's Rolleicord - a Va I think, with a lovely (and underrated) Schneider Xenar 75mm 3.5 lens.

2.) For the Fuji, it would have to be a rangefinder style, especially with the smaller primes. Of course, with the X100- and X-Pro- series, one can cheat by switching from the OVF to EVF for framing.

1: a) rangefinder. Mamaya 7II. In fact, I already got it. If not that, a Leica m7 or a Hasselblad XPan
2: a) X-Pro2

1) I'd like to try a TLR and/or a Fuji GW690

2) X-Pro2

1. Neither a nor b... I'd get a medium format folding camera. But if I have to choose from the two, it would be a
2. a

For film, I'd probably get an SLR, since that's what I am used to from my film days. However, a while ago I borrowed a friend's Leica M4 for a bit (he inherited it from an uncle), and had trouble giving it back.

For the Fuji, I got an X-E2, then another one, when the first one ended up at the bottom of a lake, then traded it in for an X-E3. So definitely rangefinder.

I used to have a heap of Nikon equipment. For business travel, I bought a Nikon 1 V1 (on super sale; it was overpriced at its original cost) and LOVED it. It had a viewfinder upper left corner, rangefinder style. I stopped using it when I dropped it and broke the viewfinder mechanism.

When it came time to lighten the load by getting rid of the big heavy Nikon stuff, and I was evaluating the mirrorless options, the Fuji rangefinder line-up really appealed to me. I was influenced by having used the V1. (So, weirdly, using a Nikon made me buy Fuji.) Old-style knobs and dials were also a plus.

I don't know why, but rangefinder style cameras seem to impose themselves less as a chunk of hardware between eye and subject.

Film: these days, probably rangefinder; for me, SLRs were always rather loud and heavy although my brother had an OM-4 that seemed quite neat and quiet. I began with a Zenit B, which may be affecting my answer! R/f lenses nice and compact, too.

New Fuji: as an X-E2 user for a few years now, it would be the X-E3. Mainly because I find the corner viewfinder more comfortable, the generally compact and unobtrusive nature of the whole thing just sorta fits and feels right when I'm using it, and it's light enough to use one-handed. No in-body IS, unlike the latest SLR-type Fuji, but I find that poor man's IS (stick it on fast motor drive and take bursts) often gives me one frame sharp enough down to 1/8 with a 23mm lens. My other camera is an RX-100 and that has a nice corner viewfinder as well.

A) For film photography, I have a proven weakness for Rangefinder. So: rangefinder.

B) But in Fuji-world it is really about the quality of the EVF. I have a Fuji X-Pro 1 (X Pro-1? can never remember where the dash goes). I only use it with the EVF, so I can enlarge the image for critical focs. This is, in use, no different than an SLR-shaped package. So for Fuji: doesn't matter.

I voted with my pocketbook for SLR for film (Canon EOS 3). And I most fervently covet the Fuji XT-2. So SLRs all the way.

1. The Hasselblad’s I already have ( and yes I’d buy them again if I didn’t)
2. I prefer looking through the lens ,so a reflex model) . That is even though I have owned a Leica M3 for decades and I keep flirting with an x100, but just seem to do better with a through the lens camera.

1. - I'm shopping for a Pen F as we speak, so an SLR albeit a bit unconventional, for the smallest format, or close to it.

2. - the fake-DSLR look makes me unreasonably irritated (why a prism hump with no prism? why?!) so I went with an X-E1, which I intend to upgrade either to X-E3 or X-Pro2 at some point but it does nicely for me for now.

A lot of other left-eye shooters prefer the finder in the middle (and the Pen F of course has the finder in a similar position to the E series Fujis) but it's not something I've ever been bothered with for whatever reason.

1) Leica M7, 35mm Summilux.

2) Just bought a Fujifilm X-H1 and a couple of lenses. Already have an X100F. Happy using both styles of Fuji cams.

1. If I were restricted to one film camera, it would be a 35mm SLR.

2. X-Pro2.

I don't like dealing with paralax, so for film I'd get an SLR.

It's not really an issue with mirrorless. However, I'd still probably go with the X-T2 for Fuji. Mostly just because the X-E3 doesn't have weather sealing though.

(a) I'd probably get a Texas Leica, AKA Fuji GFSW690III. I had one of these for a while and it's a great camera. It's a fixed lens 90mm shooting 6x9 cm. The lens was excellent and the camera was simple and easy to use. I didn't love the rangefinder design, but I could live with it.

(b) Why, I'd get what I have: X-T2. I considered an X-Pro2, and spent some quality time with one in a camera store, but have no regrets about the X-T2. It's just so much more flexible.

Being fortunate enough to own both, I'd have to say the versatility of the SLR makes it the necessary choice. The Leica M, while compact, is also very heavy. I'd further specify the SLR would have to be manual focus and have a central microprism focusing spot.

1. Definitely B. Mostly because of TTL focus vs rangefinder patch. Recomposing is very limiting, especially when one enjoys shallow depth of field offered by medium format film.
2. I'd prefer rangefinder style bodies to faux-SLR, provided they offer TTL focusing of course (which they all do, of course).

Oops. Extra letter in that Fuji! It's GSW690III. I think I have Fuji GFX on the brain. And it's a 65mm lens not 90mm lens on this version. The one I had (GSW670) had the 90mm lens. That's what I get for too fast, too enthusiastic responses...

For 35mm film, as much as I love my M-series Leicas, if I could only have one camera it would have to be an SLR ... Nikon, or Leica R. I need closer focusing than the rangefinder style allows. Medium format: Hassie 500cm.

As a Fuji owner, I would much prefer a “rangefinder” style body like my X-2. I love the “M” form factor coupled with all of the versatility of a full size SLR.

Film: SLR. Nikon FM-2
Fuji Digital: SLR . XT-2. I really, really like using their rangefinder-styled cameras. I love Fuji's solution to parallax correction and the optical-electric hybrid VF. Unfortunately, I'm left-eye dominant (and too stubborn to try to become right-eye dominant, despite what I know about neuro-plasticity and the benefits of habit-change). So, the rangefinder benefit of seeing what's just outside of the field of view is lost on me.

1. SLR

Today I would purchase a rangefinder style, a Fujifilm XE-3, with a couple of "Fujichron" lenses, 23mm and 50mm (35mm and 75mm equivalents). I love the X100F, but wouldn't want to lose the flexibility of going to a somewhat longer focal length.

But, I would miss my current full-frame DSLR with respect to its responsiveness, low-light capabilities, and telephoto use (I just can't see adding a long lens that would be so out of balance with the compact system).

So, being wishy-washy, I might eventually choose to own both -- one for specialized use like sports and the other for more casual use including travel.

1. Leica and since you are buying throw in some lenses say a 21, 35 and a 50.

2. X100F

1) I can't imagine shooting film anymore.
2) I'd use the X100 line. It's enough smaller than the XPro-2, that I almost always travel with the X100. Of course, if any of the Fuji's ever got a decent back focus button implementation, that'd probably be my Fuji of choice.

My personal answer to #1 (both small and large) is a rangefinder. A Minolta 7S II for the "small" and Koni-Omega Rapid 200 6x7 for the "large." In both cases, I find them to be much better suited to grab-and-go handheld shooting, and a well-calibrated rangefinder is much nicer to use for manual focus lenses than squinting at the ground glass of an SLR.

I am less interested by #2 because the choices are much more limited by the specific details of their product line. My ideal Fuji would be the new X-T100 with its Bayer sensor and tilt-flip LCD, but with a left-side EVF, and IBIS. Basically a Fuji version of the Panasonic GX85 with a little twist.

1. I prefer medium format film SLR because of the big viewfinder with DOF preview in which everything looks beautiful.

2. I would get a rangefinder style Fuji camera, because it looks cool and the viewfinder is hybrid anyway.

3. I've never shot a film rangefinder.

1) Rangefinder (if not, then a TLR) dream camera 1= Plaubel Makina 67 dream camera 2= Fuji GF670

2) I have an X Pro 2 and X100F so that's an easy one. :-)

1. Rangefinder, due to size and the clarity of view through the rangefinder.
2. Rangefinder (not much penalty for choosing them over the SLR style models, since they have the hybrid viewfinder.)

A rangefinder camera (or one with a clear viewfinder à la X100). Any day of the year.

1. Rangefinder.
2. SLR-style.

1. Rangefinder... still hoping to do the one camera, one lens, one year exercise.

2. If I ignore my X-Pro1, then an X-Pro2. Otherwise and X-T2... or if there is also no cost from this calculation either then a GFX.

I bought a medium format film camera recently, and it's a: rangefinder. This was driven mainly by my desire for a 6x7 format camera; none of the SLRs available in that format really appealed to me. If I wanted 6x6, I'd probably get a TLR.

On the Fuji, I prefer the rangefinder style, but I'd actually get an X-T20 for its feature mix. If the X-Pro2 were a little smaller and had a tilting LCD, I'd choose it instead. If the X-100F had a base 28mm lens and an add-on converter to make it a 50, plus a tilting LCD, it would be my dream camera.

I need to start my own camera company.

1: b

2: a

From a guy who shoots film with a Pentax K1000 and a Bronica ETRS and digital with a Fujifilm X-Pro1.

1. No TLR?
2. I originally started in the Fuji lineup on an X-E1. Then I "upgraded" to an X-T1. But I want an X-E series again. The feel is just much better. More satisfying. It is certainly unquantifiable in my case, so this may not be of much help.

My automatic answer to 1) is a Leica M6. Mainly because I still have one and I do shoot film occasionally. I've shot Leica for over 50 years, and they always feel the most comfortable of any camera, and I've shot with lots. If I wanted to go larger, my preference is for a Mamiya 6 as I like the a lot with its much smaller size (when collapsed) than the Mamiya 7, and I like the square format for MF.

I didn't really like the 'rangefinder style' viewfinder of the Fujis, so I would choose the SLR style. I do like mirrorless though, and have given up SLR's as the few areas where they are still the best choice aren't my areas of interest on the whole.

1) Medium format rangefinder (Mamiya 7 II--my favorite camera of all time)
2) Fuji dSLR format (X-T2)

1b - something like the Olympus OM1 (my favourite film camera).

2 - don't make me choose.

I have XPro1 and XT1 and love them both for different reasons. And when I think of replacing two cameras with one, I come up against the very question you have posed. SLR style Fujis have everything to hand for me and improve my workflow. The rangefinder style is more fun to use.

And I don't know if head (XT1/2) would win over heart (X Pro 1/2).

well I still have and use my D800 so I really didn't care about an SLR type and last fall I upgraded my X-pro1 to an X-pro2 and love it. recently went to Italy with the X-pro and enjoyed every minute with it. Mostly optical finder with the little "window" EVF.

I voted with my wallet...I shoot with film rangefinders and a Fuji Xpro2

1. SLR* (A Contax 159MM for the lenses or an Olympus OM-4Ti for the metering).
2. SLR (XT1 or XT2)

* Oddly, if forced into medium format I’d probably opt for an RF like the Mamiya 6 or one of Fuji’s offerings.

I would go with rangefinder style on both questions. I haven't checked out the latest offerings, but for quality i would go with DSLR and for size with a rangefinder. If I could only pick one though, I think rangefinders now are good enough that I can sacrifice some quality/speed for the portability.

Can I have a GX680 with a big digital sensor?

This is one is easy.

I'd just keep my Leica M4-P and my Fujifilm X100 v1

They both work, they both do the job I need them to do and I they're like extensions of myself.

Question one I would just find anew battery for my EOS-3. About the Fiji’s I really have no idea, I haven’t followed them closely though I know you seem enarmored with their lenses.

1, Voigtlander Bessa 667 / Fuji GF670

2. XPro2, best of both worlds

I placed my bet a little while ago. I bought a Leica M6TTL many years ago and have since also used a number of SLRs. I am now selling off all my SLRs and keeping the Leica for 35mm shooting.

I drank Fuji's KoolAde a few years ago and just love the cameras. My X100F is the go to for all my day to day opportunistic photography.

One camera to shoot film, today? The Mamiya 7. To me, anything smaller is wasting the potential of the size of the negative (or slide?), while any other medium format camera is too big, too bulky, and too heavy.

I'm not intrinsically motivated by the act of using film itself, so any of the smaller film sizes (including 35mm or even 645) would just make me wonder why I wouldn't use digital instead. But then, I shoot color, so if you're into B&W, you've probably got a different analysis.

1) Rangefinder...
- Better viewfinder options;
- OVF gives a view beyond the frame;
- More elegant design for top plate.

2) X100F.
- I think we are more likely to get better as photographers the more we simplify our approach, which means being self-limiting about lenses and focal lengths;
- you just need one lens, ideally fixed - no dust and no temptation to look for new glass;
- use this one in 1:1 and it's approx. equivalent to 40mm in full-frame, i.e. the perfect focal length, as a certain Mike J once eloquently spelled out.

Answers: Option a, and option a again. Just my preference - I'd like the same shooting experience with both. Although, I don't consider the experience with an X-100 to be all that similar to a film rangefinder.

Um, first one is tough. I always shot SLRs when I shot 35mm film, since I could never afford a Leica rangefinder. I did have the big Fuji 6x9 RF, but it was kind of kludgy to shoot with. If money and practicality were no object, maybe that Fuji folding 6x7, now sadly discontinued?

The second one is easy: I have lots of Fuji cameras, sometimes two or three of each (and I can quit whenever I want.) If you want to take away all but one, it would be the X Pro 2. You'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands, as I think I heard somewhere.

One for film...rangefinder...likely Mamiya 7 (I already have a Fuji GA645Zi) Would like the bigger negative.

One Fuji...X-T2

1. SLR (Hasselblad specifically).*
2. Rangefinder (X-Pro2 specifically).

*Alternately, a Rolleiflex TLR. But it wasn't offered as a choice.

Film: rangefinder
Fuji: well now

If they made a smaller X-Pro but with the same build quality (i.e. better than the X-E) and an EVF as good as the X-T2, then EVF-only rangefinder-style. Otherwise, SLR-style

Is there a relation between question one and two? I'm inclined to answer "the mirrorless one with an EVF" to question one, but that's unlikely with a film camera.

I find a rangefinder unpractical (viewfinder blocked by lens, hard to use close-up and far away, the lines indicating the focal length, ...), so I have always gone for the SLR. Mirror-slap is the evil I live with. Thankfully, my Leica R8 that is currently doing duty with some Ilford Delta 100 has a very polite mechanical `ploink!` on the mirror return.

The one fantasy Fuji I'd pick... the X70 with non-interchangable 18mm lens. Just a screen: flip it up, look down. No hassle with eyepoints, diopters and whatnot with my glasses. And I neatly sidestep the issue with the small-ish rangefinder bodies: You really only want to buy the x-pro if you know in advance that you are not interested in a heavier, longer macro, tele or portrait grip.

Now you're on the topic of Fuji... A Champagne Gold T100, isn't that retro gone too far? And why does that camera have a cast aluminium top plate?

So, I'm not allowed a nice big Mamiya C series TLR for question one?

Or a Fuji bridge for 2? Being as how I am quite happy with my Olympus kit, but a bridge camera might be useful at times.

Ok This is not if because I "will" be shooting with a classic 35mm film SLR. 35mm just fits with my plans and the look I desire. Now for Fuji my local dealer had a nice looking original X100 in the case for a very attractive price. I could not resist and did I mention I live under the motto "I am not going to pay a lot for that camera?"

If I was going to pay a lot I would buy the X100F. Having no options for lens choice is a gift. One less thing to think about.

I have bought these film cameras in the last twelve months. They tend to multiply, around the house.

Minolta CLE
Canonet QL17
Yashica Auto S2

Autofocus P&S
Fuji GA645 (medium format)
Contax TVS II
Pentax IQZoom 928
Rollei Prego 90
Yashica T4
Olympus Mju II

Mamiya 645

My favorite is the CLE, but each camera has its niche. I shoot a roll of color negative and B&W each week, so all get some exercise.

For film, only two cameras makes sense to me: in 2 1/4 by 2 1/4, the Hasselblad SWC, and in 35 mm, the XPan. Otherwise why bother? And neither is an SLR.

I like the XPro2 with its f/2.0 lenses, especially the 23 and 35. But the Leica CL is even more intuitive and has a 23 that is just as good and a 35 that is incredible, so the X-Pro2 isn't getting used any more. Fuji's 100-400 with OIS, used on the X-T2, is pretty unique, but it would never be a sole camera.

For film, I'd go with an SLR. For my uses, and my way of seeing, my preferred lens would be a ~75, give or take, but nothing short. Longer lenses are really crippled on film rangefinders. The comment that you can always zoom with your feet isn't necessarily applicable in my kind of preferred shooting.

For the Fuji, I'd go with the rangerfinder, simply because it's smaller and less obvious, and you don't give up much, if I understand the Fuji's hybrid rangefinder correctly. (I've never shot one.) You *can* use the optical rangefinder, but you don't have to, and if you don't have to, then long lenses are as good on a Fuji as shorter lenses.

Love these kind of questions, they're fun.

Film: I'd get a Nikon FG. My daughter has my original, and I loved this little camera. A little FG love here: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-fg-revisited.455113/ As a side note, I had the little Series E 50mm f/1.8. I'd get that again for nostalgia sake and then probably a 105mm f/2.5 Ai. (Sorry...you didn't ask about lenses...but still).

Fuji: Since I already have a Nikon DSLR and lenses....I would have to get the Fuji X-100F...that camera looks like a dream to use. I wants it. Lol.

Film: Medium format
Fuji: X-T2

I like rangefinders, so rangefinder for both, although I am not a fan of retro styling in the Fuji cameras.

1. SLR. I tried a film RF back in the day and it ended up not working for how I want to see things.

2. Whichever body works better in other ways. The viewfinder in these cameras is an EVF anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Well, I've felt for a long time that I should have pushed on into medium format film harder (I had at least three different medium format film cameras, but never one with multiple lenses in a good system, though I did have a Norita Graflex at one point with only one lens for it). I didn't largely for financial reasons, plus being spoiled by lens range for 35mm. All the choices I'd consider there are SLRs, anyway, so I can answer that part of the question. (I had a Fuji GS645 for a while, but it was very disappointing; in addition to the relatively slow lens, mine popped bellows pinholes at the corners frequently and ruined a lot of promising pictures.)

Trying to imagine why I'd be getting a film system now is hard, so I can't really come up with any clear reason why some particular film system is the one I'd get; that's likely to be conditioned by why I'm getting one in the first place.

No opinion on the Fujis; I suspect the fact that one pair was "rangefinder style" and one was "slr style" would not be a significant point on my comparison chart if I were considering them. (If my house dropped into a sinkhole and I was starting over, say, the Fujis would probably be in consideration.)

#1. SLR so I can use the 300-800mm lenses for quick action and wildlife without compromise in handling.

#2. X-Pro2 for the Leica type feel in use.

Different tools for different reasons.

The camera I use the most at the moment is a Bessa R, so I suppose the answer to your first question is a rangefinder. Due to familiarity with the shape, I'd probably be looking at the rangefinder rather than SLR Fujis.

However, I don't know if it's more habit and now being used to it rather than it being objectively better for my purposes. I bought the Bessa likely at least partially because of the romance/history of street photographers.

1. I have a 35mm SLR, so if I wouldn't have that and would have to buy / to decide on one now, it would probably be a MF TLR.

2. X100F

1. SLR - Spotmatic F, MX, LX, 645, 67, SRT-101, XD7. Because optical viewfinders are almost essential to focus precisely with many lenses.

2. X-E3. Because with digital, the form no longer needs to follow the function. And it is easier to shoot with both eyes open if the viewfinder is on the edge.

In that I still regret missing your for sale post on your Bronica RF, that's my first pick, or a Mamiya 7.

On the Fuji side, Already having an X-T2 and X-Pro1....I'd likely slide to an X-Pro2 over the X100, as I just don't love how the lens looks on the 24mp sensor, even if I love everything else, especially the battery, that's changed from the X100 and X100s i loved. (Is is cheating to say what I'm most hopeful for a X70 replacement? Fantastic trip camera, my daughter(6) has about shattered my X70 but she keeps finding really fun shots with it, so i keep glueing it together)

If i didn't have Fujis, the X-T2 is the most complete camera, and the one I'd have solo, followed closely by the X100F.

1. An SLR.
2. I prefer the viewfinder on the left side of the camera body. I think calling digital cameras with the viewfinder on the left "rangefinder style" is inaccurate and anachronistic.

1. My heart says rangefinder, but my intellect says SLR. I learned how to shoot on a rangefinder and my first camera was a Konica fixed 45mm lens rangefinder. The SLR is just too versatile, which is why it mostly killed off the rangefinder. The rangefinder was great for what it was good at. My camera had a very nice and easy to focus rangefinder. I found a pile of old photos I took at high school track meets when I was a kid. An astonishing number of them are in sharp focus. Not bad at all for a manual camera. But long lenses, macro? Forget about it. So, an SLR it is.

2. Honestly, its not as big a deal with the Fuji cameras. You have the EVF in both, so you can see what the sensor sees either way. The rangefinder-like version adds the optical focusing option. However, I would go with the DSLR style camera again, even though I love the look and the idea of the X-Pro 2. I handled a couple of these, and again the DSLR style is more versatile. If you are going to use longer lenses, or shoot for a long time, the bigger grip on the X-T2 makes it easier to hold the camera.

So, only being able to choose one of each, the SLR and the DSLR style cameras win.

If you could have more than one and money was no object, one of each style please. :-)

c.) a Rolleiflex TLR. That's the camera that I enjoy the most.

As far as Fuji's offerings are concerned, I guess it would be an SLR-style camera. I tried their rangefinder-style camera, and it was underwhelming. The optical viewfinder isn't very good, and the electronic viewfinder isn't very good either. It's a typical "jack of all trades, master of none."

I'd go for that extra DSLR, the Fuji X-H1. X-T2 with extra sauce.

Q1 Without question the Nikon FE, my all time favorite camera

Q2 Harder question. Lean toward XT-2

Reluctantly (b) and (a).

I'd use a film SLR (specifically a Pentax MX or LX) because there's no substitute, on occasion, for being able to see what the lens sees, and there are film SLRs with viewfinders I can live with and very good 50mm lenses, such as the two I mention.

I'd get a rangefindery Fuji because I prefer rangefinders aesthetically and because the EVF option means there's no downside.

Disclaimer: I mostly actually use film rangefinders, but if I had to keep a single film camera it would be one of my MXs or my LX. Also I only have an X100, not any later Fuji.

Rangefinder, both times.

When I was young, my father bought a Konika Auto S3 when working in Hong Kong. I think it was the first serious camera I ever saw, and I was not allowed anywhere near it. Some time later, it was stolen while he was working in Beirut, and he was heartbroken.

Perhaps that's why I was so taken with the Xpro2, but I like having the VF in the corner. More room for my nose and hands.

Also, without the VF hump, it's so much easier to slide in and out of a bag.

Call me a convert. Until the Xpro1, every camera I owned was an SLR. Now, I could never go back to a central VF. Just feels awkward.

I've yet to find a better film camera than the Nikon F3HP, so if I were looking for a film camera that's the one I'd buy. Runner up: Leica M3.

I've yet to even get my hands on the Fuji X-T2, but that's the one I'll buy, assuming, of course, A) I have the money when I finally see it; and, B) it hasn't already been replaced by the X-T3. In any case, I'll be sorely tempted by the battery grip because of what it does for focus speed.

Film: Rangefinder style.

Digital: SLR style, in fact I own an X-T20.

1. b

2. None of the above. It would be a Nikon D810. And it was, six months ago, my first "serious" digital camera. :-)

I have always wanted a Mamiya 6; that's my choice for your first question. You limit yourself with the second question. I would choose, if only one, the Fujifilm GFX DSLR. As it is, I'm in m4/3 for the long haul, thank you very much.

Easy for me - Rangefinder for both. If I were to go back to film, I'd find the best condition Canon P I could find. Leicas remain nice but are overpriced for what they are whereas I get a full Canon kit like new for a tiny fraction of the Leica body price.

As a result, the only Fuji's that interest me are the RF styled ones and why I'm saving money (well, pretending to save money, really, alas) for an Olympus Pen F.

Rangefinder (Leica) film camera, Fuji X-T2...guess I'm not real consistent.

I just notice that the only SLR I shoot regularly is the Hasselblad 203FE. My other cameras are RF and large format.

So clearly the XPro 2, if I were to get a Fuji (which is unlikely).

1. An SLR
2. My Fuji XPro2 (or maybe the X100F for plain old simplicity, having sold my "X100T" to buy the XPro2)

Why the difference? I loved my early Nikon SLR bodies, the same way I love the simplicity and ergonomics of the XPro2 for digital capture. Though I've owned and used Hassy, Contax 645AF and RZII systems throughout my 30-yr. career, both those Nikons and this Fuji make me want to take them out shooting. Every day.

SLR just because it's easier to work with filters.

1. SLR - Either a Pentax LX or a Pentax 645N.

2. DSLR. It's the style I'm used to.



Number 1 is easy. I already own a Leica IIIa rangefinder AND a Canon Elan 7n SLR. No need to choose.

Number 2 is problematic. My answer is neither.

1. a

2. a.) X-Pro2

To both questions without any doubt rangefinder. There are many reasons for me to use a rangefinder from such “esotarical” like to feel more in the scene up to more technical like the size of lenses but the most important for me is the speed of focusing (or non-focusing) a rangefinder provides, the ability to see around/outside the frame (if I use my 50mm ;-) ) and not to see the scene “disturbed” by the lens.
I like the X-Pro and X-100 series from Fuji a lot and owned both in there first iterations but in the end they are only surrogates for a real rangefinder and I switched back to Leica (earlier Leica film user).


The X-Pro 2, definitely, for its uniqueness. Why, in the Mirrorless Era, would you want a VF smack in the middle of the camera? It had to be put there back in the Optical Epoch, but the disadvantage is as plain as the smudges of nose grease on the back screen of your DSLR. And the switchable OVF option is completely unique, and indispensable. You get two ways of looking at the same subject: an enhanced, feature-packed digital image, accurate in DOF: and a natural, real-time optical version showing true color and unlimited contrast. IF any other camera can do that on the viewfinder, please let me know.

The other Fuji X cameras are capable enough, but not compelling.

As for question #1, it just depends on your working style. Rangefinders won't do sports and wildlife, for example, and they won't show you the actual DOF. I find them limiting, but charming. Anything from a Contax to a Canonet looks far more fashionable and intriguing than a Nikon or a Canon.

Film - a rangefinder for the way i would use film
Fuji - that’s a tough one, as I love the X-Pro2 as my daily carry, but the XT2 is awesome too. Having all three makes me camera rich, truly a luxury I deeply appreciate. But...after using them for quite some time now, I think the X-Pro2 would be the one if I only had to choose one.

1b I have a Nikon F100, a Nikon FE2, a Bronica SQ-B, a SQ-B, and a SQ-Ai. Don’t ask...

2. X-Pro2.

Film: Rangefinder;
Fuji: dSLR style

1. No
2. Yes

I shoot film primarily. I mostly use SLRs, but TLR or rangefinder on occasion. If I were restricted to one film camera it would be a Hasselblad 500 series SLR.

Fuji: aren't both of those styles really EVFs? If so, I wouldn't care. I would look at overall features, price, etc. I'm kind of behind the curve for digital in general. My primary digital is a Pentax K-01, the kind of chunky market failure. I kind of like it, but don't use it all that much.

Film - An SLR for versatility and availability to work with my existing AF Nikkor lenses. An F100 or similar.

Fuji - Currently wrestling with a decision on a small travel outfit. Will be a rangefinder style for the compact form factor. Trying to decide between the Fuji XE3 or a m43 like the Panasonic GX85 or GX9.

I want the IBIS of the m43, but I want the APS-C sensor of the Fuji. My intended lens choices for the Fuji don't have stabilisation (18/2, 23/2, 27/2.8, 35/2).
I want a small, light body, and a few compact, light prime lenses.
If I go m43, the tiny 12-32 zoom plus a PanaLeica 15/1.7 would be the lenses.

Buy I would not be considering a Fuji in SLR style. I'd stick with my FF Nikon gear for that.

That's easy: a and a. One of the great pleasures of photography is bringing the right eye to a pre-focused rangefinder's window and seeing the world through crisp framelines with space around them.

Had a Leica M6 TTL .72 with 28mm Elmarit and 90mm Elmarit and have a Nikon FM3A with 20mm AF Nikkor f2.8 and 50mm AF Nikkor f1.8 and 105mm AF macro Nikkor 2.8.

Rangefinder both times. Even if Fuji’s SLR-style cameras hold a slight technical edge over the rangefinders right now - just because they’re a bit newer. By the time the next round of rangefinders comes out, they’ll have the edge.

The comments to this entry are closed.