Thread: Naked Eye: M9 and X-Pro1

Interesting post from one of the finest places online to find great photographers and their work.

::: The Travel Photographer :::: Naked Eye: Leica M9 vs FujiFilm X Pro-1

The camera are quite different..... I wish they weren't constantly compared. I don't own a Leica so I'm not defending them out of some weird brand loyalty (and brand loyalty is weird in general), but to me it's a bit like comparing a really beautiful custom-made well balanced hammer to a really good nail gun. They may superficially be accomplishing the same thing, but they do it in such different ways as to make comparisons pointless. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people (Leica owners or not) would say that the Fuji creates beautiful images. And no one has ever said the Leica is a lousy image maker. Sure it costs more money, and yes, it has no AF. But owning it AND using it gives the user a different feel that can't be replaced with a great AF camera.

Having said that, I don't understand why Fuji (or some other company) doesn't just go all in and make a full frame M mount manual focus rangefinder body. It can obviously be built and sold for considerably less than a Leica, but would it be successful?

I guess it's our nature to want to compare things. I'd love an X Pro-1 because I like to have access to AF. But I also really enjoy manually focusing with great vintage gear......if I had the money, I can just easily picture myself shooting with an M9 as well. They are not mutually exclusive and comparing them is a bit like asking if you prefer the sweet juiciness of the orange or a tart, crisp apple. vive la différence

I agree about the comparisons being a bit overdone. And not just the Fuji vs the Leica. I don't get much out of comparisons on review sites, but sometimes they are useful when done by 'real' photographers. There have been a few here that I have found interesting . Context is important.

The 'but' in this case is the story behind the comparison. First, he is a working photographer and teacher who rarely writes about gear - and when he does it's insightful. Second, he is on a Leica journey; he thought long and hard before getting one and wanted it for his own specific reasons. For him the Fuji represents an opportunity to meet those same needs (small size, unobtrusive, and top notch IQ).

So, unlike most comparisons, it's not a review as such - more of a continuation of a diary as he searches for a camera to meet his needs.

I'm not blaming the messenger for the message. I understand you are in a similar search. I just wonder what would happen if we all had the same camera...like if there was only one.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not a pixel peeper, but those images he posted were so similar I'm not sure what the point is. But maybe that IS the point. I just think that where IQ is now, that IQ almost no longer matters. Buy the camera that feels good.....or looks good....or that you can stick in your purse....or that has the buttons in the right place.

I think ergonomics is the most important thing in a camera right now, and no one in a review can tell me that.

Having said all that, I'll still keep reading reviews because most stores around here don't carry most of the cameras that interest me. I think tactile reviews are the future.

Totally agree about the camera feel, controls etc. I much prefer reviews that talk about the experience of using the camera, especially when written by those who shoot similar in ways similar to my needs.

Rule Nr. 1: Never shoot jpegs with a Leica M. After 15 months with an M9, he should have figured this one out.
Rule Nr 2: Don't buy a soft top convertible if you are considering the lack of a hard roof a "shortcoming". (Lack of AF is mentioned as a shortcoming of the M9).
That's why his comparison looks pretty pointless to me.

I've owned my M9P for all of seven days, so I'm not an expert user by any means, but here it goes. The reason why I bought the M9 was that when I had an opportunity to briefly hold one in my hands during a recent trip to NYC, it felt remarkably similar to my M6. I love the M6 because I love the rangefinder shooting experience. I also love its heft, the bright and beautiful OVF and the simplicity of its design.

I find the exact same qualities in the M9. I love that in manual mode you have the exact same arrow display as the M6 and that on auto you have a simple shutter speed display. I love that the menu is only one page long and simple, and that once set up, you rarely have to look at it. Most of all, I love that it is a true rangefinder. If you do not love true rangefinders and rangefinder focusing, IQ is not enough of a reason to pick up an M9.

In that sense, I do not see the X-Pro1 as a Leica M substitute. It is to me remarkably similar to the Contax G2, even in size and shape. I used to own a Contax G system and loved it, but it is a night and day different experience from shooting with the M6. Not better or worse, mind you, but different.

Having said that, it appears that the X-Pro1 is a wonderful shooting machine. It's not a Leica M but it's not supposed to be. To a lot of users, that may be a good thing.

Cheers,

Antonio

Originally Posted by ajramirez

I've owned my M9P for all of seven days...

Wow, congratulations on the new camera, Antonio!

I checked out your initial images on Flickr - great stuff so far!

Originally Posted by retow

Rule Nr. 1: Never shoot jpegs with a Leica M. After 15 months with an M9, he should have figured this one out.
Rule Nr 2: Don't buy a soft top convertible if you are considering the lack of a hard roof a "shortcoming". (Lack of AF is mentioned as a shortcoming of the M9).
That's why his comparison looks pretty pointless to me.

And it probably is pointless to you - but not to him, which is really his point. As per my earlier post, context is important, and his many earlier posts on the M9 provide the context. of course, if you're not familiar with his blog, there is no way for you to know that.

Originally Posted by ajramirez

I've owned my M9P for all of seven days, so I'm not an expert user by any means, but here it goes. The reason why I bought the M9 was that when I had an opportunity to briefly hold one in my hands during a recent trip to NYC, it felt remarkably similar to my M6. I love the M6 because I love the rangefinder shooting experience. I also love its heft, the bright and beautiful OVF and the simplicity of its design.

I find the exact same qualities in the M9. I love that in manual mode you have the exact same arrow display as the M6 and that on auto you have a simple shutter speed display. I love that the menu is only one page long and simple, and that once set up, you rarely have to look at it. Most of all, I love that it is a true rangefinder. If you do not love true rangefinders and rangefinder focusing, IQ is not enough of a reason to pick up an M9.

In that sense, I do not see the X-Pro1 as a Leica M substitute. It is to me remarkably similar to the Contax G2, even in size and shape. I used to own a Contax G system and loved it, but it is a night and day different experience from shooting with the M6. Not better or worse, mind you, but different.

Having said that, it appears that the X-Pro1 is a wonderful shooting machine. It's not a Leica M but it's not supposed to be. To a lot of users, that may be a good thing.

Cheers,

Antonio

Nice reasoning. Congratulations on your M9. I'll confess to some envy...