So what I did for my X-Pro3 setup is use Fujifilm’s 23, 35, and 56; and then fill in the gaps by using my Leica glass. So I have a 50mm Summicron v2, and a 90mm Elmarit-M (which is both smaller and less expensive than Fujifilm’s 90mm f2 - even tho it’s a 2.8, no biggie). So I use all of them for all my professional shoots, even doing highly detailed product photography with the 50mm Summicron from the 60s. It’s a passion thing for me, but I love it. And that 90 is insane. Love using it for concert shoots
Fuji planned on this from the start. If you look at Fuji literature from 10 years ago (xpro1, xe1) they feature the Fuji m mount adapter and show small photos of Fuji bodies with m mount lenses. This was back in the day when there were only 3 Fuji x mount lenses so adapters made a lot of sense to help launch the mount.
When adapting lenses on the xpro3 (or any other) you need, each time you change lens, to manually specify the focal length in the menus especially if you don't use the Fuji adapter that, I think, recognizes coded Leica's lenses. I have the Fuji M adapter but didn't test it yet cause I have no M mount lens. I'm adapting my Pentax lenses though and to be honest, it's not that good of an experience. The Xpro3 optical viewfinder is just unpractical in those cases and I end up using the electronic view finder that drains the battery very fast. With the optical view finder alone the parallax correction isn't that great and you have nothing to tell you you're in focus unless you zone focus the old way (Leica Lenses are great for that). You can use the hybrid view finder that's gonna give you a magnified view of your chosen focus area. It kinda works but then your eye have to manage independently the framing and the focusing in the lower corner plus you have to do it in two steps: - check focus - recompose + shoot Unless you manually move the focus area with the stick for each photo so you don't have to recompose. But then parallax is not that precise. Plus the optical viewfinder is not coupled with the lens which means it doesn't "zoom" so you're stuck with small frame lines to compose. Not practical. The EVF is the way to go. I found the adapting experience a bit better on my Xt4 because it only have an EVF so no regrets regarding the OVF and its battery is way bigger.
I’ve done this with Leica R lenses for 5 years. I use the Acros BW film sim. This combo gives a very different look than fuji lenses. It’s the reason I own a Fuji
Seeing as though the Leica Q2 is completely out of my budget I have directed my attention to the Fujifilm xe4 and I am after seeing this video I not that concerned with this so called 'downgrade' as I believe the Fuji will in fact be more than capable, especially with Native Fuji glass! :)
Having owned the Q2 for a time, I’d definitely say the value lies not so singularly in the lens, but in the way color data is rendered and recorded by the Q2 sensor. I shoot mostly film now, but I will say editing files on the Q2 next to the files produced by my canon EOS R, while the R is great, the Q2 files are legendary. The 26 bit color depth on the Q2 even narrowly beats the hasselblad X1D medium format body. All that really means is the color latitude/range during the editing process is untouchably pristine. And if you edit to emulate film, this latitude becomes a lethal weapon in Lightroom!
@@willrowan3053 there is no denying the incredible power of Leica😍 and don't get me wrong, I would love to own one, especially the Q2 with its compact size and epic power. But at the moment it's mad expensive for me personally, so I shall settle with the fuji and grab the Leica in the future☺️
@@willrowan3053 I can positively say that the HDR is not even close to a 100mp Fuji GFX100S - I owned both cameras. And to the naked eye, you really don't see that much of a difference in the files unless you drastically push and pull...I love Leica, but the price of the Q2 and their brand in general is simply obscene. Is it worth it if you have the spare money for it? Yeah, sure - but it also has downsides such as no backup storage or not being able to save out smaller RAW / compressed files (which is why I ultimately sold it). Going travelling and shooting street while only being able to put out 80MP raw files contradicts itself. Then I'd simply go for the "real" rangefinder experience and opt for the M11.
Been there, done that, and agree with your conclusions. That said, the 35 'cron asph is probably the least interesting m-mount lens to try on a Fujifilm X camera, assuming one has access to Fuji's own brand lenses: with the adaptor and hood you lose the size advantage, the rendering is just average, and there is some focus shift if you focus before chosing aperture. Other such examples that are pointless on a Fujifilm: all the wider angle and most of the 50mm Leica lenses. Fujifilm's own lens range is much more effective on Fujifilm bodies for those focal lengths, with no IQ and (mostly) no size/weight penalty. Things are different if you use longer lenses: a Leica 75mm 'cron (or 'lux) is magic on the Fujifilm bodies for example. You have to use EVF but that is a focal length that does not exist in the native range, gives a 110mm equiv ideal for outdoor portraits and the APO 'cron version is nicely compact, while rendering gorgeously. Same can be said for the 90mm f/2.8 options in view of the annoyingly large size of Fujifilm's native offering, and for the 135mm lenses (will become a very useful compact 200mm equiv and older elmarits are dirt cheap). But yeah, all in all, the Xpro itself with a m-mount lens is not much more than a pleasant idea.
Brilliant video and some interesting results. Have several Fujifilm camera bodies and lenses. I was considering buying a Summilux and adapter but after your presentation I'll stick with Fuji. Costco is a great place to make large prints and have made some 24"X36" and the sharpness, detail, clarity and quality using Fuji lenses produced outstanding prints.
I got 3/4 watching on a 13" macbook sitting at least 8' away. I definitely prefer the Leica images, although I would concede that the differences are nuanced and not worth the price tag for budget minded shooters.
I got 3 out of the 4 and missed the 2nd image. There is a slight color shift and it seems there’s some crunch in the Fuji lens blacks. I saw your Twitter post mentioning this test and picked up the same adapter. My Leica 50mm v4 made in 1980 on the xpro 3. There is something in my testing it for sure. Used it with my BnW film simulation to get SOOC jpegs. I was impressed. I’d agree you can achieve the same results possibly in LR but to get it SOOC saving time is to not be over looked. I’ll be doing some fashion photography tomorrow and plan to take a couple shots then too. My results were posted as a reel on IG. I don’t think I posted them to Twitter though. I can share with you if you wanted. I enjoyed the video and EVERYONE pick up Evan’s very easy to use and fully customizable presets. 🤙
I don't see the point of spending that much on glass when the difference you get isn't out of this world better. And, with today's editing capabilities you can get what you want anyway. I do love finding cheap vintage lenses to adapt to my X-T3. I have three Canon FD lenses(28mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5) and a Pentax 50mm f1.7 that I love to shoot with. The most I paid for a vintage lens has been $35.00 and the fun has been well worth it. I got my adapters from K & H. They do a fine job. I recently shot some pics at a college baseball game using the 28 and 50 and really had fun. For me, that is the point of adapting lenses. Fun!!
Focusing and focus peaking only works when the lens is used open. These will be the case on every mirrorless body regardless if it is a Fuji, Sony or even the Leica SL.
People shooting with this combination would likely do so for a completely different set of reasons: accurate zone focusing becomes possible with the Leica glass, and in-camera film simulations become possible with the Fuji body. If your shooting style fell into either camp (simulating film in camera or zone focusing), your opinion may have shifted perhaps.
Would the zone focusing be accurate? I'm guessing the measurements on the Leica lens would not be right as the camera would be zoomed in as its a crop sensor? Maybe I'm misunderstanding though
Lovely - as you mentioned why bother taking a not native lens that is more or less the same and compare with a native? Good to have it verified though. While were on the fuji topic.. Fujifilm X100V VS Q2, that would be a comparison id love to see. Cheers for making cool videos Evan!
Ha!! I was 4 for 4 on your experiment. I shoot with a Fuji XE-3 and also have the 35mm f2 and I can recognize the look you get from the Fuji lens. The lens leans toward cooler colors and has a bit more contrast. Great job on the video.
I actually thought the difference was obvious when they were side by side. It wasn't a one better than the other, just a consistent difference. I don't think I would have been able to see it if you showed them one at a time. Just got back from Atlanta after cutting my trip short. Took over 700 pictures between there and Charlotte. Maybe one each really worth seeing the light of day.
Agreed. The Fuji lens had darker darks and struggled to get detail out of the shadows, whereas the Leica lens had pretty consistent contrast throughout the tone range.
Use a 50mm summilux on a fuji xt3. Amazing. Caution: the 28mm summicron comes out a little soft on fuji because the rear part of the lens sits too close to the sensor.
When you were shooting when you said outside of Atlanta… I was like “I know that place. Wait a second that downtown Lawrenceville.” Like 10mins down the road loving your videos bro
3 right! I feel like the fuji lens has a cold vibe on it! I think in a closed system like Leica it makes more sense to use it like they made it. although I a m aware that both brands have a common history of copying each other. personally I think fuji makes a lot of it right and it has a Kodak kind of feel like Leica and like Leica fuji has cameras that have stood out just like Leica with the Q. in the end its down to the use case and personal preferences.
Thanks for this comparison, also have the 35mm f2 but on xpro2. You are right about the sharpness of fuji35mm and the beautiful rendering of the leica lens. I shoot jpeg and I just lower the sharpness adjust the reds and blues in camera to get the look that I want. Thanks again it cured my G.A.S. and appreciated more of what I have. 👍👌
The Leica being even a tiny bit better or same still means a lot because most FF lens don't do so well for sharpness when compared to crop lenses on a crop body
I use both systems and it makes a lot of since to me to adapt my Voigtlander, Zeiss and TTArtisan M mount glass to my X-E1 and X-T2 and not buy glass for both systems I don't really need. It will change the FOV of the lenses from my Leica FF camera to the crop of the Fuji's giving a different look. Just my 2 cents. Thanks Evan love the channel.
How was the TTArtisan on the Fuji? I heard you can’t calibrate it with a fuji cam. I want to try one out, but I don’t know if it can be calibrated because I only have a Fuji Camera.
@@TheMayzin If you are only shooting Fujifilm, buy the XF mount TTArtisan lenses they work great and you don't calibrate them. The Leica M mount lenses are the only ones you calibrate if needed. The XF mount 50mm TTArtisan is a great lens on the Fuji's, but for me the sweet spot was that 17mm.
For MF lenses on Fuji cameras I've always had better luck with the focus check (zoom) option, or both. Great video though! I love using a Voigtlander M-Mount lens on my Fuji X-Pro2 for size and the overall experience
Five years ago I purchased a 35mm Sumicron version IV (king of bokeh) for my Fuji X-pro1 and discovered that my Fuji 35mm f1.4 was sharper. Leica lenses in general perform best on Leica M bodies which have a correction profile for each lens. To adapt a Leica lens on a body other than Leica is totally pointless. If you have a preference for manual or zone focusing using a depth of field scale you would be just as well off with a Voigtlander lens of the latest generation.
I have a question, are the leica (or other brand m-mount) couple with the Fuji telemeter? I have film leica but the digital leica camera are overpriced and not enough durable for the price.
@@jeremymaitre8146 The Fuji cameras are not rangefinders and do not have a telemeter. The X-pro cameras have a hybrid viewfinder that allows you to see and focus through the lens. If you use the optical viewfinder you must key in the focal lenght of the lens used in the menu and the frame lines wil adjust accordingly. Using M-mount lenses is not a problem with an adapter.
The adapter is from Fotodiox, not fotoiox… K&F concepts makes some really nice ones… have the Nikon F and F (G) to Fuji XF, built from metals like tanks
I like adapting old lenses to my Fujifilm X-S10 for video to get unique effects in video. I am in the same boat with Fuji. Pretty much just use it for fun nothing I get paid for for that I use Canon. Since I do Architectural and real estate very few companies offer the lenses I need.
I think the original XF35mm f1.4 R would be a closer match. I have both Fuji 35mm lenses and I agree the f2 (fujicron) version id definitely more "digital" you could say in comparison.
I find that not all glass plays well with Fujifilm's more extreme colour aesthetics. I used to put old Canon FD L glass, LTM and M rangefinder glass on mine all the time, and it's only when I used their custom made XF glass that I really noticed how much glass makes a difference to the colour and contrast of the image.
I have never adapter a lens from a different manufacturer but I have used different canon mounts on different cameras and I have loved the results, never ran into an issue with focus speed or sharpness luckily lol
I have a question, are the leica (or other brand m-mount) couple with the Fuji telemeter? I have film leica but the digital leica camera are overpriced and not enough durable for the price.
I will say, the Leica lens is warmer straight out of camera. I prefer the Leica’s look. But for 4k I would rather just make a white balance adjustment to make Fuji files warmer.
It's not simply a matter of warmth though. The Leica accentuates the character of the palette- be it warm, cool, or neutral. An example of warm cast would be Rokinon.
@@morespinach9832 I would say it still very much matters to me, and others. I gather this is something you understand, though, because you mentioned Fuji. Either way, I vastly prefer to hit my tones on location and play off reality itself, rather than stare into the glow of a monitor and fiddle with sliders. Same for exposure, tilt/shift blur effects, shape welding with values in b&w, etc.
Do some pictures where the Bokeh plays a role and you will love the Leica lens. This video made the impression to me that it was produced and planed in a rush. A 5k Lens by the most innovative photography company in the world should get some more attention, otherwise the people at Leica would be stupid, and I guarantee you …. they are not.
I use the following lenses on my Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro2: 56mm f/1.2 23mm f/1.4 16mm f/1.4 I use the following lenses on my Leica M6 and M10: 90mm f/2 35mm f/1.4 21mm f/1.4 I see no reason to adapt my Leica lenses for use on my Fuji X digital mirrorless bodies.
I suspect the Fuji lens worked well on the Fuji body because the firmware/software is tuned to that lens and irons out any aberrations?…… or maybe it’s just a bloody good lens for the price?…..or both?..
You may want to redo this video with Fuji’s adapter and a coded lens as some other commenters have pointed out. I would watch more of this content as well maybe comparing results with a M body.
If fuji gave the xpro3 a full frame sensor Id jump on it in a heartbeat. Not a fan of the crop sensor. The form factor is much better than the gfx though. For now I'll stick to the m9p
I'm a converted Leica user from Fuji. Leica just feels better and is more fun to shoot. The images also feels quite unique when you look back at them. The cameras and the lenses also feel like they're worth the money in build quality. After using Leica, everything else feel like toys. After all, it really is a feeling you get, plus some guilt for spending so much money, but if you can afford it, it is actually very appealing and addictive to use. No other brand has given me that feeling, maybe fuji a little bit.
Cool video man. I enjoyed it. That fuji 35mm f2 is my favorite lens for fuji. If that softer "film like" thing is your thing check out the 23mm f1.4 or the 35mm f1.4. I have the 23. Thinking about the 35mm f1.4. I'll probably just get the 14mm f2.8 again though, lol.
I could swear the 35/1.4 is made from magic pixie dust. It has a quality that stands out from others, which makes it worth putting up with the clunky AF.
Dear Evan, thank you for the video. Actually I prefer to adapt old glass onto my GFX 50R. A lot of full frame lenses cover the sensor decently enough and they are much cheaper. Fuji offers a lot of great and affordable x trans lenses and I found es often not beneficial to adapt old glass. I once used the Leica 90mm/2.8 lens and was disappointed by the results.
My blind test results (maybe a statistical anomaly) indicate the Leica lens produces better images on the Fujifilm camera 😒 However, I’ll stick with Fujinon lenses: autofocus; lower cost…
that's a cool video, I thought that the difference was deeper... but for 1/10 of the price doesn't worth. By the way a can't afford a Leica lens... I will keep working with my fuji and Viltrox lenses😂 have you ever try the Viltrox? I felt in love with the 23 1.4 on the xt3, I use it for reportage and also for my videos here on you tube!
hi Evan! nice video again! i got a question for you, why you don't use this fujifilm for work? i mean, i know leica has an incredible quality and all of that but, talking to a friend who is a digital colorist, he told me that leica has some of the worst quality in the color side; fuji beats leica in that section, according to my friend. I am not looking for a fight to decide which brand is better or anything like that, I just want to know your reasons why you would not use fuji for professional work
There's one issue in general with using camera lenses designed for full frame lenses on crop bodies, and that is that the image circle is so much larger than the sensor, that you aren't really getting the resolving power of the lens. If you use fuji glass, (or maybe some of the new Sigma crop lenses they are coming out for Fuji, or fuji x mount designed lenses from voigtlander) you will get just as good of sharpness, because those lenses have an image circle designed for aps-c sensor sizes. But the detail really doesn't compare when you put full frame on crop bodies. I've tested this myself with my Voigtlander full frame lenses between full frame bodies and crop bodies, and it's very apparent. I think for shares to social media you probably won't really notice much, but for anything else (print), there's a big difference.
@@Elazarko I have both and love both. I think they have different strengths and weaknesses, and clearly a massive price difference. In my opinion Leica PROS 1. Extremely nice build quality. Feels great in the hand, feels great to shoot. 2. Simple and clear menu system 3. REAL rangefinder (makes a huge difference) 4. Support for all m mount lenses. There is a massive selection here of some of the worlds best lenses CONS 1. Very expensive 2. Kind of sucks at nailing white balance and colors. Always have to tweak these a bit in post. Fuji is much better at this Fuji PROS 1. Very affordable 2. Amazing job on colors out of camera 3. Great film sim modes 4. Nice to have everything on dials (like Leica) rather than having to hunt through menus for basics CONS 1. Stuck with fuji lenses are x mount lenses and the selection here is very slim. You can mount full frame lenses with an adapter but you'll notice that you won't get the same sharpness as you would if you had mounted them up a full frame camera. This is honestly the biggest drawback to Fuji system and a shame they don't make a full frame camera. Sure, with the right lenses the sharpness is just as good, but it locks you into a much more limited lens ecosystem. 2. Build quality not as good. It's about the same as other major cameras out there, but nowhere near the build quality of Leica, which is second to none, except for maybe Hasselblad. 3. Don't make any real rangefinder cameras, and IMO the Fuji EVFs are a bit of a disappointment
@@peterfarr9591 Good points Peter, pro's use both brands and "better" is a subjective term. If one has the money to buy a Leica and is happy it provides value for money then they should buy it and vice versa
I actually just did a similar test comparing the Fuji 35f2 against the voigtlander 35f2 mkii ultron and came to the same conclusion. Lol great video as always 🤙🏼
I spotted all photos right, leica where warmer, had a better fall off and where a bit sharper imo. I saw this video on a iPhone 12 mini, so the photos where small 😁
It is actually waist of the money and time.If you using fujifilm original M -X adapter you can dial in some corrections.You are better off with adapting Voigtlanders then spending money on Leica glass.Other than that I was always curios why one is comparing Leica with Fujifilm and other way around? X-pro line is a digital clone of the Contax G and has little to nothing with Leica M
It was pretty easy to spot the Leica glass as a Fuji user. Leica glass for me is pretty much all about colour rendering and it was pretty clear on the samples, the weather didn't really give justice for the comparison really. Pricewise of course Leica is simply too expensive but I know a lot of photographers that work for tattoo studios that all they care is colour rendition and they don't mind shooting on APC. For something like that the combination makes sense (also they are the only photographers that i know of that they can buy a lens like that just for testing).
You talk a lot of sense Fuji cameras and lenses are very good do I want to pay 10 times as much to get 10% improvement Leica is a great way to spend a lot of money think Rolex Ferrari Louis Vuitton I shoot Fuji xpro1 and adapting lenses isnt always successful the xpro1 likes Fuji lenses and one of the best working lenses for him is the 18-55 standard zoom also with the optical viewfinder lends stabilisation and with the dual magnification all focal lengths are usable well it was made for the xpro1
Really enjoyed making this one for y'all!
So what I did for my X-Pro3 setup is use Fujifilm’s 23, 35, and 56; and then fill in the gaps by using my Leica glass. So I have a 50mm Summicron v2, and a 90mm Elmarit-M (which is both smaller and less expensive than Fujifilm’s 90mm f2 - even tho it’s a 2.8, no biggie). So I use all of them for all my professional shoots, even doing highly detailed product photography with the 50mm Summicron from the 60s. It’s a passion thing for me, but I love it. And that 90 is insane. Love using it for concert shoots
Fuji planned on this from the start. If you look at Fuji literature from 10 years ago (xpro1, xe1) they feature the Fuji m mount adapter and show small photos of Fuji bodies with m mount lenses. This was back in the day when there were only 3 Fuji x mount lenses so adapters made a lot of sense to help launch the mount.
When adapting lenses on the xpro3 (or any other) you need, each time you change lens, to manually specify the focal length in the menus especially if you don't use the Fuji adapter that, I think, recognizes coded Leica's lenses.
I have the Fuji M adapter but didn't test it yet cause I have no M mount lens.
I'm adapting my Pentax lenses though and to be honest, it's not that good of an experience.
The Xpro3 optical viewfinder is just unpractical in those cases and I end up using the electronic view finder that drains the battery very fast.
With the optical view finder alone the parallax correction isn't that great and you have nothing to tell you you're in focus unless you zone focus the old way (Leica Lenses are great for that).
You can use the hybrid view finder that's gonna give you a magnified view of your chosen focus area.
It kinda works but then your eye have to manage independently the framing and the focusing in the lower corner plus you have to do it in two steps:
- check focus
- recompose + shoot
Unless you manually move the focus area with the stick for each photo so you don't have to recompose. But then parallax is not that precise.
Plus the optical viewfinder is not coupled with the lens which means it doesn't "zoom" so you're stuck with small frame lines to compose.
Not practical.
The EVF is the way to go.
I found the adapting experience a bit better on my Xt4 because it only have an EVF so no regrets regarding the OVF and its battery is way bigger.
I’ve done this with Leica R lenses for 5 years. I use the Acros BW film sim. This combo gives a very different look than fuji lenses. It’s the reason I own a Fuji
Seeing as though the Leica Q2 is completely out of my budget I have directed my attention to the Fujifilm xe4 and I am after seeing this video I not that concerned with this so called
'downgrade' as I believe the Fuji will in fact be more than capable, especially with Native Fuji glass! :)
Having owned the Q2 for a time, I’d definitely say the value lies not so singularly in the lens, but in the way color data is rendered and recorded by the Q2 sensor. I shoot mostly film now, but I will say editing files on the Q2 next to the files produced by my canon EOS R, while the R is great, the Q2 files are legendary. The 26 bit color depth on the Q2 even narrowly beats the hasselblad X1D medium format body. All that really means is the color latitude/range during the editing process is untouchably pristine. And if you edit to emulate film, this latitude becomes a lethal weapon in Lightroom!
@@willrowan3053 there is no denying the incredible power of Leica😍 and don't get me wrong, I would love to own one, especially the Q2 with its compact size and epic power. But at the moment it's mad expensive for me personally, so I shall settle with the fuji and grab the Leica in the future☺️
@@willrowan3053 I think you mean 14-bit color depth. Unless I’m missing something.
@@willrowan3053 I can positively say that the HDR is not even close to a 100mp Fuji GFX100S - I owned both cameras. And to the naked eye, you really don't see that much of a difference in the files unless you drastically push and pull...I love Leica, but the price of the Q2 and their brand in general is simply obscene. Is it worth it if you have the spare money for it? Yeah, sure - but it also has downsides such as no backup storage or not being able to save out smaller RAW / compressed files (which is why I ultimately sold it). Going travelling and shooting street while only being able to put out 80MP raw files contradicts itself. Then I'd simply go for the "real" rangefinder experience and opt for the M11.
Some of the best images I’ve ever taken, were with Leica/Voigtlander lenses on a Fujifilm camera.
Been there, done that, and agree with your conclusions.
That said, the 35 'cron asph is probably the least interesting m-mount lens to try on a Fujifilm X camera, assuming one has access to Fuji's own brand lenses: with the adaptor and hood you lose the size advantage, the rendering is just average, and there is some focus shift if you focus before chosing aperture.
Other such examples that are pointless on a Fujifilm: all the wider angle and most of the 50mm Leica lenses. Fujifilm's own lens range is much more effective on Fujifilm bodies for those focal lengths, with no IQ and (mostly) no size/weight penalty.
Things are different if you use longer lenses: a Leica 75mm 'cron (or 'lux) is magic on the Fujifilm bodies for example. You have to use EVF but that is a focal length that does not exist in the native range, gives a 110mm equiv ideal for outdoor portraits and the APO 'cron version is nicely compact, while rendering gorgeously. Same can be said for the 90mm f/2.8 options in view of the annoyingly large size of Fujifilm's native offering, and for the 135mm lenses (will become a very useful compact 200mm equiv and older elmarits are dirt cheap).
But yeah, all in all, the Xpro itself with a m-mount lens is not much more than a pleasant idea.
Brilliant video and some interesting results. Have several Fujifilm camera bodies and lenses. I was considering buying a Summilux and adapter but after your presentation I'll stick with Fuji. Costco is a great place to make large prints and have made some 24"X36" and the sharpness, detail, clarity and quality using Fuji lenses produced outstanding prints.
I got 3/4 watching on a 13" macbook sitting at least 8' away. I definitely prefer the Leica images, although I would concede that the differences are nuanced and not worth the price tag for budget minded shooters.
Don't forget RUclips compression. For a fair comparison you would have to see both RAWs side by side.
I got 3 out of the 4 and missed the 2nd image. There is a slight color shift and it seems there’s some crunch in the Fuji lens blacks. I saw your Twitter post mentioning this test and picked up the same adapter. My Leica 50mm v4 made in 1980 on the xpro 3. There is something in my testing it for sure. Used it with my BnW film simulation to get SOOC jpegs. I was impressed. I’d agree you can achieve the same results possibly in LR but to get it SOOC saving time is to not be over looked. I’ll be doing some fashion photography tomorrow and plan to take a couple shots then too. My results were posted as a reel on IG. I don’t think I posted them to Twitter though. I can share with you if you wanted. I enjoyed the video and EVERYONE pick up Evan’s very easy to use and fully customizable presets. 🤙
Same here. Only got the second one wrong!
I don't see the point of spending that much on glass when the difference you get isn't out of this world better. And, with today's editing capabilities you can get what you want anyway. I do love finding cheap vintage lenses to adapt to my X-T3. I have three Canon FD lenses(28mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5) and a Pentax 50mm f1.7 that I love to shoot with. The most I paid for a vintage lens has been $35.00 and the fun has been well worth it. I got my adapters from K & H. They do a fine job. I recently shot some pics at a college baseball game using the 28 and 50 and really had fun. For me, that is the point of adapting lenses. Fun!!
Focusing and focus peaking only works when the lens is used open. These will be the case on every mirrorless body regardless if it is a Fuji, Sony or even the Leica SL.
People shooting with this combination would likely do so for a completely different set of reasons: accurate zone focusing becomes possible with the Leica glass, and in-camera film simulations become possible with the Fuji body. If your shooting style fell into either camp (simulating film in camera or zone focusing), your opinion may have shifted perhaps.
Would the zone focusing be accurate? I'm guessing the measurements on the Leica lens would not be right as the camera would be zoomed in as its a crop sensor? Maybe I'm misunderstanding though
Fuji's own lenses are GORGEOUS. Leica on Fuji X is for people who just want to show off a little.
Lovely - as you mentioned why bother taking a not native lens that is more or less the same and compare with a native? Good to have it verified though. While were on the fuji topic.. Fujifilm X100V VS Q2, that would be a comparison id love to see. Cheers for making cool videos Evan!
Ha!! I was 4 for 4 on your experiment. I shoot with a Fuji XE-3 and also have the 35mm f2 and I can recognize the look you get from the Fuji lens. The lens leans toward cooler colors and has a bit more contrast. Great job on the video.
Love how the reflection on the tv matches ur wooden frame behind it. 😌
I actually thought the difference was obvious when they were side by side. It wasn't a one better than the other, just a consistent difference. I don't think I would have been able to see it if you showed them one at a time. Just got back from Atlanta after cutting my trip short. Took over 700 pictures between there and Charlotte. Maybe one each really worth seeing the light of day.
Agreed. The Fuji lens had darker darks and struggled to get detail out of the shadows, whereas the Leica lens had pretty consistent contrast throughout the tone range.
Use a 50mm summilux on a fuji xt3. Amazing. Caution: the 28mm summicron comes out a little soft on fuji because the rear part of the lens sits too close to the sensor.
When you were shooting when you said outside of Atlanta… I was like “I know that place. Wait a second that downtown Lawrenceville.” Like 10mins down the road loving your videos bro
Could you teach us how to Record and Color grade our videos like you? Please!
3 right! I feel like the fuji lens has a cold vibe on it! I think in a closed system like Leica it makes more sense to use it like they made it. although I a m aware that both brands have a common history of copying each other.
personally I think fuji makes a lot of it right and it has a Kodak kind of feel like Leica and like Leica fuji has cameras that have stood out just like Leica with the Q. in the end its down to the use case and personal preferences.
Thanks for this comparison, also have the 35mm f2 but on xpro2. You are right about the sharpness of fuji35mm and the beautiful rendering of the leica lens. I shoot jpeg and I just lower the sharpness adjust the reds and blues in camera to get the look that I want. Thanks again it cured my G.A.S. and appreciated more of what I have. 👍👌
still rocking my fuji x100f from the days when u had it. need to bring that back!
Been looking forward to this one !
Thanks for watching!
The Leica being even a tiny bit better or same still means a lot because most FF lens don't do so well for sharpness when compared to crop lenses on a crop body
That's at least a 5 year old view.
I use both systems and it makes a lot of since to me to adapt my Voigtlander, Zeiss and TTArtisan M mount glass to my X-E1 and X-T2 and not buy glass for both systems I don't really need. It will change the FOV of the lenses from my Leica FF camera to the crop of the Fuji's giving a different look. Just my 2 cents. Thanks Evan love the channel.
How was the TTArtisan on the Fuji? I heard you can’t calibrate it with a fuji cam. I want to try one out, but I don’t know if it can be calibrated because I only have a Fuji Camera.
@@TheMayzin If you are only shooting Fujifilm, buy the XF mount TTArtisan lenses they work great and you don't calibrate them. The Leica M mount lenses are the only ones you calibrate if needed. The XF mount 50mm TTArtisan is a great lens on the Fuji's, but for me the sweet spot was that 17mm.
Lawrenceville! Come out to Athens and shoot sometime.
You're definitely right about everything you said. :) The on fact that changes is the shooting experience and the way your camera feel and look 😉
Hi Evan! What you think about film photography?🤔
For MF lenses on Fuji cameras I've always had better luck with the focus check (zoom) option, or both. Great video though! I love using a Voigtlander M-Mount lens on my Fuji X-Pro2 for size and the overall experience
I use a Fujifilm X-T2 and a Voigtländer 35mm Nokton and a Leica Elmarit-M 90mm, since my Leica M9 died from a fall from 4 inches of high.
Been checking in for this daily!
I have 90/35/21mm Leica M-mount lenses that I could adapt for my Fuji X cameras, but I have no use for their equivalent focal lengths.
Five years ago I purchased a 35mm Sumicron version IV (king of bokeh) for my Fuji X-pro1 and discovered that my Fuji 35mm f1.4 was sharper. Leica lenses in general perform best on Leica M bodies which have a correction profile for each lens. To adapt a Leica lens on a body other than Leica is totally pointless. If you have a preference for manual or zone focusing using a depth of field scale you would be just as well off with a Voigtlander lens of the latest generation.
Bla bla bla
I have a question, are the leica (or other brand m-mount) couple with the Fuji telemeter? I have film leica but the digital leica camera are overpriced and not enough durable for the price.
@@jeremymaitre8146 The Fuji cameras are not rangefinders and do not have a telemeter. The X-pro cameras have a hybrid viewfinder that allows you to see and focus through the lens. If you use the optical viewfinder you must key in the focal lenght of the lens used in the menu and the frame lines wil adjust accordingly. Using M-mount lenses is not a problem with an adapter.
Hey man. This is 35 and 35mm focal length? I thought it’s x1.5 ?? Can you tell me some about this please
Hi. My name is danny.
I need help.
How can i use leica summitar with fuji xt4?
Please recommand which one is best match adapter?
Thanks!!!
The adapter is from Fotodiox, not fotoiox… K&F concepts makes some really nice ones… have the Nikon F and F (G) to Fuji XF, built from metals like tanks
I like adapting old lenses to my Fujifilm X-S10 for video to get unique effects in video. I am in the same boat with Fuji. Pretty much just use it for fun nothing I get paid for for that I use Canon. Since I do Architectural and real estate very few companies offer the lenses I need.
I think the original XF35mm f1.4 R would be a closer match. I have both Fuji 35mm lenses and I agree the f2 (fujicron) version id definitely more "digital" you could say in comparison.
this was just what i was looking for! saved me from purchasing a rather spendy adaptor, so thanks
Only got one wrong - the second image. It's interesting to try these combinations out. Thanks for another absorbing video.
Fuji is pretty amazing
I find that not all glass plays well with Fujifilm's more extreme colour aesthetics. I used to put old Canon FD L glass, LTM and M rangefinder glass on mine all the time, and it's only when I used their custom made XF glass that I really noticed how much glass makes a difference to the colour and contrast of the image.
I have never adapter a lens from a different manufacturer but I have used different canon mounts on different cameras and I have loved the results, never ran into an issue with focus speed or sharpness luckily lol
50mm Leica lenses and above awesome. 35mm Leica, ok. Leica 28mm and lower not so good on Fuji cameras.
I pretty much only shoot vintage canon lenses on my xt4. Theres a great characteristic vintage lenses have over todays overly sharp lenses.
I have a question, are the leica (or other brand m-mount) couple with the Fuji telemeter? I have film leica but the digital leica camera are overpriced and not enough durable for the price.
I wish Fuji made an X-Pro (M) mount. No lenses. Just a full frame sensor with the OVF/EVF. That would be epic.
I figured anything that is native to any system, usually out do anything adapted just because of convenience of use alone
I like my m lens on Fuji x. I would suggest try the fujifilm m - x adaptor.
The drone shot at 03:30 ❤️
I will say, the Leica lens is warmer straight out of camera. I prefer the Leica’s look. But for 4k I would rather just make a white balance adjustment to make Fuji files warmer.
It's not simply a matter of warmth though. The Leica accentuates the character of the palette- be it warm, cool, or neutral. An example of warm cast would be Rokinon.
@@SourPlanet none of which matters in a world of quick Lightroom/Capture One.. but Fuji's "Chrome" look ootc is incredible.
@@morespinach9832 I would say it still very much matters to me, and others. I gather this is something you understand, though, because you mentioned Fuji.
Either way, I vastly prefer to hit my tones on location and play off reality itself, rather than stare into the glow of a monitor and fiddle with sliders. Same for exposure, tilt/shift blur effects, shape welding with values in b&w, etc.
@@SourPlanet I’m with you. I use both Leica and Fuji (and Carl Zeus). The distinctions between these lenses are minuscule in 2023. This isn’t 1985.
There's no way that a $4000 prime lens that is manually focusing on a fuji body is a perfect match
You can definitely make it work but it takes trials and errors to achieve a good result.
Do some pictures where the Bokeh plays a role and you will love the Leica lens. This video made the impression to me that it was produced and planed in a rush. A 5k Lens by the most innovative photography company in the world should get some more attention, otherwise the people at Leica would be stupid, and I guarantee you …. they are not.
Your book recommendations are excellent!
I use the following lenses on my Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro2:
56mm f/1.2
23mm f/1.4
16mm f/1.4
I use the following lenses on my Leica M6 and M10:
90mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
21mm f/1.4
I see no reason to adapt my Leica lenses for use on my Fuji X digital mirrorless bodies.
I suspect the Fuji lens worked well on the Fuji body because the firmware/software is tuned to that lens and irons out any aberrations?…… or maybe it’s just a bloody good lens for the price?…..or both?..
You may want to redo this video with Fuji’s adapter and a coded lens as some other commenters have pointed out. I would watch more of this content as well maybe comparing results with a M body.
If fuji gave the xpro3 a full frame sensor Id jump on it in a heartbeat. Not a fan of the crop sensor. The form factor is much better than the gfx though.
For now I'll stick to the m9p
Interesting comparison. I've often wondered why some folks spend so much on a Leica. I never used one myself. Still wondering.
I'm a converted Leica user from Fuji. Leica just feels better and is more fun to shoot. The images also feels quite unique when you look back at them. The cameras and the lenses also feel like they're worth the money in build quality. After using Leica, everything else feel like toys. After all, it really is a feeling you get, plus some guilt for spending so much money, but if you can afford it, it is actually very appealing and addictive to use. No other brand has given me that feeling, maybe fuji a little bit.
We must know the secret of how your xpro 3 is so clean and smudge free lol
I don't believe the Leica is an L mount as you claim. I believe it's an M mount.
Cool video man. I enjoyed it. That fuji 35mm f2 is my favorite lens for fuji. If that softer "film like" thing is your thing check out the 23mm f1.4 or the 35mm f1.4. I have the 23. Thinking about the 35mm f1.4. I'll probably just get the 14mm f2.8 again though, lol.
I could swear the 35/1.4 is made from magic pixie dust. It has a quality that stands out from others, which makes it worth putting up with the clunky AF.
@@milesian1 The AF wouldn't bother me. I have and enjoy the 18mm f2. I think it has a similar rendering as the 35mm f1.4. Same AF motors.
Check the new Voigtländers for Fuji… 35 1.2 and the upcoming 23mm 1.2
Its rendering works so good with the Fuji output
@@Zlaja192 Between the new lenses from Sigma and Voigtländer there are lots of additional options for Fujifilm shooters.
@@djtoman6875 very correct 😄
But reading between his lines I am sure to have given the right suggestion of lenses to test out..🤭
Yeah, think it's the experience rather than the difference in results tbh, both pretty great though👍🏻
Hey. I enjoyed the video. Thanks for the content and hard work,
only got 2/4 right. i feel like the fujifilm brought the colors more than the leica for the atlanta braves A
Testing only two lenses, comparing the photos on a monitor screen and come to a conclusion?
Does it have AF?
Dear Evan, thank you for the video. Actually I prefer to adapt old glass onto my GFX 50R. A lot of full frame lenses cover the sensor decently enough and they are much cheaper. Fuji offers a lot of great and affordable x trans lenses and I found es often not beneficial to adapt old glass. I once used the Leica 90mm/2.8 lens and was disappointed by the results.
An recommend the Voigtländer lenses for Fuji X
My blind test results (maybe a statistical anomaly) indicate the Leica lens produces better images on the Fujifilm camera 😒
However, I’ll stick with Fujinon lenses: autofocus; lower cost…
that's a cool video, I thought that the difference was deeper... but for 1/10 of the price doesn't worth. By the way a can't afford a Leica lens... I will keep working with my fuji and Viltrox lenses😂 have you ever try the Viltrox? I felt in love with the 23 1.4 on the xt3, I use it for reportage and also for my videos here on you tube!
Footage from the air of ATL is insane. Fucking hell man.
The color rendition of the Leica was better imho.
hi Evan! nice video again! i got a question for you, why you don't use this fujifilm for work? i mean, i know leica has an incredible quality and all of that but, talking to a friend who is a digital colorist, he told me that leica has some of the worst quality in the color side; fuji beats leica in that section, according to my friend. I am not looking for a fight to decide which brand is better or anything like that, I just want to know your reasons why you would not use fuji for professional work
There's one issue in general with using camera lenses designed for full frame lenses on crop bodies, and that is that the image circle is so much larger than the sensor, that you aren't really getting the resolving power of the lens.
If you use fuji glass, (or maybe some of the new Sigma crop lenses they are coming out for Fuji, or fuji x mount designed lenses from voigtlander) you will get just as good of sharpness, because those lenses have an image circle designed for aps-c sensor sizes. But the detail really doesn't compare when you put full frame on crop bodies.
I've tested this myself with my Voigtlander full frame lenses between full frame bodies and crop bodies, and it's very apparent. I think for shares to social media you probably won't really notice much, but for anything else (print), there's a big difference.
I personally think it's more of a fact that Leica is on another level compared to Fujifilm. It might be hard for some to accept.
@@Elazarko I have both and love both. I think they have different strengths and weaknesses, and clearly a massive price difference. In my opinion
Leica
PROS
1. Extremely nice build quality. Feels great in the hand, feels great to shoot.
2. Simple and clear menu system
3. REAL rangefinder (makes a huge difference)
4. Support for all m mount lenses. There is a massive selection here of some of the worlds best lenses
CONS
1. Very expensive
2. Kind of sucks at nailing white balance and colors. Always have to tweak these a bit in post. Fuji is much better at this
Fuji
PROS
1. Very affordable
2. Amazing job on colors out of camera
3. Great film sim modes
4. Nice to have everything on dials (like Leica) rather than having to hunt through menus for basics
CONS
1. Stuck with fuji lenses are x mount lenses and the selection here is very slim. You can mount full frame lenses with an adapter but you'll notice that you won't get the same sharpness as you would if you had mounted them up a full frame camera. This is honestly the biggest drawback to Fuji system and a shame they don't make a full frame camera. Sure, with the right lenses the sharpness is just as good, but it locks you into a much more limited lens ecosystem.
2. Build quality not as good. It's about the same as other major cameras out there, but nowhere near the build quality of Leica, which is second to none, except for maybe Hasselblad.
3. Don't make any real rangefinder cameras, and IMO the Fuji EVFs are a bit of a disappointment
@@peterfarr9591 Good points Peter, pro's use both brands and "better" is a subjective term. If one has the money to buy a Leica and is happy it provides value for money then they should buy it and vice versa
The Leica has better contrast. But I still got one wrong.
I actually just did a similar test comparing the Fuji 35f2 against the voigtlander 35f2 mkii ultron and came to the same conclusion. Lol great video as always 🤙🏼
Holding the camera mom style at :28 lol
isn't this an M mount lens?
I have a whole bunch of adapters because i buy vintage lenses. A GREAT, Cheap option for those of us who can't afford Leica glass, mr. 1%! 😂😂😂
Basically no need, may as well put the chinese plethora of manual lenses, no adaptors needed , massively less expensive and therefore tons more fun .
I spotted all photos right, leica where warmer, had a better fall off and where a bit sharper imo. I saw this video on a iPhone 12 mini, so the photos where small 😁
Not an accurate observation at all.
0:27 thats how pros hold a camera.
Why was a lady’s voice interjected to say the word ‘difference’?
It is actually waist of the money and time.If you using fujifilm original M -X adapter you can dial in some corrections.You are better off with adapting Voigtlanders then spending money on Leica glass.Other than that I was always curios why one is comparing Leica with Fujifilm and other way around? X-pro line is a digital clone of the Contax G and has little to nothing with Leica M
Since fuji themselves produce a Leica adapter for Leica lenses....
I'd go with pretty damn perfect ;)
Same conclusion. Just use oem Fuji.
Leica is a lot warmer but barely any difference
It was pretty easy to spot the Leica glass as a Fuji user. Leica glass for me is pretty much all about colour rendering and it was pretty clear on the samples, the weather didn't really give justice for the comparison really.
Pricewise of course Leica is simply too expensive but I know a lot of photographers that work for tattoo studios that all they care is colour rendition and they don't mind shooting on APC. For something like that the combination makes sense (also they are the only photographers that i know of that they can buy a lens like that just for testing).
The Leica lenses are brighter
I actually prefer the Fuji lens more 😂
You talk a lot of sense Fuji cameras and lenses are very good do I want to pay 10 times as much to get 10% improvement Leica is a great way to spend a lot of money think Rolex Ferrari Louis Vuitton I shoot Fuji xpro1 and adapting lenses isnt always successful the xpro1 likes Fuji lenses and one of the best working lenses for him is the 18-55 standard zoom also with the optical viewfinder lends stabilisation and with the dual magnification all focal lengths are usable well it was made for the xpro1
How come your video color so Leica !
Wouldn’t use it professionally 😂 It’s a X-PRO.. 🙊
Thanks...awesome vídeo
1
One how tm