Benj, Your take on the viewfinders is interesting. As an old Leica user, I had in hand a system of (vintage) Leica lenses. I was completely sure I was going to buy a Typ 240 until I saw the X-Pro3's finder! It humiliated the Leica's for my glasses-wearing eyes. Brighter, sharper, a mile of eye relief, a ton of space outside the bright lines that I could actually use, built-in diopter adjustment, as many or as few informational icons as you want, correction for angle-of-view change with (much closer) focus distance.... it was not a short list of advantages. It handed the Leica finder a doleful drubbing. And the finder is what these cameras are about. I bought the Fuji. ----- Yeah, the Fuji's finder is .52, compared to .73 for the M10. That may be a major thing for you. And it's clearly what you are used to. But we should remember why it is that Leica finders are mostly in the .71-ish range. It's not that Leica thinks that glasses wearers not being able to see the 28mm lines at all and having to shift around to see the corners of the 35mm lines is a good thing so much as it's about the rangefinder. Viewfinder magnification determines effective rangefinder base as well as how clearly the user can see the patch. South of .7, focusing 90s becomes a bit dodgy. Which might be why Leica no longer offers a .58 finder option. Absent the focusing limitations, I'll bet a Fuji-ish .58 option would be pretty popular. ------- Then there's the matter of this manual focusing thing. The Fuji doesn't even have manual focusing in OVF mode, in any practical sense. The only way you can focus the Fuji for-real manually is "groundglass" style - when you are using the camera as an SLR. (Or in that little display in the corner of the finder. Which is still "groundglass, SLR-style" focusing.) You could fairly compare that to using the Visoflex, I suppose. But why bother, because the whole point of these cameras is the optical finder and what that means to freeing your mind to worry about stuff that matters instead of focusing. Real-world, "manually" putting the patch on the subject and pressing the button until it turns green then re-composing or lining up the patch and then re-composing seem like pretty similar methods to me. Even though one technically is "autofocus" and one isn't. If you want to talk about "manual" focusing, those two methods are what you would need to compare. I can't say which is "better", BTW. Both have largely the same limitations and both require the photographer to learn some skills. OK, some difficult skills. But there's a point to the effort. The Fuji does have the "bail-out" option of switching to for-real autofocus. That is a thing, but maybe not as big a thing as it sounds. ----- Yes, I'm happy with the Fuji system. All things reasonably equal, it's what I reach for first. I'm certainly not selling it anytime soon. That said, I have been shooting a little film in my Leicas lately. It's fun. As I write this I'm shopping for a 246. Not to replace the Fuji and not for professional reasons, but just for personal, emotional ones.
Another thing re glasses & the XPro that suits me is the ability to wear prescription sunglasses and increase the brightness in the EVF when using zooms, a bonus to this old eye. By the time I'd adjusted a patch system (I have tried) the show would be over.
I relate to the paying more for a harder experience... I am currently working with an ALPA SWA with a digital back and a film back.... every shot takes a while....
I have the Fuji and have used the Leica for some length of time - it has by far a better overall experience than the Leica which, imho, is overhyped. The other issue with the Leica is that most users will not use it because of how much it costs. I'd much rather have a camera that I am comfortable using day to day than one which has to live in its box. 'claaaaaaw'
It is important to note that FF doesn't immediately better. The overall sharpness/print resolution is higher due to more lw/ph, but the dynamic range of the M10 vs the X-Trans 4 is actually almost identical.
I have an M10 with 35 Lux FLE and 50 Lux asph, and I’ve been thinking about switching to Fuji X Pro3. So called “Leica experience” is hyped by everyone but there are things they don’t tell you, like the stiction on the 50 asph, the 0.7m MFD, the focus shifts, and sometimes the RF focusing is cumbersome when all you want is to just get the shot. I will be selling my Leica system soon.
As a Leica user I can say most of this made sense EXCEPT saying that Leica wins in the lens category---that's absolutely ridiculous. If you only had native lenses, then yes, that would be accurate (but it wouldn't be an overwhelming win even with that). But the fact that with Fuji you not only get to use the superb Fuji native lenses (which are very strong performers), but you can ALSO use the Leica lenses, PLUS many other brands of lenses, gives the Fuji the definite win in this category. Suggesting otherwise shows extreme subjective bias not based in facts. Yes, you have the crop factor when using Leica lenses on Fuji, however, this crop factor will actually make many Leica lenses perform BETTER than on the Leica body itself, since you are using the sharpest and cleanest part of the imaging circle. There isn't so much of a difference with Summicrons, which are still reasonably sharp at the edges, but with Summilux lenses there most certainly is.
I like rangefinders for 28-50 focal lengths. For making unprepared photographs quickly, inside or in low light. I want short lenses. SLRs have the other focal lengths covered imho.
@@mynewcolour Personally I prefer rangefinders as well, however the 28-50mm range is extremely well covered by _all_ camera systems. It’s only when you go wider than that you have issues with a larger selection of quality lenses for crop sensors. However, even with that “handicap” there is no shortage of adaptable wide lenses available for Fuji X cameras. I personally use Leica M and other rangefinders, and Panasonic m4/3, which allows even more lens choices. m4/3 does indeed suffer on the wide end though, as native lenses are pretty much the only choice for wides.
Crops sensors are good for zone focused shooting only (for me). For my uses of 28-50mm (for which rangefinder camera bodies are more useful than other systems) I still want some dof control, so a full sensor. We are lucky to have so many options to suit everyone.
I had to give up the Leica because the newspaper I was working for stopped repairing and insuring them. But with the Leica, the images are all on you. I use the X-Pro3 now and the experience when shooting with it is very similar to the Leica. Both cameras are just begged to be used. I refer to the XPro-3 as a practical man’s Leica.
As a Fujifilm user I will say your review is honest and the points you make are valid. Neither of these cameras is for the masses but the Leica certainly has more mojo for the connoisseur and if I had unlimited funds and did photography just for my own pleasure...I´d certainly go for the Leica. Even though holding the brick is a chore :) As a working proffessional (if there is something like that in these times...) the Fuji makes far more sense. That said, I perfer the x-T line for the same reason. Thanks for the review and all the best.
Enjoyed the video and thought you gave an objective overview. From my perspective, FWIW, I’d think a better comparison would be the Leica SL (or SL2S) to the XPro 3. It’s just hard matching up a manual focus rangefinder with the auto focus mirror less. I do shoot with both brands, like them for different reasons.
One is Leica rangefinder and other one remake of the Contax G. They are both two different tools,and maybe you should compare film Leica M vs Contax G. There is nothing similar between them.
The next Leica M model needs to adopt the no-battery-door style they have with their SL and Q cameras. Maybe taking off that bottom plate is nostalgic for some people but to me it seems so impractical.
Loving the lighting updates, just about to purchase the X100V as my everyday camera after selling my X70. Love the X-Pro range but don't need another ICL camera
I have a natural avertion to ever calling these electronic "Digital Image" capture "boxes" : Cameras! The "Camera", especially in the hands of a highly skilled and talented Photographer was never in the same category as these technological wonders. A true "Photographer" must have an intuitive "feeling" for seeing the possible photograph in every local he visits. And, with only a limited number of "frames" available on each roll of film, he had to be selective. He could never shoot hundreds or even thousands of "images" on just one microSD card.
A fair comparison, nicely done. Ultimately it is like anything in life - choices are out there as we live in a capitalist society and if you want a premium ‘experience’ buy a Porsche at the premium cost and if you want to save money and still have plenty fun, buy the likes of an MX-5 and spend the money you save on important things in life. I drive a Mazda and shoot Fuji...
The fuji images that I have taken have been nice looking...same for same....wanted and want a Leica...but it is not there for me now. Autofocus.. Cost. Better finder/evf. Better shutter. Better software. Better lenses in terms of a human with a real job not a rich person. So for me, the Fuji wins by a landslide.....the jpegs are way, way, way better on the Fuji and that saves time...lots of it. Time is way more important than anything else mentioned. By a lot. And the Fuji was and is more fun to use.
Fwiw, every review or comparison hopefully brings YEARS if not decades of experience into it all. Completely unbiased reviews just aren’t a thing, but fwiw, I own more Fujifilm cameras than Leica cameras ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@benjhaisch Well said. A review completely without bias isn't possible, unless you're just simply comparing measured specs, which would be very boring lol. We all have our own experiences and preferences. For the most part I thought this video was reasonably fair, with the only exception to that being Leica winning the lens category, which is pretty laughable (see my other comment for explanation).
Even if it was twice the price of the current X-Pro3, a full frame X-Pro would sell to a lot of photographers who want to adapt their Leica lenses without stretching to the M10 price point.
I just watched 16 minutes of “I own a Leica, so let me justify my expense.” Two totally different cameras with completely different use cases that really shouldn’t even be compared. But, watched the whole thing, because I like the videos. Keep it up!
@@benjhaisch I think people need to understand that aside from general appearance, these are two completely different tools. Anyway, looking forward to the next one. Take it easy.
I just borrowed one to test it out. I used to have the XPro-1. Hardly used it aside of filming Skateboarding. Rather kept on taking pictures with the M6. Sold the Xpro and got an XH1. Better for filming, and still can mount my Leica lenses. Bought an M8. Didn‘t use it too much, M6 way better. Borrowed a M10, being skeptical, thought it‘s like the M8 but more sophisticated. Weird thing, it feels like my M6. Been shooting it a week and enjoyed it. When switching to the M6 there is no „adapting“. With family there isn‘t that much time for the extensive darkroom work, so I‘m considering on getting an M10-P on the used market. Hardly did any post, really like the look. But yeah, the arguments against it, I truly understand. Still contemplating… 🤷♀️
Why do you wish it were full frame? You can buy a gfx for less than the Leica and have a bigger sensor and more resolution; plus weather sealing and ibis.
Funny thing is I didn't have to tape the dot, nobody in my family noticed that it's a different camera 🤣 Truth is it's actually my wife who suggest me to sell the Fuji and buy the Leica... 😅😍
Nice comparison. the two cameras look really similar yet the leica still looks much more clean and better. However, for the price of the x-pro 3 you can not even buy a used m 240.😣
I just bought a used X-Pro 3 with 3 lenses for the same price of an M 240. I know the Leica will probably hold its value for longer, but I couldn't be happier with the Fuji, and don't really ever plan on switching over.
While I agree on some points, you're definitely biased towards Leica😅Like the experience for instance, usable range for viewfinder on Leica is very limited, shooting wide angle or tele brings no joy, whereas X-Pro can give EVF when you need😉And yeah, giving a point for the whole sensor just because it's bigger, c'mon🤔
I’m running a Similar camera kit, the previous generations of both cameras from this video. I’m using the M240 and X pro 2, need autofocus and video every now and then, otherwise it would be a Leica only kit.
I was thinking the same thing when he mentioned that, especially when he talked about 7artisans and TTartisans. They make manual glass specifically for the Fuji X mount.
It is hard to separate the lens category from the focusing category. Leica lenses arguably produce the best images and it is easier to focus Leica glass on a Leica body than on a Fuji one, so from that standpoint Leica wins the lens category. But I see your point.
Fair point, but beware the Fuji M Mount adaptor does have a list of compatible lenses. Some popular Leica focal lengths may not work on your Fujifilm body.
I think you can mount a Nikon AiS lens in a Leica M with very good results, thing is you need to either use Live View or a Visoflex to focus. The OVF of the Leica won't help.
One thing that I find really cool about my X Pro 2 is the ability to place the focus spot almost anywhere on the frame. When I was shooting film on my M4, especially with a shallow DoF lens like a 90 mm Sumicron, I had to locate the point of interest (e.g. the subject’s eye) at the centre of the frame, focus, then recompose. In a dynamic situation, there might not be time to recompose. Meanwhile, with the Fuji, you can reposition the focus spot with the little joystick and get composition and critical focus all at once! Small thing, but part of the all-important shooting experience. Another thing. I agree totally that manual focus with a focus-by-wire lens sucks. However, if you use a rangefinder lens with an adapter, and the Fuji OVF, the experience is actually pretty good. My only reservation is that my 1970 35 mm Sumicron is softer and noticeably less contrasty than the Fuji f/1.4 35mm. Great if you’re into nostalgia, but not a go-to for my purposes.
Great video, thanks! I always cringe a bit, though, when people claim to critique design but then just talk about the aesthetics. Aesthetics are a small part of design, but really the core is how the product is used. I.e. how well does it fit in your hand, how’s the button placement, how are the dials, how well does it fit your workflow.
I'm glad you brought up depreciation. One of the things people don't consider when evaluating the price of a piece of kit is the rate a depreciation. What you spend on a camera or lens is not the initial purchase amount. It's the initial purchase amount minus the resale value over time. For instance, I bought my XT-2 back in the day for about 700 dollars. I sold it about 8 months later for 650. So, in reality, I only spent 50 dollars on that camera to use it for eight months. WAY cheaper than any rental. This is a huge factor to consider when buying Leica. If you're able to resell it after three years for only a thousand or so less than what you bought it for, then it's actually not that expensive of a purchase. Leica lenses in particular hold their value incredibly well, so you can't really go wrong if you buy one used. Obviously, you have to have the money to make the initial purchase, but it's certainly not a nonsense long-term investment.
There are some case where used Leica lenses are selling for more than their original retail price. I forget which, but I think it might be the Elmarits.
Actually it’s only the Leica glass that holds more value than the bodies. I personally wouldn’t want to pay thousands for an M9 when camera sensors are much better for the same price. Now Leica film camera bodies do hold a better value. I bought an M3 in 2009 for $500 and sold it last year with a misaligned rangefinder for $700. Paying more for a digital sensor doesn’t make sense today unless it was unique which is why I feel in the future, Fuji cameras will have a higher resale value as classic digital cameras than any other company.
@@MGrose407 Funny you bring up the M9 because I happened to pick up one that had a replaced sensor by Leica for about 2100 just 3 days before Leica announced that they were going to stop servicing the M9 entirely and all M9's out there were corroded sensors fate was sealed to forever have corroded sensors. I sold it just a month later for 3000, and that's actually the only reason I did sell it was the price increase.
You should make a video comparing a Leica camera with a similarly priced Fujifilm camera, something like the M10 vs GFX 100S with a nice GF lens. That would be very interesting to see what you're getting for the SAME price from both brands 🙃
GFX 100s might not be a fair comparison since it’s not a range finder “style” camera. Maybe a GFX50R? It’s a much older GFX that should be a fun video to watch. It’s would be awesome if you can get a M10R too. So it will be a battle of 50’ish mp monsters. I do enjoy your videos. Great contents. Keep it up. I’ll make sure to watch and like.
@@orispace No, the 100s. The best for the best...they discontinued the 50r. This many pixels needs ibis these days.... The 100S images will blow away anything under 10k sold by Leica. Anything.
I picked up an M-E (later model M9) this past summer and it's been interesting contrasting it against my main workhorse, the X-T3. I thought your comments towards the end hit the nail on the head for my experience; the M-E is no question a more involved, challenging shooting experience. It's reminiscent to me of shooting film, where I need to take more care. It's not how I would choose to shoot everything, which is why I pick it up way less than my X-T3 or X100V, but sometimes I want that highly tactile experience of holding a hunk of brass in my hand, moving a focus tab, and turning metal dials to set my exposure. Using most modern mirrorless cameras is like shooting fish in a barrel. The M-E feels like using the most high-end crossbow ever made. It feels that much more satisfying to produce a great image out of it than *because* it is more challenging. My hope is that at the end of COVID I will be able to take it out and do some street photography and really become adept at using it. It won't be for everyone, but I find it undeniably fun.
You really are a Leica fanboy. The Fuji blows the Leica away. I now both. The lenses for the Fuji are on par or better. The Leica lenses are great but way overpriced. Side by side images the editors I deal with can’t tell the difference.
The X-Pro 3 has a X-Trans Sensor that is doing very good work with Filmsimulations. I think it's not well thought out to just give the point to the Leica due to the size of the sensor alone.
Very good video! For me the use and being inspired by whatever camera + lens we use is the most important, makes me wanna go out and use more often. Ive bought limited xpro2 graphite 2 weeks ago with 35 1.4 and love that combo for photos and just having fun outside, also got 18-55 zoom to use for other stuff and thats enought for me. I am selling x-t30, 23 & 35 f2, 55-200 - it was good for learning and trying. But xpro2 with 35 1.4 feels more old school and it just affordabale without breaking the bank too. Anyway. Cheers pal.
What this video was for to discredit Fuji ? Or to show the people who use Leica are have better test (0r much more money ) , not image samples, Etc bad comprising . It's not about camera but about photographer , You have. My dislike to be a dushbag.
Haha! No, I own more Fujifilm cameras than Leica cameras. Huge fan. I just set out to compare a few different factors and gave my commentary. You don’t have to agree. It’s just my own personal preference.
I have that same brass grip for the X-Pro3 and it’s so sick. Yeah I really wish that Fujifilm would offer lenses that are simply not focus-by-wire. That’s a tall order, I get it, but I would love to have that experience plus more lenses with zone-focusing indicators. I was actually thinking today how dope it would be for Fuji to incorporate an actual rangefinder patch in the next X-Pro model. Or at least firmware updates so we can have a representative “rangefinder” mode for manual focusing, in addition to peak highlights and split image. Tall orders, again, but fun to think out of the box.
Oh, but they did. And a superb one at that; check the 23/1.4. Sure it's slow as molasses so I don't use it even tho I have it. If you want something that is mechanical and of comparable quality get some equivalent Voigtländers. I have a couple of M-X adapters and put my Leica and Voigtländers in my X-Pro2. Superb experience and the focus-peaking is faster even than the Leica patches.
@@jorgemtrevino yes the clutch focus is super cool on that one, the 16mm 1.4, and the 14mm 2.8. It still works as focus-by-wire though. On the note of manual focus lenses, I totally agree. I lobe using my Leica glass on my Fujifilm.
It's not the camera that makes a great photograph, it's the vision of the photographer. Leica won't make you any better than a Rolls royce makes you a better driver or a Steinway piano makes ypu a better pianist. . This is a gear acquisition syndrome without common sense. The world's greatest photographers used a big box camera and incredible vision. Karsh, Adam's etc.
Great comparison! I own and love my XPro-3. If I was going to buy a camera that I'd keep for 10+ years I'd probably go Leica. However at my age a 10+ year camera is probably not a good investment ;) You did make me realize what a Leica wannabe I am, and what partially drove me to the XProX model to begin with.
I know this video is old but on the topic of Leicas holding value, I would say that it is a minus just as it is a plus. Much of the older lenses hold value because the mount is the same and Leica users will buy less sharp, more flawed lenses because it gives them what they feel is a "leica look" and "character" as well as simply because some have the money to be collectors of rare lenses. Of course the lenses themselves were well made for their time to begin with. As for the value of M bodies, these hold because Leica is so slow at updating for obvious reasons. If the difference between an M9 and an M11 is 3 generations of bodies or chassis with only 2 real bumps in MP count between the 13-14 years of manufacturing, of course the older ones will still hold some value. They're at the very least 70% of the package of the newest and greatest M. I understand this is because Leica users are notoriously picky about remaining in the past as long as possible because that's why they bought a leica in the first place, but I hope people realize that it's not JUST because the M bodies are somehow magical in their qualities. It's that they haven't changed very much at all since they first released. A 10 year old loaf of bread could probably hold value if it wasn't very different from fresh bread.
I have the same 2 cameras and boy you are WRONG and in favor of Leica. How long have you been using die schwarze volkskamera? 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Be painfully truthful to yourself…. thats the first rule of professionalism, used it or you’ll be doom to fail, for time never lies!
Worth mentioning Leica M-mount glass can be used on Fuji bodies without issues, but as far as I'm aware, only M-mount lenses can be used on Leica bodies. While I shoot Fuji myself for multiple reasons, I started noticing I'm gravitating more towards fully manual lenses even though I have absolutely no issues with the Fuji prime lenses at all. I'm a huge fan of both of these brands, it seems like both Leica and Fuji want to put the fun back into photography. They're both reviving that nostalgic feeling of shooting with range-finder film-cameras but they achieve this goal with different methods.
Very interesting commentary. But to be honest, I'm not sure I learned anything. As someone who uses the XPro2 (along with Nikon and Olympus) I can appreciate the quality and nuances that the Leica purports to offer. I'd love to try/own a Leica... but I'd be hard pressed to spend 4X the amount for what the XPro2 can competently deliver. So while I can appreciate all the fine points of a Leica, it really does come down value-for-price proposition for each individual to decide on: is that premium increase in cost worth the experience the price offers. As for long term value, I note that a used XPro2, for example, sells for about $1000 Cdn on eBay, or about 40% of its original selling price 6 years ago. A used Leica M10 sells on eBay for about 50% of its new price. So, Fujis hold their value - at least for these rangefinder-esque models - not too badly either. Finally, I'm not sure all those evaluation categories are equally weighted. If you added a weighting function, the two cameras might come out a lot closer on a normalized basis. For example, yes, battery life is important, but carrying 2 or 3 extra, inexpensive batteries is hardly a deal breaker. :)
You cant hope to be respected on the basis that you based your opinions from the usage of a camera that you borrowed from someone, I appreciate the qualities of the Leica, but evidently you are not qualified to make judgement s that are to be taken seriously ? (if that is the expectation? or maybe having a laugh?) on a camera that you dont know how to exploit its maximum potential. you should remember that it takes potentially months/ years with any camera system to become an expert on THAT particular camera. So , on the basis that you casually used some elses camera, your post is not relevant.
You summarized it well.. ultimately it is gear love - phrases like “shooting experience”, “makes me want to pick-up and shoot”, “love the way it feels in my hands”, “involving”, “slows me down”, “I have to work it”, “feels like I am doing something”, “love the weight of it”, “love the way it looks”, “Leica pop” all of this tells me it is really is all about human-camera interaction and preferences. Well, I hope you compare it it an old Fuji GFX 50r (to keep the rangefinder-esque criteria), a Leica would still score on OVF and perhaps design with experience split right in the middle, objectively speaking.
My experience as a photographer for the last 30 years using many different camera brands. In the film days it was first the Minolta Dynax 700i, a fully automatic camera with great eye AF and it had this expansion card system where you could get settings to do certain things. Then I moved onto an Contax G2, ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Olympus system, then Nikon, then settled with Canon all the way until the first 6D.IT was around the time of the Leica S2 and Leica M8 that I seriously started considering Leica. Now I have a little bias, considering I really wanted a Fuji X Pro 1 when it came out but the store I purchased cameras didn't have any in stock. I got a X-E1. Within a few months, I accidentally dropped the camera and the sensor turned upside down and green. I contacted Fuji, there was nothing they could do. I got so frustrated I went to a local used camera shop and asked if they had a Leica... The rest is as is said, history. I shoot a Leica M, Leica SL2/SL2S, Q, S typ 007 and as well, Lumix, Sigma, Blackmagic and RICOH. I would say 80% of the time I would go to an M and at least consider taking it before any other camera. As you said, the rangefinder (where the actual M comes from, Messsucher) is something that isnt for everyone. However nothing good ever is.
In Canadian dollars a Leica M10 24mp body and a Summicron 35mmf2 lens is gonna cost $15,000. The XPro3 + Fuji 35mmf1.4 costs about $3,000. This is like comparing a Ferrari to a Volkswagon lol. Nothing wrong with a Fuji nor a VW but if you have horrendous amounts of money to spend then why not an Italian sports car and a luxury camera brand? Oh, BTW the image quality from the Fuji is exceptional and in 90% of all cases as good as the Leica. Leica fan boys feel free to pile on.
I get your point but your comparison is a bit off as Leica has the aesthetic and value of a Ferrari but a power of a Volks... and vice versa for Fuji.. they get you from A to B WAY faster.
Outdated, overpriced, and not all that reliable, but it has snob appeal. Really? The Fuji is a far better tool, but it comes with the stigma of a reasonable price. Leica as jewelry, definitely. Fuji as a great camera system, definitely. Nothing wrong with either one. Just a matter of need and preference.
I don't get any of this. The Fuji only wins categories that the Leica doesn't even have. And the lens category is way too objective. Leica lenses are great... so are Fuji. And Fuji can adapt to Leica. Not so with Leica adapting to Fuji.
I would probably buy an M10 and a 35mm Summicron if I had £10000 to spare as I love the “simple” rangefinder experience. However I bought an M6 and the Voigtlander Nokton which scratches that itch. For digital I have an XPro2 which again satisfies my need for pared back photography, and I love the results. Having said all that, each to their own, use what you love to use
I mean, that’s how it works, right? It’s all subjective unless you’re just looking at MTF charts or DXO scores. And even then, color and usage still come down to personal preference.
Haha! Fwiw, I love pineapple/pepperoni and that’s a fairly good analogy because I also love FUJI/LEICA and have owned about 8 different Fuji cameras and 8 different Leica cameras over the years. Everyone has a bias and a preference, thinking you could get a 100% completely blind objective comparison would be really really difficult.
@@benjhaisch haha yeah man I completely get it! I switched to fuji three years ago after 8 years of being with canon! I absolutely love fuji now, although I 100 percent will buy a Leica at somepoint! They all have their special quality’s!
I own three Fuji cameras and recently purchased my first Leica (240). There are things I love about both, but if Fuji could figure out a full frame camera with the same form factor I would be all in on Fuji. Just miss the full frame, but didn’t want to go back to a time when I was carrying around Canon Mark Iv’s
What an odd comparison. The Leica is better at everything except the features it doesn‘t have and price. Have you tried a manual lens or even an adapted M lens on the Fuji? It makes more sense to conpare them in the same shooting setup. Of course the Fuji has the better AF, and of course the Leica has the better MF experience because that‘s their main focusing method.
I owned both (but with the Leica being typ 240) and I love each of them differently. Btw FYI I bought the M240 based on your video. Great video as always!
Thanks Benj, great video! But, manual focusing? In my opinion Fuji has the best focus peaking system by far. It is so easy to use it even in dark situations.
I really like your videos but I don't get this comparison. A 5-6k full frame Leica vs a 1.3k APSC Fuji. I would expect the Leica to be better. I'd be shocked if it wasn't.
I have used both and I believe it first depends your budget as they are both great cameras!!! From all the M numbers, I now use an SL and I truly enjoy the outputs and shooting at ease!!!! Thank you for this!!! When the M14 comes out, Im back to the M and I say goodbye to the SL!!! Cheers
Great video. Started to shoot Leica a year ago with a Q2 and got sucked into the Leica ecosystem completely. Since then I love the M line and still see shooting with it 10 times as often compared to other much more advanced cameras. I fully can understand why people love Fuji. Was thinking about that as well but finally jumped on the Leica train and never regretted it since then. Thanks a lot for your videos. Greetings from Vienna, Austria. Stay safe!
Interesting video for two different and highly idiosyncratic cameras. For me, the takeaway is just how highly subjective camera preference is. I have the X-Pro3 which I enjoy very much, particularly when using the ovf to focus on composition. But for people deadset on having a real rangefinder the xpro is no substitute. For me, the other "objective" comparison points are debatable.
do you have much Leica experience? I do not have any fuji experience, but own Nikon, Sony and Leica .... Leica is just the best, so expensive most people will never get the chance to use them... that said, any camera will allow you to be creative and have fun.. take care.
The Fuji is the far more flexible machine. Not always important, of course. In a way, it can be seen as an M and a Q at the same time. Things you did not talk about: Flash and minimal focus distance. Fuji gives you HSS/TTL also with the likes of Godox and Profoto, and can use a flash AND the EVF at the same time. MFD of Leica lenses is mostly 70cm. If the odd lens can focus closer, the accessory finder needs to come out. One more comment on "Leicas hold their value better": Depends on how you look at it. Some rare limited editions do, of course. But a digital rangefinder loses about 1k - 1.5k a year. The 8k Leica M10 is now 4k in 2021. An XPRO2 went from 1.5k to maybe 500-600 USD at the same time span. Relatively speaking, the Leica still holds 50% of their full price and the Fuji only 33%. Absolutely speaking, the loss is 4k vs 1k.
If you can't afford a m10, the xpro3 is a brilliant alternative. I would definitely choose it over the PASM stuff out there, for sure. Now that Voigtlander is making Fuji lenses, tossing one on a xpro is a fantastic bit of street kit. Until you can buy a Leica, at least.
Why is no company will built a camera like a Leica but less expensive?! 8000€ only for the body... I have two fuji cameras (xpro 3 and xt3) love both. I had the luck to take pictures for two month with the leica m240 and it was absolutely great and I love the pictures but I my opinion fuji brings more on the table for less money. The lenses from both companies are great. The only "leica lens" I use on the xpro3 is the voigtländer 35mm f1.4 II M.C.. Great video but you are totally leica fan boy 😅👌🏼
I think it just comes down to real rangefinder experience. There is no ”better”. You can find m240 in a very condition for the same money or even cheaper as new Xpro 3. And if you want to sell your stuff u can still get more money for your used m240 than your xpro 3. So we can stop that price bs finally!
This was an interesting comparison. I'd like to see a video of shooting with the two side by side, commenting on the experience, then comparing the images from the two. I started shooting with Leicas in 1968 and I've had my current M3 for 40 years. My wife feels my best work has been with the Leica and she can look back an pick out the ones taken with it. We were actually in a camera store, I had an M8 in hand and my wife was encouraging me to buy it. I could easily afford it but I just couldn't justify it. While I am very comfortable shooting true rangefinder, it only works best with a narrow range of focal lengths, the Summicron trinity of 35-50-90. Anything outside of that range becomes a challenge. To me the advantage of the X-Pro is you are able to shoot OVF in that range, but you can also go way outside that range and shoot EVF. This is a big advantage of hybrid viewfinders. Yes, the Leica is wonderful, but I can easily hobble along with Fujis at a significant savings. To put my experience in perspective, I have a BFA from Art Center LA and worked for years as a full time professional.
OMG I'm so annoyed right now. Of course we would all love to have a Leica. But who can afford it? It wasn't even a fair comparison I think. Owning only the Fuji, I can tell you there are a lot of super useful features that wasn't covered here, like for instance viewing your shot in the EVF, or using peak focus across the whole screen, making manual focus way faster than split focus, just to name a few. But sure, I'll swap my Fuji for a M10 monochrome any day!
FWIW, the M240 is only slightly more than an X-Pro3. As I’ve owned bot these are obviously just my own personal opinions/preferences though. I do find that manually focusing with a rangefinder is MUCH more faster and accurate than any other manual focus tool I’ve used.
Camera bodies use to be purely an interface, a handling experience, because film used to drive image quality (and optics of course). Leica was a top dog for that very reason and that continues today. Just now we have to deal with sensor output too that cant just be changed out with a different roll of film.
I should have picked up an M9 a couple years ago. Prices for copies with a clean or replaced sensor are creeping back over $4k and approaching $5k..... copies with a corroded sensor are still in the $2k-$3k range. Wild... I bought my used GFX 50R for less than that.
Benj, Your take on the viewfinders is interesting. As an old Leica user, I had in hand a system of (vintage) Leica lenses. I was completely sure I was going to buy a Typ 240 until I saw the X-Pro3's finder! It humiliated the Leica's for my glasses-wearing eyes. Brighter, sharper, a mile of eye relief, a ton of space outside the bright lines that I could actually use, built-in diopter adjustment, as many or as few informational icons as you want, correction for angle-of-view change with (much closer) focus distance.... it was not a short list of advantages. It handed the Leica finder a doleful drubbing. And the finder is what these cameras are about. I bought the Fuji. ----- Yeah, the Fuji's finder is .52, compared to .73 for the M10. That may be a major thing for you. And it's clearly what you are used to. But we should remember why it is that Leica finders are mostly in the .71-ish range. It's not that Leica thinks that glasses wearers not being able to see the 28mm lines at all and having to shift around to see the corners of the 35mm lines is a good thing so much as it's about the rangefinder. Viewfinder magnification determines effective rangefinder base as well as how clearly the user can see the patch. South of .7, focusing 90s becomes a bit dodgy. Which might be why Leica no longer offers a .58 finder option. Absent the focusing limitations, I'll bet a Fuji-ish .58 option would be pretty popular. ------- Then there's the matter of this manual focusing thing. The Fuji doesn't even have manual focusing in OVF mode, in any practical sense. The only way you can focus the Fuji for-real manually is "groundglass" style - when you are using the camera as an SLR. (Or in that little display in the corner of the finder. Which is still "groundglass, SLR-style" focusing.) You could fairly compare that to using the Visoflex, I suppose. But why bother, because the whole point of these cameras is the optical finder and what that means to freeing your mind to worry about stuff that matters instead of focusing. Real-world, "manually" putting the patch on the subject and pressing the button until it turns green then re-composing or lining up the patch and then re-composing seem like pretty similar methods to me. Even though one technically is "autofocus" and one isn't. If you want to talk about "manual" focusing, those two methods are what you would need to compare. I can't say which is "better", BTW. Both have largely the same limitations and both require the photographer to learn some skills. OK, some difficult skills. But there's a point to the effort. The Fuji does have the "bail-out" option of switching to for-real autofocus. That is a thing, but maybe not as big a thing as it sounds. ----- Yes, I'm happy with the Fuji system. All things reasonably equal, it's what I reach for first. I'm certainly not selling it anytime soon. That said, I have been shooting a little film in my Leicas lately. It's fun. As I write this I'm shopping for a 246. Not to replace the Fuji and not for professional reasons, but just for personal, emotional ones.
Interesting bit about the finders
Another thing re glasses & the XPro that suits me is the ability to wear prescription sunglasses and increase the brightness in the EVF when using zooms, a bonus to this old eye. By the time I'd adjusted a patch system (I have tried) the show would be over.
Did anybody expect an unbiased review?
I relate to the paying more for a harder experience... I am currently working with an ALPA SWA with a digital back and a film back.... every shot takes a while....
Love your lighting man!
I have the Fuji and have used the Leica for some length of time - it has by far a better overall experience than the Leica which, imho, is overhyped. The other issue with the Leica is that most users will not use it because of how much it costs. I'd much rather have a camera that I am comfortable using day to day than one which has to live in its box. 'claaaaaaw'
feeling is "everything"!!! love you man!!!
It is important to note that FF doesn't immediately better. The overall sharpness/print resolution is higher due to more lw/ph, but the dynamic range of the M10 vs the X-Trans 4 is actually almost identical.
I have an M10 with 35 Lux FLE and 50 Lux asph, and I’ve been thinking about switching to Fuji X Pro3. So called “Leica experience” is hyped by everyone but there are things they don’t tell you, like the stiction on the 50 asph, the 0.7m MFD, the focus shifts, and sometimes the RF focusing is cumbersome when all you want is to just get the shot. I will be selling my Leica system soon.
I like Leica cameras with the EVF. You’re right it is overhyped at times because you work so hard to get a simple shot.
As a Leica user I can say most of this made sense EXCEPT saying that Leica wins in the lens category---that's absolutely ridiculous. If you only had native lenses, then yes, that would be accurate (but it wouldn't be an overwhelming win even with that). But the fact that with Fuji you not only get to use the superb Fuji native lenses (which are very strong performers), but you can ALSO use the Leica lenses, PLUS many other brands of lenses, gives the Fuji the definite win in this category. Suggesting otherwise shows extreme subjective bias not based in facts. Yes, you have the crop factor when using Leica lenses on Fuji, however, this crop factor will actually make many Leica lenses perform BETTER than on the Leica body itself, since you are using the sharpest and cleanest part of the imaging circle. There isn't so much of a difference with Summicrons, which are still reasonably sharp at the edges, but with Summilux lenses there most certainly is.
Yay all your lenses are long now
@@mynewcolour Although it can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the shooting style, the wides are where the native lenses make more sense.
I like rangefinders for 28-50 focal lengths. For making unprepared photographs quickly, inside or in low light. I want short lenses. SLRs have the other focal lengths covered imho.
@@mynewcolour Personally I prefer rangefinders as well, however the 28-50mm range is extremely well covered by _all_ camera systems. It’s only when you go wider than that you have issues with a larger selection of quality lenses for crop sensors. However, even with that “handicap” there is no shortage of adaptable wide lenses available for Fuji X cameras. I personally use Leica M and other rangefinders, and Panasonic m4/3, which allows even more lens choices. m4/3 does indeed suffer on the wide end though, as native lenses are pretty much the only choice for wides.
Crops sensors are good for zone focused shooting only (for me). For my uses of 28-50mm (for which rangefinder camera bodies are more useful than other systems) I still want some dof control, so a full sensor.
We are lucky to have so many options to suit everyone.
Think if I had 12,000 doll hairs to buy the Leica and a lens or two I would buy the Fuji and lots of lenses, instead...
I had to give up the Leica because the newspaper I was working for stopped repairing and insuring them. But with the Leica, the images are all on you. I use the X-Pro3 now and the experience when shooting with it is very similar to the Leica. Both cameras are just begged to be used. I refer to the XPro-3 as a practical man’s Leica.
As a Fujifilm user I will say your review is honest and the points you make are valid. Neither of these cameras is for the masses but the Leica certainly has more mojo for the connoisseur and if I had unlimited funds and did photography just for my own pleasure...I´d certainly go for the Leica. Even though holding the brick is a chore :) As a working proffessional (if there is something like that in these times...) the Fuji makes far more sense. That said, I perfer the x-T line for the same reason. Thanks for the review and all the best.
Enjoyed the video and thought you gave an objective overview. From my perspective, FWIW, I’d think a better comparison would be the Leica SL (or SL2S) to the XPro 3. It’s just hard matching up a manual focus rangefinder with the auto focus mirror less. I do shoot with both brands, like them for different reasons.
One is Leica rangefinder and other one remake of the Contax G. They are both two different tools,and maybe you should compare film Leica M vs Contax G. There is nothing similar between them.
The next Leica M model needs to adopt the no-battery-door style they have with their SL and Q cameras. Maybe taking off that bottom plate is nostalgic for some people but to me it seems so impractical.
The rumors are saying that is coming on the M11!
C est une argumentation très bien construite pour ,un nouvel i phone ....
Fujifilm is the poor man's Leica. I like it
Fujifilm is the "smart man's Leica!" Waaaay less money, same results.
Loving the lighting updates, just about to purchase the X100V as my everyday camera after selling my X70. Love the X-Pro range but don't need another ICL camera
You won’t regret it
@@mariogpx2990 I’m stuck on color choice, normally go black but silver looks good!
@@alisinclair8529 both colors are great , but my favorite is black !
I have a natural avertion to ever calling these electronic "Digital Image" capture "boxes" : Cameras!
The "Camera", especially in the hands of a highly skilled and talented Photographer was never in the same category as these technological wonders.
A true "Photographer" must have an intuitive "feeling" for seeing the possible photograph in every local he visits. And, with only a limited number of "frames" available on each roll of film, he had to be selective. He could never shoot hundreds or even thousands of "images" on just one microSD card.
Switched off as soon as he said he’s a Leica fanboy. Here’s the deal I actually own a Leica. Shame he’s biased
A fair comparison, nicely done. Ultimately it is like anything in life - choices are out there as we live in a capitalist society and if you want a premium ‘experience’ buy a Porsche at the premium cost and if you want to save money and still have plenty fun, buy the likes of an MX-5 and spend the money you save on important things in life. I drive a Mazda and shoot Fuji...
How much did you use the Fuji. Because you don’t sound like you used the camera
I’ve been using Fuji for far longer than Leica
Is it even possible to justify buying a Leica as a professional working photographer?
The fuji images that I have taken have been nice looking...same for same....wanted and want a Leica...but it is not there for me now.
Autofocus..
Cost.
Better finder/evf.
Better shutter.
Better software.
Better lenses in terms of a human with a real job not a rich person.
So for me, the Fuji wins by a landslide.....the jpegs are way, way, way better on the Fuji and that saves time...lots of it. Time is way more important than anything else mentioned. By a lot.
And the Fuji was and is more fun to use.
Benj, do you ever have any issues with dust on your sensor? Leica does not have an internal dust cleaning mechanism like some brands.
I haven’t yet! But I don’t shoot at f/8+ against blue skies often
can the M10 do long exposure (more than 30") with high iso? (3200 and above)
Fuji= Poor mans Leica. I can live with that.
Would definitely like to see how well both of these cameras perform at night
It’s a little unfair but it was fun to watch
of coz, leica, more lenses and full frame, the only thing need to be considered is the budget
Can you review the lightsaber in the back pls
Find your own kyber crystals, young padawan.
Huh?
That fuji lens hood is breath taking. And looks way better in worn condition than perfect... **runs over to scratch up my own fuji lens hood**
Yeah man my 35mm f1.4 hood is scratched up like that and I love it hahaha
As soon as I heard “I borrowed the X-Pro3 from...” I immediately knew the direction this video was going to go
Yeah this was not unbiased…. By any means… content for the sake of content…. Booooooo.
Fwiw, every review or comparison hopefully brings YEARS if not decades of experience into it all. Completely unbiased reviews just aren’t a thing, but fwiw, I own more Fujifilm cameras than Leica cameras ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@benjhaisch Well said. A review completely without bias isn't possible, unless you're just simply comparing measured specs, which would be very boring lol. We all have our own experiences and preferences. For the most part I thought this video was reasonably fair, with the only exception to that being Leica winning the lens category, which is pretty laughable (see my other comment for explanation).
Same haha
@@benjhaisch well no shit you own more Fujis they cost a fraction of what it takes to buy Leicas lmao
Even if it was twice the price of the current X-Pro3, a full frame X-Pro would sell to a lot of photographers who want to adapt their Leica lenses without stretching to the M10 price point.
Fuji makes an M mount adapter you know.
@@NullStaticVoid Yeah but it’s APSC so putting M mount lenses on it results in a crop factor and loss of detail and bokeh.
I just watched 16 minutes of “I own a Leica, so let me justify my expense.” Two totally different cameras with completely different use cases that really shouldn’t even be compared. But, watched the whole thing, because I like the videos. Keep it up!
Haha, it’s been requested waaaaaaay too many times and I happen to be one of the few that has pretty extensive experience with both. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@benjhaisch I think people need to understand that aside from general appearance, these are two completely different tools. Anyway, looking forward to the next one. Take it easy.
you saved my 16 mins bro
Literally my thoughts exactly
I just borrowed one to test it out. I used to have the XPro-1. Hardly used it aside of filming Skateboarding. Rather kept on taking pictures with the M6. Sold the Xpro and got an XH1. Better for filming, and still can mount my Leica lenses. Bought an M8. Didn‘t use it too much, M6 way better. Borrowed a M10, being skeptical, thought it‘s like the M8 but more sophisticated. Weird thing, it feels like my M6. Been shooting it a week and enjoyed it. When switching to the M6 there is no „adapting“. With family there isn‘t that much time for the extensive darkroom work, so I‘m considering on getting an M10-P on the used market. Hardly did any post, really like the look. But yeah, the arguments against it, I truly understand. Still contemplating… 🤷♀️
X-pro is the Contax G-series of this era. Well-said. I just wish it was full frame.
They make medium format cameras at full frame prices, so, you could always try one of those....
I agree. I have a G1 with a 45mm I use, definitely.
Why do you wish it were full frame? You can buy a gfx for less than the Leica and have a bigger sensor and more resolution; plus weather sealing and ibis.
Gaffers Tape on my Leica so the Wife still thinks I'm shooting on a Fuji.
I upgrade from X-pro1 to X-pro2, now the Leica M240, my wife thought I am using the same camera
@@8utt3rsasdqwe Sometimes in life, we are forced to make difficult decisions.
Funny thing is I didn't have to tape the dot, nobody in my family noticed that it's a different camera 🤣
Truth is it's actually my wife who suggest me to sell the Fuji and buy the Leica... 😅😍
@@obscur_yoann lucky dude haha
😆🙌
Nice comparison. the two cameras look really similar yet the leica still looks much more clean and better. However, for the price of the x-pro 3 you can not even buy a used m 240.😣
I just bought a used X-Pro 3 with 3 lenses for the same price of an M 240. I know the Leica will probably hold its value for longer, but I couldn't be happier with the Fuji, and don't really ever plan on switching over.
While I agree on some points, you're definitely biased towards Leica😅Like the experience for instance, usable range for viewfinder on Leica is very limited, shooting wide angle or tele brings no joy, whereas X-Pro can give EVF when you need😉And yeah, giving a point for the whole sensor just because it's bigger, c'mon🤔
I’m running a Similar camera kit, the previous generations of both cameras from this video. I’m using the M240 and X pro 2, need autofocus and video every now and then, otherwise it would be a Leica only kit.
When Fuji won a category it was compared to other cameras. When Leica won a category it was not compared to other cameras. Just sayin.
I think the XPro3 win the lens category because it can adapt all Leica lenses as well via adapters. Leica mount can’t adapt anything. Just a thought.
Yup agreed.. Pretty much anything can be adapted to the fuji mount. Even leica glass...
I was thinking the same thing when he mentioned that, especially when he talked about 7artisans and TTartisans. They make manual glass specifically for the Fuji X mount.
It is hard to separate the lens category from the focusing category. Leica lenses arguably produce the best images and it is easier to focus Leica glass on a Leica body than on a Fuji one, so from that standpoint Leica wins the lens category. But I see your point.
Fair point, but beware the Fuji M Mount adaptor does have a list of compatible lenses. Some popular Leica focal lengths may not work on your Fujifilm body.
I think you can mount a Nikon AiS lens in a Leica M with very good results, thing is you need to either use Live View or a Visoflex to focus. The OVF of the Leica won't help.
One thing that I find really cool about my X Pro 2 is the ability to place the focus spot almost anywhere on the frame. When I was shooting film on my M4, especially with a shallow DoF lens like a 90 mm Sumicron, I had to locate the point of interest (e.g. the subject’s eye) at the centre of the frame, focus, then recompose. In a dynamic situation, there might not be time to recompose. Meanwhile, with the Fuji, you can reposition the focus spot with the little joystick and get composition and critical focus all at once! Small thing, but part of the all-important shooting experience.
Another thing. I agree totally that manual focus with a focus-by-wire lens sucks. However, if you use a rangefinder lens with an adapter, and the Fuji OVF, the experience is actually pretty good. My only reservation is that my 1970 35 mm Sumicron is softer and noticeably less contrasty than the Fuji f/1.4 35mm. Great if you’re into nostalgia, but not a go-to for my purposes.
Great video, thanks! I always cringe a bit, though, when people claim to critique design but then just talk about the aesthetics. Aesthetics are a small part of design, but really the core is how the product is used. I.e. how well does it fit in your hand, how’s the button placement, how are the dials, how well does it fit your workflow.
Yes!
I like Leica because I can spend a lot of money and go out and take shitty shots. And then convince myself that it is a great photo.
I'm glad you brought up depreciation. One of the things people don't consider when evaluating the price of a piece of kit is the rate a depreciation. What you spend on a camera or lens is not the initial purchase amount. It's the initial purchase amount minus the resale value over time. For instance, I bought my XT-2 back in the day for about 700 dollars. I sold it about 8 months later for 650. So, in reality, I only spent 50 dollars on that camera to use it for eight months. WAY cheaper than any rental. This is a huge factor to consider when buying Leica. If you're able to resell it after three years for only a thousand or so less than what you bought it for, then it's actually not that expensive of a purchase. Leica lenses in particular hold their value incredibly well, so you can't really go wrong if you buy one used. Obviously, you have to have the money to make the initial purchase, but it's certainly not a nonsense long-term investment.
Absolutely agree
There are some case where used Leica lenses are selling for more than their original retail price. I forget which, but I think it might be the Elmarits.
I might argue xt2 lost half of its value during my ownership
Actually it’s only the Leica glass that holds more value than the bodies. I personally wouldn’t want to pay thousands for an M9 when camera sensors are much better for the same price. Now Leica film camera bodies do hold a better value. I bought an M3 in 2009 for $500 and sold it last year with a misaligned rangefinder for $700. Paying more for a digital sensor doesn’t make sense today unless it was unique which is why I feel in the future, Fuji cameras will have a higher resale value as classic digital cameras than any other company.
@@MGrose407 Funny you bring up the M9 because I happened to pick up one that had a replaced sensor by Leica for about 2100 just 3 days before Leica announced that they were going to stop servicing the M9 entirely and all M9's out there were corroded sensors fate was sealed to forever have corroded sensors. I sold it just a month later for 3000, and that's actually the only reason I did sell it was the price increase.
You should make a video comparing a Leica camera with a similarly priced Fujifilm camera, something like the M10 vs GFX 100S with a nice GF lens. That would be very interesting to see what you're getting for the SAME price from both brands 🙃
I’ve requested a GFX100S for review but I guess my RUclipsr status hasn’t reached that level yet ;)
GFX 100s might not be a fair comparison since it’s not a range finder “style” camera. Maybe a GFX50R? It’s a much older GFX that should be a fun video to watch. It’s would be awesome if you can get a M10R too. So it will be a battle of 50’ish mp monsters. I do enjoy your videos. Great contents. Keep it up. I’ll make sure to watch and like.
@@orispace No, the 100s. The best for the best...they discontinued the 50r. This many pixels needs ibis these days.... The 100S images will blow away anything under 10k sold by Leica. Anything.
You don’t need to make such a video man. You already know the results and we already know you are a Leica Fanboii :D
I picked up an M-E (later model M9) this past summer and it's been interesting contrasting it against my main workhorse, the X-T3. I thought your comments towards the end hit the nail on the head for my experience; the M-E is no question a more involved, challenging shooting experience. It's reminiscent to me of shooting film, where I need to take more care. It's not how I would choose to shoot everything, which is why I pick it up way less than my X-T3 or X100V, but sometimes I want that highly tactile experience of holding a hunk of brass in my hand, moving a focus tab, and turning metal dials to set my exposure.
Using most modern mirrorless cameras is like shooting fish in a barrel. The M-E feels like using the most high-end crossbow ever made. It feels that much more satisfying to produce a great image out of it than *because* it is more challenging. My hope is that at the end of COVID I will be able to take it out and do some street photography and really become adept at using it. It won't be for everyone, but I find it undeniably fun.
just picked up an X-pro3 last week and i couldn't be happier with it
So the x-pro wins just in the categories the leica doesn’t take part in? ^^
I mean for most cameras those are pretty important categories
@@benjhaisch your point gets clear and I am with you but I think they both have only the rangefinder design in common
@@VirtualS0lution the fuji is not a rangefinder. It’s a copy in form only.
@@ericjenks9596 that why I think they are hard to compare - but ben has a point with the shooting philosophy
You really are a Leica fanboy. The Fuji blows the Leica away. I now both. The lenses for the Fuji are on par or better. The Leica lenses are great but way overpriced. Side by side images the editors I deal with can’t tell the difference.
The X-Pro 3 has a X-Trans Sensor that is doing very good work with Filmsimulations. I think it's not well thought out to just give the point to the Leica due to the size of the sensor alone.
Yeah, it makes no sense. The usual "sensor size hype".
Very good video! For me the use and being inspired by whatever camera + lens we use is the most important, makes me wanna go out and use more often. Ive bought limited xpro2 graphite 2 weeks ago with 35 1.4 and love that combo for photos and just having fun outside, also got 18-55 zoom to use for other stuff and thats enought for me. I am selling x-t30, 23 & 35 f2, 55-200 - it was good for learning and trying. But xpro2 with 35 1.4 feels more old school and it just affordabale without breaking the bank too. Anyway. Cheers pal.
What this video was for to discredit Fuji ? Or to show the people who use Leica are have better test (0r much more money ) , not image samples,
Etc bad comprising . It's not about camera but about photographer , You have. My dislike to be a dushbag.
Haha! No, I own more Fujifilm cameras than Leica cameras. Huge fan. I just set out to compare a few different factors and gave my commentary. You don’t have to agree. It’s just my own personal preference.
I have that same brass grip for the X-Pro3 and it’s so sick. Yeah I really wish that Fujifilm would offer lenses that are simply not focus-by-wire. That’s a tall order, I get it, but I would love to have that experience plus more lenses with zone-focusing indicators. I was actually thinking today how dope it would be for Fuji to incorporate an actual rangefinder patch in the next X-Pro model. Or at least firmware updates so we can have a representative “rangefinder” mode for manual focusing, in addition to peak highlights and split image. Tall orders, again, but fun to think out of the box.
Biggest weakness the X-Pro has no doubt
Oh, but they did. And a superb one at that; check the 23/1.4. Sure it's slow as molasses so I don't use it even tho I have it.
If you want something that is mechanical and of comparable quality get some equivalent Voigtländers. I have a couple of M-X adapters and put my Leica and Voigtländers in my X-Pro2. Superb experience and the focus-peaking is faster even than the Leica patches.
@@jorgemtrevino yes the clutch focus is super cool on that one, the 16mm 1.4, and the 14mm 2.8. It still works as focus-by-wire though. On the note of manual focus lenses, I totally agree. I lobe using my Leica glass on my Fujifilm.
It's not the camera that makes a great photograph, it's the vision of the photographer. Leica won't make you any better than a Rolls royce makes you a better driver or a Steinway piano makes ypu a better pianist. . This is a gear acquisition syndrome without common sense. The world's greatest photographers used a big box camera and incredible vision. Karsh, Adam's etc.
Great comparison! I own and love my XPro-3. If I was going to buy a camera that I'd keep for 10+ years I'd probably go Leica. However at my age a 10+ year camera is probably not a good investment ;) You did make me realize what a Leica wannabe I am, and what partially drove me to the XProX model to begin with.
What I heard was "If I pay more and it's more difficult to use, I feel like a better photographer".
Great video but Id love to see more examples - sample photos, sample videos, sample stuff showing the viewfinders inside the fuji and leica
Id love to try a leica Because im 99% sure id walk away feeling like leica hype is just hype.
Probably wont ever happen unless i somehow acquire a huge amount of disposable income
I know this video is old but on the topic of Leicas holding value, I would say that it is a minus just as it is a plus. Much of the older lenses hold value because the mount is the same and Leica users will buy less sharp, more flawed lenses because it gives them what they feel is a "leica look" and "character" as well as simply because some have the money to be collectors of rare lenses. Of course the lenses themselves were well made for their time to begin with. As for the value of M bodies, these hold because Leica is so slow at updating for obvious reasons. If the difference between an M9 and an M11 is 3 generations of bodies or chassis with only 2 real bumps in MP count between the 13-14 years of manufacturing, of course the older ones will still hold some value. They're at the very least 70% of the package of the newest and greatest M. I understand this is because Leica users are notoriously picky about remaining in the past as long as possible because that's why they bought a leica in the first place, but I hope people realize that it's not JUST because the M bodies are somehow magical in their qualities. It's that they haven't changed very much at all since they first released. A 10 year old loaf of bread could probably hold value if it wasn't very different from fresh bread.
I have the same 2 cameras and boy you are WRONG and in favor of Leica. How long have you been using die schwarze volkskamera? 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Be painfully truthful to yourself…. thats the first rule of professionalism, used it or you’ll be doom to fail, for time never lies!
Worth mentioning Leica M-mount glass can be used on Fuji bodies without issues, but as far as I'm aware, only M-mount lenses can be used on Leica bodies.
While I shoot Fuji myself for multiple reasons, I started noticing I'm gravitating more towards fully manual lenses even though I have absolutely no issues with the Fuji prime lenses at all.
I'm a huge fan of both of these brands, it seems like both Leica and Fuji want to put the fun back into photography.
They're both reviving that nostalgic feeling of shooting with range-finder film-cameras but they achieve this goal with different methods.
Very interesting commentary. But to be honest, I'm not sure I learned anything. As someone who uses the XPro2 (along with Nikon and Olympus) I can appreciate the quality and nuances that the Leica purports to offer. I'd love to try/own a Leica... but I'd be hard pressed to spend 4X the amount for what the XPro2 can competently deliver. So while I can appreciate all the fine points of a Leica, it really does come down value-for-price proposition for each individual to decide on: is that premium increase in cost worth the experience the price offers. As for long term value, I note that a used XPro2, for example, sells for about $1000 Cdn on eBay, or about 40% of its original selling price 6 years ago. A used Leica M10 sells on eBay for about 50% of its new price. So, Fujis hold their value - at least for these rangefinder-esque models - not too badly either. Finally, I'm not sure all those evaluation categories are equally weighted. If you added a weighting function, the two cameras might come out a lot closer on a normalized basis. For example, yes, battery life is important, but carrying 2 or 3 extra, inexpensive batteries is hardly a deal breaker. :)
You cant hope to be respected on the basis that you based your opinions from the usage of a camera that you borrowed from someone, I appreciate the qualities of the Leica, but evidently you are not qualified to make judgement s that are to be taken seriously ? (if that is the expectation? or maybe having a laugh?) on a camera that you dont know how to exploit its maximum potential. you should remember that it takes potentially months/ years with any camera system to become an expert on THAT particular camera. So , on the basis that you casually used some elses camera, your post is not relevant.
Interesting video! These actually compete against each other very well!
You summarized it well.. ultimately it is gear love - phrases like “shooting experience”, “makes me want to pick-up and shoot”, “love the way it feels in my hands”, “involving”, “slows me down”, “I have to work it”, “feels like I am doing something”, “love the weight of it”, “love the way it looks”, “Leica pop” all of this tells me it is really is all about human-camera interaction and preferences. Well, I hope you compare it it an old Fuji GFX 50r (to keep the rangefinder-esque criteria), a Leica would still score on OVF and perhaps design with experience split right in the middle, objectively speaking.
So the M10 is a “rangefinderesque” camera? 😂😂😂 how many more videos do you need to produce to show how awesome your Leicas are???
My experience as a photographer for the last 30 years using many different camera brands. In the film days it was first the Minolta Dynax 700i, a fully automatic camera with great eye AF and it had this expansion card system where you could get settings to do certain things. Then I moved onto an Contax G2, ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Olympus system, then Nikon, then settled with Canon all the way until the first 6D.IT was around the time of the Leica S2 and Leica M8 that I seriously started considering Leica.
Now I have a little bias, considering I really wanted a Fuji X Pro 1 when it came out but the store I purchased cameras didn't have any in stock. I got a X-E1. Within a few months, I accidentally dropped the camera and the sensor turned upside down and green. I contacted Fuji, there was nothing they could do. I got so frustrated I went to a local used camera shop and asked if they had a Leica... The rest is as is said, history. I shoot a Leica M, Leica SL2/SL2S, Q, S typ 007 and as well, Lumix, Sigma, Blackmagic and RICOH. I would say 80% of the time I would go to an M and at least consider taking it before any other camera. As you said, the rangefinder (where the actual M comes from, Messsucher) is something that isnt for everyone. However nothing good ever is.
In Canadian dollars a Leica M10 24mp body and a Summicron 35mmf2 lens is gonna cost $15,000. The XPro3 + Fuji 35mmf1.4 costs about $3,000. This is like comparing a Ferrari to a Volkswagon lol. Nothing wrong with a Fuji nor a VW but if you have horrendous amounts of money to spend then why not an Italian sports car and a luxury camera brand?
Oh, BTW the image quality from the Fuji is exceptional and in 90% of all cases as good as the Leica. Leica fan boys feel free to pile on.
I get your point but your comparison is a bit off as Leica has the aesthetic and value of a Ferrari but a power of a Volks... and vice versa for Fuji.. they get you from A to B WAY faster.
Outdated, overpriced, and not all that reliable, but it has snob appeal. Really? The Fuji is a far better tool, but it comes with the stigma of a reasonable price. Leica as jewelry, definitely. Fuji as a great camera system, definitely. Nothing wrong with either one. Just a matter of need and preference.
Licker fanboys really do like to waste money on chic fashion.
Let me know if there is another brand that sells a digital coincident rangefinder camera and I’d gladly use it 🙌🏼
I don't need full frame Fuji..but if they put real rangefinder in there..I'll definitely would buy one
I don't get any of this. The Fuji only wins categories that the Leica doesn't even have. And the lens category is way too objective. Leica lenses are great... so are Fuji. And Fuji can adapt to Leica. Not so with Leica adapting to Fuji.
I would probably buy an M10 and a 35mm Summicron if I had £10000 to spare as I love the “simple” rangefinder experience. However I bought an M6 and the Voigtlander Nokton which scratches that itch. For digital I have an XPro2 which again satisfies my need for pared back photography, and I love the results. Having said all that, each to their own, use what you love to use
Fuji did not make a version of the Xpan. They made the Xpan. It's the same camera, with different branding.
True
I didn't dislike your video, but I agree with other commenters that it's basically you labeling Leica the winner because it's what YOU like.
I mean, that’s how it works, right? It’s all subjective unless you’re just looking at MTF charts or DXO scores. And even then, color and usage still come down to personal preference.
This is like comparing pineapple or pepperoni on pizza, when you hate pineapple!
Comparing cameras when you’re biased is pointless
Haha! Fwiw, I love pineapple/pepperoni and that’s a fairly good analogy because I also love FUJI/LEICA and have owned about 8 different Fuji cameras and 8 different Leica cameras over the years. Everyone has a bias and a preference, thinking you could get a 100% completely blind objective comparison would be really really difficult.
@@benjhaisch haha yeah man I completely get it! I switched to fuji three years ago after 8 years of being with canon! I absolutely love fuji now, although I 100 percent will buy a Leica at somepoint! They all have their special quality’s!
I own three Fuji cameras and recently purchased my first Leica (240). There are things I love about both, but if Fuji could figure out a full frame camera with the same form factor I would be all in on Fuji. Just miss the full frame, but didn’t want to go back to a time when I was carrying around Canon Mark Iv’s
What an odd comparison. The Leica is better at everything except the features it doesn‘t have and price. Have you tried a manual lens or even an adapted M lens on the Fuji? It makes more sense to conpare them in the same shooting setup. Of course the Fuji has the better AF, and of course the Leica has the better MF experience because that‘s their main focusing method.
I use an adapted manual lens on my xt200. It is a joy to use
I owned both (but with the Leica being typ 240) and I love each of them differently. Btw FYI I bought the M240 based on your video. Great video as always!
Thanks Benj, great video! But, manual focusing? In my opinion Fuji has the best focus peaking system by far. It is so easy to use it even in dark situations.
I really like your videos but I don't get this comparison. A 5-6k full frame Leica vs a 1.3k APSC Fuji. I would expect the Leica to be better. I'd be shocked if it wasn't.
I can forward you the probably 100+ messages that I’ve got requesting this specific comparison :)
I have used both and I believe it first depends your budget as they are both great cameras!!! From all the M numbers, I now use an SL and I truly enjoy the outputs and shooting at ease!!!! Thank you for this!!! When the M14 comes out, Im back to the M and I say goodbye to the SL!!! Cheers
Great video. Started to shoot Leica a year ago with a Q2 and got sucked into the Leica ecosystem completely. Since then I love the M line and still see shooting with it 10 times as often compared to other much more advanced cameras. I fully can understand why people love Fuji. Was thinking about that as well but finally jumped on the Leica train and never regretted it since then. Thanks a lot for your videos. Greetings from Vienna, Austria. Stay safe!
Interesting video for two different and highly idiosyncratic cameras. For me, the takeaway is just how highly subjective camera preference is. I have the X-Pro3 which I enjoy very much, particularly when using the ovf to focus on composition. But for people deadset on having a real rangefinder the xpro is no substitute. For me, the other "objective" comparison points are debatable.
do you have much Leica experience? I do not have any fuji experience, but own Nikon, Sony and Leica .... Leica is just the best, so expensive most people will never get the chance to use them... that said, any camera will allow you to be creative and have fun.. take care.
The Fuji is the far more flexible machine. Not always important, of course. In a way, it can be seen as an M and a Q at the same time. Things you did not talk about: Flash and minimal focus distance.
Fuji gives you HSS/TTL also with the likes of Godox and Profoto, and can use a flash AND the EVF at the same time.
MFD of Leica lenses is mostly 70cm. If the odd lens can focus closer, the accessory finder needs to come out.
One more comment on "Leicas hold their value better":
Depends on how you look at it. Some rare limited editions do, of course. But a digital rangefinder loses about 1k - 1.5k a year. The 8k Leica M10 is now 4k in 2021. An XPRO2 went from 1.5k to maybe 500-600 USD at the same time span. Relatively speaking, the Leica still holds 50% of their full price and the Fuji only 33%. Absolutely speaking, the loss is 4k vs 1k.
I wouldn’t pay more than $3,000 for an m10. I own Leica cameras and the prices are idiotic.
It’s pretty frustrating. The nice part is if you buy used in the first place, they do a pretty good job retaining their value.
If you can't afford a m10, the xpro3 is a brilliant alternative. I would definitely choose it over the PASM stuff out there, for sure. Now that Voigtlander is making Fuji lenses, tossing one on a xpro is a fantastic bit of street kit.
Until you can buy a Leica, at least.
Haha I made it to point 3 before I realized this is purely a subjective bias vs objective so good video for lecia fanboys I guess
Feel free to argue your points as well!
@@benjhaisch Im bias just like you so it wouldn't be informative just a d measuring contest
These two cameras have no business being compared. They're nothing alike. Why don't people compare the CL2 to the X-Pro line? These are stretches.
But seriously, thanks for the great reviews. Hope to see a Q2 review soon. Maybe a head to head with the X100v?
Working on acquiring one!
Why is no company will built a camera like a Leica but less expensive?! 8000€ only for the body... I have two fuji cameras (xpro 3 and xt3) love both. I had the luck to take pictures for two month with the leica m240 and it was absolutely great and I love the pictures but I my opinion fuji brings more on the table for less money. The lenses from both companies are great. The only "leica lens" I use on the xpro3 is the voigtländer 35mm f1.4 II M.C..
Great video but you are totally leica fan boy 😅👌🏼
I think it just comes down to real rangefinder experience. There is no ”better”. You can find m240 in a very condition for the same money or even cheaper as new Xpro 3. And if you want to sell your stuff u can still get more money for your used m240 than your xpro 3. So we can stop that price bs finally!
@@taneltinnuri8985 you are a funny guy. Less than a xpro3?! we will see my friend. Maybe on day. :)
This was an interesting comparison. I'd like to see a video of shooting with the two side by side, commenting on the experience, then comparing the images from the two.
I started shooting with Leicas in 1968 and I've had my current M3 for 40 years. My wife feels my best work has been with the Leica and she can look back an pick out the ones taken with it. We were actually in a camera store, I had an M8 in hand and my wife was encouraging me to buy it. I could easily afford it but I just couldn't justify it.
While I am very comfortable shooting true rangefinder, it only works best with a narrow range of focal lengths, the Summicron trinity of 35-50-90. Anything outside of that range becomes a challenge. To me the advantage of the X-Pro is you are able to shoot OVF in that range, but you can also go way outside that range and shoot EVF. This is a big advantage of hybrid viewfinders.
Yes, the Leica is wonderful, but I can easily hobble along with Fujis at a significant savings. To put my experience in perspective, I have a BFA from Art Center LA and worked for years as a full time professional.
OMG I'm so annoyed right now. Of course we would all love to have a Leica. But who can afford it? It wasn't even a fair comparison I think. Owning only the Fuji, I can tell you there are a lot of super useful features that wasn't covered here, like for instance viewing your shot in the EVF, or using peak focus across the whole screen, making manual focus way faster than split focus, just to name a few. But sure, I'll swap my Fuji for a M10 monochrome any day!
FWIW, the M240 is only slightly more than an X-Pro3. As I’ve owned bot these are obviously just my own personal opinions/preferences though. I do find that manually focusing with a rangefinder is MUCH more faster and accurate than any other manual focus tool I’ve used.
Camera bodies use to be purely an interface, a handling experience, because film used to drive image quality (and optics of course). Leica was a top dog for that very reason and that continues today. Just now we have to deal with sensor output too that cant just be changed out with a different roll of film.
I should have picked up an M9 a couple years ago. Prices for copies with a clean or replaced sensor are creeping back over $4k and approaching $5k..... copies with a corroded sensor are still in the $2k-$3k range. Wild... I bought my used GFX 50R for less than that.
Would have been better if you've shown actual samples of photos and videos from each camera. :)
You pay a lot of money for a camera so that must automatically justify a better shooting experience.
Haha no, it’s all just personal preference and shooting style