Should I get a Fuji X-Pro1?

If that is the case, I wouldn't expect much different from my 5d3 either except the banding issue that was present on the 5d2.

I am pretty interested in the DR between the two sensors so I am going to definitely do some testing between my 5d3 + 50L and the xp1 + 35.

^congrats on the purchase!
hope to see some comparison pics between the 2 systems.

this thread is refuelling my desire on getting a X-Pro1 + 14mm 2.8 again, as I'm finding the 28mm on the X100s to be not wide enough at times.
might just keep the EOS3+135L and sell everything else

Thanks. I was going back and forth between the x100s and xp1. However, knowing that a 23mm f/1.4 is coming out, it made my decision much easier.

Save your dough and get the new Leica M (240)....

You'll never look back...

That and a 35 1.4 lux FLE and you wont need anything else.

Heres my MM with the 35 lux next to the 5DII with the 35L. The lux is sharper at the corners than the 35L is in the center. And the bokeh is pretty nice for a 35mm lens.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15961298
Save your dough and get the new Leica M (240)....

You'll never look back...

That and a 35 1.4 lux FLE and you wont need anything else.

Heres my MM with the 35 lux next to the 5DII with the 35L. The lux is sharper at the corners than the 35L is in the center. And the bokeh is pretty nice for a 35mm lens.

Don't listen to him. He's drunk on Leica-ade.

But seriously...if you can afford the M (240), go for it. It's a BRILLIANT camera, and Leica glass is the best there is. But there is a real trade off: cost. There's no way I'd pay that much money for a digital camera; a film Leica, sure. My M6 is 100% mechanical (except the meter, which isn't required for the camera to function). As long as they make film, it will work.

On the other hand, the M (240), X-Pro1, 5D2, etc, etc are just computers with lenses on the front. There's absolutely no evidence that these appliances will still be working in 59 years, while you can easily find circa-1954 M3s that work as well as the day they came out of Wetzlar.

That said, if you can afford and don't mind the inevitable digital 'rot', the M (240) plus a 50 Summilux ASPH is an unbeatable combination.

Absolutely intoxicated. The glass is just amazing. And the files out of the MM are much sharper out of camera than the ones from my 5DII and the high ISO performance also goes to the MM. If I still had a darkroom I would have gone for an old M. I really hope that Leica creates an M-E with a CMOS sensor because I prefer the less automated approach. I also prefer FF.

I will take exception and say the 35 Lux would be the perfect choice with the new M. And as far as price goes Leica M used to be 3 times more than top of the line Canons and Nikons. Compare the digitals and they are just about the same price. So Leica M digital is a bargain today.

Anybody seen the bokeh from the 50mm .95 noctilux? WOW...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15961298
Save your dough and get the new Leica M (240)....

You'll never look back...

That and a 35 1.4 lux FLE and you wont need anything else.

Heres my MM with the 35 lux next to the 5DII with the 35L. The lux is sharper at the corners than the 35L is in the center. And the bokeh is pretty nice for a 35mm lens.]

This is what I intend to do ! I am currently saving for the M (240) and a 50f2

The problem for most people is that, here at least, a new M and lens is going to set you back 9-10 thousand, then another few grand for other lenses.
An XE1 or X Pro 1 can be had for 1/4 of the price.
To be honest I don't care, the M is what I want, i like the proper mechanical rangefinder, so it's cheaper in the long run for me to save for it, and just buy what I want once, rather than going through a bunch of things I don't really like first.


To be perfectly honest though, I don't need a new camera.
I have an X100 as my personal camera (but Its poor AF in low light irritates me) and my wife has a MK4 - I also have a pair of MK4s at work.
I just love the feeling of quality in the M, the manual focus that just works, providing you can see, and the image quality.

I like the DoF scales that actually work. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused.

Its actually a lot easier to manual focus than to manually focus say a 5D or a IDsMkIII but it does take some practice.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15959810
(man, I´d LOVE focus peaking in that thing!)

Honestly, with the 10x zoom in manual mode, you don't really need focus peaking to nail focus if you can spare the extra time.

David S wrote in post #15960943
I am pretty interested in the DR between the two sensors so I am going to definitely do some testing between my 5d3 + 50L and the xp1 + 35.

I'd be interested in the results, since DxO doesn't rate the X-Pro's sensor. From my 5D2, I feel like I've actually gained DR, but that's probably more a side-effect of upgrading from my old version of ACR too.

I love the rendering of the M and, man, the bokeh of the Leica fast primes (aka 35 Lux and 50 Lux) is just AWESOME.
With the new CMOS sensor it is on par with the top full frames on the market (maybe under the D800 DR wise) and I feel this is as good as a M will get for the next decade. I mean, Leica is known to be very conservative. I don´t see them putting an hybrid finder like Fuji, nor in-body IS or gimmicks like that. I really don´t see they changing much from what it is today and I like that.

One thing that annoys me about it is the rangefinder calibration, though. I heard many stories of it losing calibration over time and have to be sent back to Leica to fix. As we only have 1 Leica Store in Brazil and they don´t do calibration, only sales, that would mean sending it back and forth to Solms from time to time. That can be a big issue for me.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15961787
Absolutely intoxicated. The glass is just amazing. And the files out of the MM are much sharper out of camera than the ones from my 5DII and the high ISO performance also goes to the MM. If I still had a darkroom I would have gone for an old M. I really hope that Leica creates an M-E with a CMOS sensor because I prefer the less automated approach. I also prefer FF.

I will take exception and say the 35 Lux would be the perfect choice with the new M. And as far as price goes Leica M used to be 3 times more than top of the line Canons and Nikons. Compare the digitals and they are just about the same price. So Leica M digital is a bargain today.

Anybody seen the bokeh from the 50mm .95 noctilux? WOW...

I wouldn't say about same price.
Here in Canada, the prices for these cameras are:
M-E - $5600
M240 - $7100
M9-P - $7000
M-M - $8200
where as DSLRS are
5DIII - $3300
1DX - $6800
D800E - $3300
D4 - $6000
even a used M9 is still more expensive than the 5DIII or D800E

then if you take the lens into consideration, most Leica lenses are over $2000 unless you are willing to get a summarit

I'm on the same page as edge100, I'm a little hesitant on spending that much money for a digital body. they depreciate so quickly and who knows if they will still be usable in a decade. whereas the film leicas has been long proven.
but if you can afford these beautiful digital M, go for it as Leica lenses are just amazing.

taemo wrote in post #15962792
I'm on the same page as edge100, I'm a little hesitant on spending that much money for a digital body. they depreciate so quickly and who knows if they will still be usable in a decade. whereas the film leicas has been long proven.
but if you can afford these beautiful digital M, go for it as Leica lenses are just amazing.

Certainly, if you can afford it OR you're making money with it, a digital camera of this cost is worthwhile. But there's no way I could justify it.

taemo wrote in post #15962792
I wouldn't say about same price.
Here in Canada, the prices for these cameras are:
M-E - $5600
M240 - $7100
M9-P - $7000
M-M - $8200
where as DSLRS are
5DIII - $3300
1DX - $6800
D800E - $3300
D4 - $6000
even a used M9 is still more expensive than the 5DIII or D800E

then if you take the lens into consideration, most Leica lenses are over $2000 unless you are willing to get a summarit

I'm on the same page as edge100, I'm a little hesitant on spending that much money for a digital body. they depreciate so quickly and who knows if they will still be usable in a decade. whereas the film leicas has been long proven.
but if you can afford these beautiful digital M, go for it as Leica lenses are just amazing.

but you should be comparing the high end Leica M with the high end Canons and Nikons.

Canon 1DX $6799.00
Nikon D3X $6899.00

And the glass is worth every penny you spend on it. Many of their better lenses only increase in value over time.

If I think of all the money I have spent over the decades on stuff just to settle I could have bought the really good stuff and the equipment I really use several times over.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15963403
but you should be comparing the high end Leica M with the high end Canons and Nikons.

Canon 1DX $6799.00
Nikon D3X $6899.00

And the glass is worth every penny you spend on it. Many of their better lenses only increase in value over time.

If I think of all the money I have spent over the decades on stuff just to settle I could have bought the really good stuff and the equipment I really use several times over.

Agreed that the comparison should be to the high end stuff. Leica is high end, without doubt.

But the same point holds: I wouldn't buy a 1DX unless I was using it in a way that would allow me to easily recoup my investment. You don't buy a 1DX and expect it to last 50 years, or even 10 years. You expect it to do its job and make you some money for 2-3 years, and then to replace it with the 1DXX

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15963403
but you should be comparing the high end Leica M with the high end Canons and Nikons.

Canon 1DX $6799.00
Nikon D3X $6899.00

And the glass is worth every penny you spend on it. Many of their better lenses only increase in value over time.

If I think of all the money I have spent over the decades on stuff just to settle I could have bought the really good stuff and the equipment I really use several times over.

but why compare a 1DX, D4, D3X to a Leica? there's absolutely no similarities between them other than they can take pictures, full-frame and have interchangeable lens.
IMO, the 1DX and D4 are way more superior and versatile than any Leica M, the only advantage Leica has against those is the size.

a person undecided between a 1DX/D4 vs Leica IMO doesn't know anything about cameras and only cares about flaunting their money.
both systems are meant for 2 totally different jobs which is why I don't see the logic on comparing them.
however, i can see someone with a D800, 5DII/III debating on whether getting a Leica or not.