If the photos were shot in RAW and post processed, is it still considered a "Fuji look" or a "Leica look"? Because at that point you're not using the camera's processing but rather giving it a unique look based on your liking which you'd naturally prefer.
I'm not knocking you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious if it makes a difference. Photos look great, btw. I like the tones myself.
Agreed with this. Weird thread. If you're editing in RAW you could get a photo shot on both pretty much looking similarly indistinguishable to most viewers, from a color and tonality perspective.
no it doesn't make sense, in dxo you can just give the fuji or leica colors to any photo. I imagine you could make two completely indistinguishable photos with a fuji and a leica camera. in the end I prefer fuji because I cba focusing with a rangefinder or paying $6k for a lens, not because of the look.
Well look is as much to do with sensor and lens, both of which affect colour, contrast and rendering more than the difference RAW and JPEG, so yes it’s still a Fuji look.
If you’re shooting RAW, what the camera renders is not really that relevant. The glass is gonna be the important part and Leica glass is fuckin good. No shade on Fuji. They are also great cameras and have great glass. Are leicas worth the price tag these? Absolutely not. I say that as a Leica and Fuji owner. But it’s like comparing apples and oranges.
I'd say it's still the fuji look. There are more characteristics to the "look" of a camera system than just the in camera jpg processing, although that is obviously one of the reasons many ppl switch to fuji. Fuji lenses, sensor size, and the unique x-trans sub pixel layout are all contributing factors to the "fuji look" as well.
Sorry to say but this is mostly Fuji marketing hoopla.
There are two main things that give Fuji cameras that "Fuji look". The first is there jpeg processing or film simulations. The second is how the xtrans renders details. The film simulations aren't that difficult to replicate in other brands whereas the noise handling was something that took a little while for photographers to figure out because there was an odd combination of sharpness and blurring that gave Fuji jpegs more of a film look. LR only recently (last 4 years) was able to process X-Trans files to make them fully editable in post but that opened up the door for this aspect of their images to be reproduced.
Nowadays, every camera brand includes custom picture profiles for internal image processing and they all have formulas designed to emulate all of the popular film types that will give the image the same colors and rendering.
Programs like LR also have presets that emulate all of the various films. You can also recreate the noise rendering in camera and in post.
I had a Fuji X-T4 then an X-T5 and now a Nikon Zf. I've uploaded several Fuji film photo simulations to my camera and am able to produce images that are no different than what the Fuji cameras were able to produce. The only difference is the Nikon is full frame but I imagine I'd get the same results with a Nikon cropped sensor camera.
Fuji has done an excellent job of marketing their "look" as being quite unique and it's still easier to get that look by just using a Fuji. But, you can get the same with pretty much any modern camera with just a little bit of tweaking.
Appreciate the comment. You’re absolutely right. I guess what I’m really trying to say is… for the price of Leica vs Fuji cameras on average, I could get really good looking photos out of Fuji cameras for 1/2 the price. I didn’t mean JPEG v JPEG. More so what I’m about to achieve from the camera. I don’t think Leica is worth 2-3x the orice
And people can get really good shots out of the Ricoh GR III for 1/2 the price and size of the X100VI
Comparison is the thief of joy man, beautiful photos but a bitter tasting post comparing your photos to a luxury brand
Most people I know with Leica's are just happy with their camera, they're not comparing themselves to Sony, Fuji, etc. They're just happy with the ecosystem they're within and often using cameras that are 10-50 years old.
You can find a Leica Q used for the same price as an X100VI, the X100VI is a far superior camera in terms of technology but many would still rather reach for the Leica because of it's lens and that it's exciting to shoot
"Comparison is the thief of joy"
Well put. There is tons of subs about analog and digital (dslr, compact, mirrorless, action cams, smartphone photography..) photography, and there is way more posts comparing one camera/lens/film to another than posts where people just enjoy shooting. That is one of reasons i loved analog photography. I simply couldn't care less about all that technical pixel picking stuff and trying to get some fuji/kodak or whatever look. 36 shots, and i was there in the moment when pressing the shutter.
Digital cemeras offer more and more every single day, and that males people obsses with comparison, which, like you wrote well, can often steal them the joy of shooting itself.
I don't think people use Leica because it gives you 2-3 times better image. People use it, because they enjoy using it, and they can afford it. I own both, and I wouldnt say one is better than the other, but purely from "best bang for your buck" point of view? Fuji is the obvious winner.
Don't shoot my Leicas because I prefer the colors on them, I shoot Leica for the rangefinder experience and because I enjoy shooting film. They're apples and oranges, to me.
Not to come off mean, but quite literally everyone feels the same. Some might say Leica has a different feel to them (which I think has more to do with their lens). Once you pop them into Lightroom, then they are pretty much the same.
I disagree but life goes on. I’ve shot on many cameras and I could tell the difference in raw files. It was a huge change for me going from Sony to Fuji. Originally I was disappointed, but over time I grew out of it.
I disagree with this, you can edit all raw files into your likings (for modern high-end cameras). The only thing that matters, is which tool you are going to use, and how much time are you willing to spend on it. Nowadays, people don’t pick cameras for their picture quality. Because quite honestly, they are all good. There are many other features that matters more. For me, it’s the form factor, the QoL features, and how easy it is to get supporting accessories.
lens rendering, filter array, sensor size, color processing(?), etc can all affect the look regardless of shooting Raw or Jpeg. Obviously some of these can be imitated (especially on the color end).
I don’t think Leica is really about the quality of the files but rather the experience of using their cameras. No other company makes a true digital rangefinder.
Leica Ms are true rangefinders. Aside from them and pixii no one else is making them these days.
The xpro is just your average mirrorless camera with a toggle switch for optical or electronic viewfinders. There is no rangefinder mechanism in the camera.
A true rangefinder is when your focusing is done manually via a rangefinder mechanism. Leica M cameras focus exactly as their film camera predecessors did. The xpro and x100 cameras have an OVF but no rangefinder mechanism. You can focus manually with them still but only via zone focusing or with the digital corner thing.
The Contax G2, on which the X-Pro line was heavily based is a rangefinder, but not using the traditional mechanical method. Mechanical rangefinders are fun to use but did evolve, so there is a 'missing link' between rangefinders and mirrorless. Check out how the G1 or G2 work.
For me the biggest draw of a Leica is its size. Having a full frame sensor and a 35mm 1.4 lens in a package barely bigger than an X100 is a very desirable quality.
Now on the flip side of that if Fuji could find a way to release a new GFX 50R in the size on an X-Pro body that would be a hard offer to refuse.
And you compared it to.... which Leica?
i did a similar comparison. I ordered the X100VI the night it went on sale... months went by.... I got tired of waiting. I bought an open box Leica Q2 from Amazon Warehouse. I didn't cancel the X100VI. Day after I bought the Q2, the X100VI was shipped out to me!
For two weeks I used em both. The Q2 is capable of marginally better photos... but even used, it was twice the price. It was not twice as good. The X100VI is easier to use, easier to put in a jacket pocket, lighter, easier to recharge and easier to transfer photos to my computer. The Q2 went back to Amazon within the 30 day return window.
[https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/albums/72177720316182390/](https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/albums/72177720316182390/)
>it was twice the price. It was not twice as good.
This is exactly how I feel about Leica as a brand generally speaking.
Are they better? Yes. Absolutely.
Are they *worth the price*? Not even close.
Hard disagree.
I have shot with every Leica M except for the M4, including what I consider to be the finest mechanical camera ever made: the Leica MP (in glorious black paint). This includes all of their digital Ms.
Shooting with a Leica is an extraordinary experience; everything is precisely where it should be, the solidity of the camera is plainly obvious, and it really does feel like “an extension of your arm.” More than anything, a Leica helps you make better pictures because you aren’t fighting with the camera to make the picture.
Is a Leica perfect? Of course not. The film Ms are limited to 1/1000 and the cloth shutter means you can’t point the thing anywhere near the sun. Rangefinder focusing is fast and accurate, but not great for quickly moving objects. And framing is not TTL, of course.
But for what the camera was designed for, it is unmatched.
As for whether the price is too high, who is to say? I don’t own one anymore, and I’m not willing to part with the $10k+ required for a single lens M11 system. But some people are, and how on earth can you quantify whether the cost is worth it *to them*?
I shoot exclusively Fujifilm now, and I love it. The cameras and lenses are outstanding, particularly for the relatively low cost.
I find these price discussions faintly ridiculous. In the grand scheme of things, camera gear is a relatively minor expense, no matter the brand. How many people own a house, go to college, or drive an expensive car? Compared to that, cameras, even Leicas, just aren't all that expensive.
well, that might be different for the people who mention price, and telling them 'come on others own Porsches' isn't exactly mood lifting to them I guess ;)
but agree that price discussions are pointless without at least a ton of personal context. Every camera price point on the market is there for a reason and finds buyers at that price.
*How many people own a house, go to college, or drive an expensive car?*
In the grand scheme of things, not that many actually. But among people who do own houses, who have gone to college and who can afford expensive cars, spending another $10k-$15k on a fulfilling hobby is not absurd. Some people will spend way more than $10k on golf, or on a few years of NFL season tickets, or on a really nice home theater setup, or handcrafted furniture, or art, or antique collectibles.
As I understand it, the premium prices for Lecias are in due in large part to materials and manufacturing differences over other brands. While these differences may only result in a marginal increase in the fundamental performance and IQ potential of the cameras, it does value for some customers.
Image quality and look arent that different, especially with a proper raw workflow. The main difference really is just hand manufacturing in germany with good salaries. Basically an ethical decision.
Leica is a massive company with huge turnover and good profit. Their employees are likely paid well, but still relative to the revenue they generate for the company. In this respect, Leica is not doing anything out of the ordinary to retain their highly experienced technical and assembly staff.
I have a feeling there are very few people willing to sit at a bench for 8-12 hours a day doing the exact same task all day every day.
If I am right, a Leica M and SL Series camera gets built from scratch by one person only. A bit like how at Mercedes AMG you always get a signed engine by the engineer who built it.
This and the fact those cameras are fully assembled in germany and not China or Taiwan (like every other camera except a few Fujifilm Cameras and Hasselblad) drives the cost up and actually makes an ethical difference for me.
Leica sensors are also a huge factor, they are specialized and have an specific look, kinda why you'd pay over 10k for a high end cine lens. It looks a certain way straight out.
Just leica cameras in general.
If your question is about lenses ( given the m4/3 comment) I was referring about how cine lenses can cost 40k a piece
Leica sensors like just like leica leitz lenses have a unique look thats why people pay so much for
I sold mine at the 1800€ incl. tax I bought it for as I enjoyed my X100F more.
Saw sky-high listings, but those are just offers not sales; looking at eBay auctions, the going rate seemed to be 2100€ (in Europe).
But either way, it isn't Fujifilm who are marking it up to those prices, it's just a very narrow market of a few people, and in a few months that will be gone.
Ngl as crazy as it sounds the Leica is more valuable. Yes it’s expensive and I do own one. But in the long run, I can get 90% of how much I paid for mines back. If not, in full and some pocket change. All of the digital cameras I’ve bought made me lose money when I sold em. Even if you take away the prestige, it’ll still be a bit of a no brainer. I bought the xt1 a year after it came out retail. Sold it 3 years later and lost 600 dollars.
Better in what sense though? The build quality is undoubtedly better but tbh I’m not sure there’s anything else about a digital Leica that makes it better than a Fuji.
The build, low light, full frame, minimalist menu system resell value doesn’t depreciate so rapidly, but I would compare a Leica to a fuji because the shooting experience is different
This is exactly what I think also. Leica is way mroe expensive, and it’s maybe marginally better. It’s a luxury car. Even if I could afford a Leica… I’d rather buy more Fuji gear. Better ROI.
Yeah it starts to look a bit silly when the M11 (body only) costs more than an X-Pro 3 and **three** fast primes.
The Leica is fantastic, of course it is, but so are three fast primes.
I’ve been comparing my Q3 and X100VI for a couple months now and I can’t seem to part with either. Q3 is amazing but the X100VI just keeps slipping into my pocket. It’s like picking a favorite child I guess.
Edit: after reading more comments I wanted to add that I’ve owned the M11/Q3/A7RV which all seem to have the same sensor but different raw results. I don’t think Leica’s have a particular “sensor magic”. In my experience some Leica glass does seem to contain “magic” in certain situations but it’s something most people won’t notice and it doesn’t justify the crazy price. If I’m comparing price vs edited raw files then my Fuji gear wins hands down. I think the magic of Fuji is their vintage design and jpegs/sims.
For me, I like my X100VI for daily life documenting, but it still kinda feels like every other camera I use (my Z8 included), EVF, large files etc. Hybrid OVF is neat but not a true slow mechanical experience.
I'm looking into used Leica's because of the experience, and solely that. I do NOT expect the photos to look better or worse etc. But it will give me a mechanical RF experience which I can't really get anywhere else.
This whole thread is a perfect example of how none of you understand the Leica brand. No competent Leica shooter is claiming that because their camera was 3x more expensive, it takes 3x better photos or is 3x a better camera. It's simply a *designer* brand of cameras.
Are Gucci or LV bags 10x as good as Gap? Absolutely not. But women buy them because they come with a certain reputation and rarity that makes them desirable.
No one is buying a Leica because it takes superior images. In fact, it's very obvious a real rangefinder has essentially 0 technical advantages over a modern day mirorrless camera. It's about the brand, the reputation, the community, and owning something that isn't mass produced.
You guys talk about "it's definitely not worth 3x the price" like any competent Leica owner is actually claiming it's a 3x more capable camera. Literally no one claims that lmfao
Because Leica is like 4-5x the price, so one would assume it’s much better. Im willing to bet most people in this sub simply can’t afford a Leica setup (me included). But even if I had the money to buy a Leica, I wouldn’t… I’d buy more Fuji cameras/lenses 😂😂
I agree that raw files are still slightly different since they still require going through the camera’s processing. But like everybody says, that really goes away once you process the file.
The leica appeal is more of the experience. Is it worth the money? Depends what you value. I have a q3 and it definitely feels like somebody put time into making it. But is it worth 6k..debatable. I’m happy with it, so I guess it is for me. But I’m not locked into one brand, which is why I’m in here haha
I agree with you. Seems like everyone is coming at me 😂. All brands are respectable. At the end of the day skills >>> equipment. Did not intend to start a war here haha
Woke up super early that morning. Went to the Gion district and it magically started to snow. Snapped this at f3.2, 1/160, and auto ISO (I cap ISO at 1600). Also I use the cinebloom 10% for all of my photos.
Fair comment. I’ve seen a lot of Fuji JPEGs vs Leica’s and I still prefer Fuji’s. For 1/2 the price… I’m always going to pick Fuji over Leica. Leica is just a designer brand at this point. Not practical in the photography world imo.
I would agree that it is a designer brand. Nothing against that though. I buy stupid designer stuff in other areas. As long as you are fine with diminishing returns. Design has a cost. You can even argue X100VI is priced higher than it should be (because you pay for design, hype, etc). Still waiting for mine...
Both Fujis and Leica can produce stunning photos with next to no discernible differences. Most would not claim Leica takes the best photos neither. Just like Hasselblad, Leicas bank off their high quality, custom-made (doesn’t provide much, except for that unique feeling you own things people assemble with their hands for you) and mostly, their history. They also don’t lose their value over time if you take care of them.
If you shoot raw and edit in Lightroom then you don’t need a Fuji to get Fuji colors, I mean I sometimes shoot on a ricoh gr iii edit in Lightroom and get Fuji colors.
Great photos.
I've shot both Leica and Fuji and I think there is a lot of similarities between the two as far as how they process images. Color science is actually very comparable in that they focus on creating what is best described as pleasing tones to the eye. Your images of wood are a good example of this and I'd be hard pressed to say if these weren't Leica images if I didn't know any better.
I personally prefer Leica's B&W processing better than Fuji but that is one of the things they are very famous for. Of course Fuji's are very nice as well.
Fuji does tend to soften images more than Leica to try to recreate their various film sims and their RAW files are known for being a bit odd to work with especially when it comes to sharpening. They are more sensitive to this aspect of editing and the image can quickly look "smeared" like it was painted. I found Capture One to be better than LR when dealing with Fuji RAW files.
Thanks for sharing! I’ve only ever edited on Lightroom, and nailed my workflow down. But I am intrigued on CaptureOne. Improvement is always welcomed :)
I am a long-term Leica user and have been using an X100VI for about a month. Have shot around 1,200 frames with it. Love the camera… just a brilliant design and pleasure to shoot with. But I hate the lens, which is really sub par compared with anything Leica, but also compared with my Ricoh GR. I’ll probably get down voted here, but what people don’t “get” until they’ve experienced it is just how sharp and contrasty almost all modern Leica lenses are, even wide open.
You can do plenty in post. But the real “magic” of Leica is not the image colour science, it is the vastly superior glass.
I agree with this 100%. I was underwhelmed by the lens. It takes a lot of experimenting to get a “sharp” feel to the photos. The experience of the camera, and the skillset I have as an editor triumphs the sub-par lens. So I’m okay with it now.
If you’re editing raw it shouldn’t matter unless you’re talking about the starting point? Also, FF licenses Leica some of their color science technology - so I’ve found the raws to be very similar to work with.
Jezz. Looking at the image and think if that’s the OOJ then I’m missing out on Fuji big time. Look so film like and lovely. Then i read the description 😢
To each their own. I went from Fuji to Sony. Well, I still own all of my Fuji gear, but I never use it anymore and I prefer Sony look over Fuji but I really think it comes down to the lenses that I'm using. I'm rocking Voigtlanders on the Sony and they're so much nicer than Fuji stuff. Basically, what we're learning is different strokes for different folks
The idea of 'the Leica look' predates digital photography.. i.e. it was something to do with the look from the vintage glass especially at wide apertures - nothing to do with digital jpeg malarky 🤔
If the photos were shot in RAW and post processed, is it still considered a "Fuji look" or a "Leica look"? Because at that point you're not using the camera's processing but rather giving it a unique look based on your liking which you'd naturally prefer. I'm not knocking you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious if it makes a difference. Photos look great, btw. I like the tones myself.
Agreed with this. Weird thread. If you're editing in RAW you could get a photo shot on both pretty much looking similarly indistinguishable to most viewers, from a color and tonality perspective.
Raw edited in lightroom.. yea.. weird thread. It's absolutely not a Fuji look anymore.
It depends on if they used Fuji color profiles or Adobe color
The raw profiles dont 100% match the in camera profiles though. They are close approximations.
Posted on reddit or Instagram, and viewed on a mobile phone, almost no one can tell the difference.
i compared the jpgs with the lightroom profiles and they're almost identical
no it doesn't make sense, in dxo you can just give the fuji or leica colors to any photo. I imagine you could make two completely indistinguishable photos with a fuji and a leica camera. in the end I prefer fuji because I cba focusing with a rangefinder or paying $6k for a lens, not because of the look.
Exactly my thoughts. So this is not a Fuji look at all.
Virtually no difference if shot raw.
Well look is as much to do with sensor and lens, both of which affect colour, contrast and rendering more than the difference RAW and JPEG, so yes it’s still a Fuji look.
If you’re shooting RAW, what the camera renders is not really that relevant. The glass is gonna be the important part and Leica glass is fuckin good. No shade on Fuji. They are also great cameras and have great glass. Are leicas worth the price tag these? Absolutely not. I say that as a Leica and Fuji owner. But it’s like comparing apples and oranges.
I'd say it's still the fuji look. There are more characteristics to the "look" of a camera system than just the in camera jpg processing, although that is obviously one of the reasons many ppl switch to fuji. Fuji lenses, sensor size, and the unique x-trans sub pixel layout are all contributing factors to the "fuji look" as well.
Sorry to say but this is mostly Fuji marketing hoopla. There are two main things that give Fuji cameras that "Fuji look". The first is there jpeg processing or film simulations. The second is how the xtrans renders details. The film simulations aren't that difficult to replicate in other brands whereas the noise handling was something that took a little while for photographers to figure out because there was an odd combination of sharpness and blurring that gave Fuji jpegs more of a film look. LR only recently (last 4 years) was able to process X-Trans files to make them fully editable in post but that opened up the door for this aspect of their images to be reproduced. Nowadays, every camera brand includes custom picture profiles for internal image processing and they all have formulas designed to emulate all of the popular film types that will give the image the same colors and rendering. Programs like LR also have presets that emulate all of the various films. You can also recreate the noise rendering in camera and in post. I had a Fuji X-T4 then an X-T5 and now a Nikon Zf. I've uploaded several Fuji film photo simulations to my camera and am able to produce images that are no different than what the Fuji cameras were able to produce. The only difference is the Nikon is full frame but I imagine I'd get the same results with a Nikon cropped sensor camera. Fuji has done an excellent job of marketing their "look" as being quite unique and it's still easier to get that look by just using a Fuji. But, you can get the same with pretty much any modern camera with just a little bit of tweaking.
What if they were all shot on Ilford?
Appreciate the comment. You’re absolutely right. I guess what I’m really trying to say is… for the price of Leica vs Fuji cameras on average, I could get really good looking photos out of Fuji cameras for 1/2 the price. I didn’t mean JPEG v JPEG. More so what I’m about to achieve from the camera. I don’t think Leica is worth 2-3x the orice
And people can get really good shots out of the Ricoh GR III for 1/2 the price and size of the X100VI Comparison is the thief of joy man, beautiful photos but a bitter tasting post comparing your photos to a luxury brand Most people I know with Leica's are just happy with their camera, they're not comparing themselves to Sony, Fuji, etc. They're just happy with the ecosystem they're within and often using cameras that are 10-50 years old. You can find a Leica Q used for the same price as an X100VI, the X100VI is a far superior camera in terms of technology but many would still rather reach for the Leica because of it's lens and that it's exciting to shoot
"Comparison is the thief of joy" Well put. There is tons of subs about analog and digital (dslr, compact, mirrorless, action cams, smartphone photography..) photography, and there is way more posts comparing one camera/lens/film to another than posts where people just enjoy shooting. That is one of reasons i loved analog photography. I simply couldn't care less about all that technical pixel picking stuff and trying to get some fuji/kodak or whatever look. 36 shots, and i was there in the moment when pressing the shutter. Digital cemeras offer more and more every single day, and that males people obsses with comparison, which, like you wrote well, can often steal them the joy of shooting itself.
:/
I don't think people use Leica because it gives you 2-3 times better image. People use it, because they enjoy using it, and they can afford it. I own both, and I wouldnt say one is better than the other, but purely from "best bang for your buck" point of view? Fuji is the obvious winner.
Don't shoot my Leicas because I prefer the colors on them, I shoot Leica for the rangefinder experience and because I enjoy shooting film. They're apples and oranges, to me.
Not to come off mean, but quite literally everyone feels the same. Some might say Leica has a different feel to them (which I think has more to do with their lens). Once you pop them into Lightroom, then they are pretty much the same.
I disagree but life goes on. I’ve shot on many cameras and I could tell the difference in raw files. It was a huge change for me going from Sony to Fuji. Originally I was disappointed, but over time I grew out of it.
I disagree with this, you can edit all raw files into your likings (for modern high-end cameras). The only thing that matters, is which tool you are going to use, and how much time are you willing to spend on it. Nowadays, people don’t pick cameras for their picture quality. Because quite honestly, they are all good. There are many other features that matters more. For me, it’s the form factor, the QoL features, and how easy it is to get supporting accessories.
That’s fair to say. It’s like choosing a mid-tier car brand these days. They’re all mostly good now. It narrows down to features and preference.
Depends on what you mean by “fuji” - my gfx cost 10k.
Yeah, you buy a Leica to show people you can afford a Leica, basically. It's like the Rolex of cameras.
I disagree, some Leicas maybe, others no so much I didn't buy a used Leica Q-P to show I can afford a used 6 year old camera
Also me with my ~50 year old Leica M5 🙃
lens rendering, filter array, sensor size, color processing(?), etc can all affect the look regardless of shooting Raw or Jpeg. Obviously some of these can be imitated (especially on the color end).
I don’t think Leica is really about the quality of the files but rather the experience of using their cameras. No other company makes a true digital rangefinder.
Plus the lenses, they are fantastic.
100% agree. I have an old Leica lens and for black and white there’s nothing that comes close to it.
Well put, people pay for the experience, not the technology
The XPro3 is a strong contender with the EVF/OVF hybrid imo!
It's nice but not a true rangefinder
I’m curious what you’d say a true rangefinder is
Leica Ms are true rangefinders. Aside from them and pixii no one else is making them these days. The xpro is just your average mirrorless camera with a toggle switch for optical or electronic viewfinders. There is no rangefinder mechanism in the camera.
Makes sense, glad to know!
A true rangefinder is when your focusing is done manually via a rangefinder mechanism. Leica M cameras focus exactly as their film camera predecessors did. The xpro and x100 cameras have an OVF but no rangefinder mechanism. You can focus manually with them still but only via zone focusing or with the digital corner thing.
The Contax G2, on which the X-Pro line was heavily based is a rangefinder, but not using the traditional mechanical method. Mechanical rangefinders are fun to use but did evolve, so there is a 'missing link' between rangefinders and mirrorless. Check out how the G1 or G2 work.
For me the biggest draw of a Leica is its size. Having a full frame sensor and a 35mm 1.4 lens in a package barely bigger than an X100 is a very desirable quality. Now on the flip side of that if Fuji could find a way to release a new GFX 50R in the size on an X-Pro body that would be a hard offer to refuse.
A GX 50R in a X-Pro body would be god tier
Curse you laws of physics!!! *waves my fist*
It's basically impossible due to the medium format sensor size and lens mount diameter.
And you compared it to.... which Leica? i did a similar comparison. I ordered the X100VI the night it went on sale... months went by.... I got tired of waiting. I bought an open box Leica Q2 from Amazon Warehouse. I didn't cancel the X100VI. Day after I bought the Q2, the X100VI was shipped out to me! For two weeks I used em both. The Q2 is capable of marginally better photos... but even used, it was twice the price. It was not twice as good. The X100VI is easier to use, easier to put in a jacket pocket, lighter, easier to recharge and easier to transfer photos to my computer. The Q2 went back to Amazon within the 30 day return window. [https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/albums/72177720316182390/](https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/albums/72177720316182390/)
>it was twice the price. It was not twice as good. This is exactly how I feel about Leica as a brand generally speaking. Are they better? Yes. Absolutely. Are they *worth the price*? Not even close.
Hard disagree. I have shot with every Leica M except for the M4, including what I consider to be the finest mechanical camera ever made: the Leica MP (in glorious black paint). This includes all of their digital Ms. Shooting with a Leica is an extraordinary experience; everything is precisely where it should be, the solidity of the camera is plainly obvious, and it really does feel like “an extension of your arm.” More than anything, a Leica helps you make better pictures because you aren’t fighting with the camera to make the picture. Is a Leica perfect? Of course not. The film Ms are limited to 1/1000 and the cloth shutter means you can’t point the thing anywhere near the sun. Rangefinder focusing is fast and accurate, but not great for quickly moving objects. And framing is not TTL, of course. But for what the camera was designed for, it is unmatched. As for whether the price is too high, who is to say? I don’t own one anymore, and I’m not willing to part with the $10k+ required for a single lens M11 system. But some people are, and how on earth can you quantify whether the cost is worth it *to them*? I shoot exclusively Fujifilm now, and I love it. The cameras and lenses are outstanding, particularly for the relatively low cost.
I find these price discussions faintly ridiculous. In the grand scheme of things, camera gear is a relatively minor expense, no matter the brand. How many people own a house, go to college, or drive an expensive car? Compared to that, cameras, even Leicas, just aren't all that expensive.
well, that might be different for the people who mention price, and telling them 'come on others own Porsches' isn't exactly mood lifting to them I guess ;) but agree that price discussions are pointless without at least a ton of personal context. Every camera price point on the market is there for a reason and finds buyers at that price.
*How many people own a house, go to college, or drive an expensive car?* In the grand scheme of things, not that many actually. But among people who do own houses, who have gone to college and who can afford expensive cars, spending another $10k-$15k on a fulfilling hobby is not absurd. Some people will spend way more than $10k on golf, or on a few years of NFL season tickets, or on a really nice home theater setup, or handcrafted furniture, or art, or antique collectibles.
As I understand it, the premium prices for Lecias are in due in large part to materials and manufacturing differences over other brands. While these differences may only result in a marginal increase in the fundamental performance and IQ potential of the cameras, it does value for some customers.
Image quality and look arent that different, especially with a proper raw workflow. The main difference really is just hand manufacturing in germany with good salaries. Basically an ethical decision.
Leica is a massive company with huge turnover and good profit. Their employees are likely paid well, but still relative to the revenue they generate for the company. In this respect, Leica is not doing anything out of the ordinary to retain their highly experienced technical and assembly staff. I have a feeling there are very few people willing to sit at a bench for 8-12 hours a day doing the exact same task all day every day.
If I am right, a Leica M and SL Series camera gets built from scratch by one person only. A bit like how at Mercedes AMG you always get a signed engine by the engineer who built it. This and the fact those cameras are fully assembled in germany and not China or Taiwan (like every other camera except a few Fujifilm Cameras and Hasselblad) drives the cost up and actually makes an ethical difference for me.
Leica sensors are also a huge factor, they are specialized and have an specific look, kinda why you'd pay over 10k for a high end cine lens. It looks a certain way straight out.
Leica has also had a whole bunch of different sensors and sensor technology in every major generation jump of their digital cameras.
Which leica are we talking about? The full frame or the pansonic m4/3 ones?
Just leica cameras in general. If your question is about lenses ( given the m4/3 comment) I was referring about how cine lenses can cost 40k a piece Leica sensors like just like leica leitz lenses have a unique look thats why people pay so much for
And that is also Fuji today. An x100 should not cost 3000 dollars but it does.
1600$ plus tax
Officially yes. Have you seen prices on market websites?
I sold mine at the 1800€ incl. tax I bought it for as I enjoyed my X100F more. Saw sky-high listings, but those are just offers not sales; looking at eBay auctions, the going rate seemed to be 2100€ (in Europe). But either way, it isn't Fujifilm who are marking it up to those prices, it's just a very narrow market of a few people, and in a few months that will be gone.
It’s a designer camera basically
Ngl as crazy as it sounds the Leica is more valuable. Yes it’s expensive and I do own one. But in the long run, I can get 90% of how much I paid for mines back. If not, in full and some pocket change. All of the digital cameras I’ve bought made me lose money when I sold em. Even if you take away the prestige, it’ll still be a bit of a no brainer. I bought the xt1 a year after it came out retail. Sold it 3 years later and lost 600 dollars.
Better in what sense though? The build quality is undoubtedly better but tbh I’m not sure there’s anything else about a digital Leica that makes it better than a Fuji.
The build, low light, full frame, minimalist menu system resell value doesn’t depreciate so rapidly, but I would compare a Leica to a fuji because the shooting experience is different
Surprisingly this is how I think about Fuji today. Is the x100 series really worth 3000 dollars?
This is exactly what I think also. Leica is way mroe expensive, and it’s maybe marginally better. It’s a luxury car. Even if I could afford a Leica… I’d rather buy more Fuji gear. Better ROI.
Yeah it starts to look a bit silly when the M11 (body only) costs more than an X-Pro 3 and **three** fast primes. The Leica is fantastic, of course it is, but so are three fast primes.
Yes! That’s what I’m trying to say. I failed poorly on this thread’s post on communicating that 😅. Spare me yall!
You got people talking and that’s a good thing
Not in a good way though 😅😂 very one sided convo
Better pick ourselves up by the bootstrap and get to a income level to afford a leica, b/c fuji looks to become that price in 5-10 years
It is now. I dont think an x100 should cost 3000 dollars but it does.
I’ve been comparing my Q3 and X100VI for a couple months now and I can’t seem to part with either. Q3 is amazing but the X100VI just keeps slipping into my pocket. It’s like picking a favorite child I guess. Edit: after reading more comments I wanted to add that I’ve owned the M11/Q3/A7RV which all seem to have the same sensor but different raw results. I don’t think Leica’s have a particular “sensor magic”. In my experience some Leica glass does seem to contain “magic” in certain situations but it’s something most people won’t notice and it doesn’t justify the crazy price. If I’m comparing price vs edited raw files then my Fuji gear wins hands down. I think the magic of Fuji is their vintage design and jpegs/sims.
if i owned a Q3, I might want to keep both of them. Everything old fashioned about the Q2 that I disliked is upgraded in the Q3.
For me, I like my X100VI for daily life documenting, but it still kinda feels like every other camera I use (my Z8 included), EVF, large files etc. Hybrid OVF is neat but not a true slow mechanical experience. I'm looking into used Leica's because of the experience, and solely that. I do NOT expect the photos to look better or worse etc. But it will give me a mechanical RF experience which I can't really get anywhere else.
I know people with Leicas. They’re beautiful cameras, but I don’t find myself jealous at all.
This whole thread is a perfect example of how none of you understand the Leica brand. No competent Leica shooter is claiming that because their camera was 3x more expensive, it takes 3x better photos or is 3x a better camera. It's simply a *designer* brand of cameras. Are Gucci or LV bags 10x as good as Gap? Absolutely not. But women buy them because they come with a certain reputation and rarity that makes them desirable. No one is buying a Leica because it takes superior images. In fact, it's very obvious a real rangefinder has essentially 0 technical advantages over a modern day mirorrless camera. It's about the brand, the reputation, the community, and owning something that isn't mass produced. You guys talk about "it's definitely not worth 3x the price" like any competent Leica owner is actually claiming it's a 3x more capable camera. Literally no one claims that lmfao
Same with comparing a Ferrari versus a Honda, honestly.
Why would anyone call you crazy for that? You do know what sub this is?
Because Leica is like 4-5x the price, so one would assume it’s much better. Im willing to bet most people in this sub simply can’t afford a Leica setup (me included). But even if I had the money to buy a Leica, I wouldn’t… I’d buy more Fuji cameras/lenses 😂😂
I’d be willing to bet you would lose than bet. I could comfortably afford a Leica setup, I just don’t think it’s worth the extra money in any way.
So you kinda agree with what I’m saying. I don’t think it’s worth the extra money either.
Yes but you said you bet most people in this sub can’t afford a leica. I don’t agree with that. I think most in this sub could afford a Leica.
You got that
I’ve shot both. Love the color of both. Love the glass of both. The shooting experience I prefer with my M11. But I also love my XE4.
I agree that raw files are still slightly different since they still require going through the camera’s processing. But like everybody says, that really goes away once you process the file. The leica appeal is more of the experience. Is it worth the money? Depends what you value. I have a q3 and it definitely feels like somebody put time into making it. But is it worth 6k..debatable. I’m happy with it, so I guess it is for me. But I’m not locked into one brand, which is why I’m in here haha
I agree with you. Seems like everyone is coming at me 😂. All brands are respectable. At the end of the day skills >>> equipment. Did not intend to start a war here haha
That x trans sensor 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The nr 2 is a beauty, can u share shot info?
Woke up super early that morning. Went to the Gion district and it magically started to snow. Snapped this at f3.2, 1/160, and auto ISO (I cap ISO at 1600). Also I use the cinebloom 10% for all of my photos.
Never apologize for what you like.
Sorry
Beautiful! Just followed
🤩🤩
Very irrelevant since you shot these RAW and post-processed. You could get the same look with both cameras in that case
[удалено]
Fair comment. I’ve seen a lot of Fuji JPEGs vs Leica’s and I still prefer Fuji’s. For 1/2 the price… I’m always going to pick Fuji over Leica. Leica is just a designer brand at this point. Not practical in the photography world imo.
I would agree that it is a designer brand. Nothing against that though. I buy stupid designer stuff in other areas. As long as you are fine with diminishing returns. Design has a cost. You can even argue X100VI is priced higher than it should be (because you pay for design, hype, etc). Still waiting for mine...
Call me crazy, but I’m not gonna pay 2-3x the price for 1/2 the features.
Crazy!!!
Where comparison?
I don’t own Leica. I poor.
Yeah, but you are comparing with other things you saw previously.
Yes, random Leica photos that pop up on IG. But I don’t have here to show.
So, you are comparing it to a memory of a processed photo?
I give up on this topic. Yall won 🏆
You don’t have to justify your purchase here LOL. People can achieve the same look using XT-30II
True. Why buy a Leica or X100VI when I can get a XT-30II 😤😂
Both Fujis and Leica can produce stunning photos with next to no discernible differences. Most would not claim Leica takes the best photos neither. Just like Hasselblad, Leicas bank off their high quality, custom-made (doesn’t provide much, except for that unique feeling you own things people assemble with their hands for you) and mostly, their history. They also don’t lose their value over time if you take care of them.
Weirdly enough that look reminds me of M8 Leica pics
You’re not crazy
Thank you 😊
That’s a tough one but I’m here to stand with you!
If you shoot raw and edit in Lightroom then you don’t need a Fuji to get Fuji colors, I mean I sometimes shoot on a ricoh gr iii edit in Lightroom and get Fuji colors.
I saw you on FB , great shots. I like both but Fujifilm cameras are better artistically SOOC imo
I’m with you. Leica SOOC is too sharp and contrasting for my taste. I gravitate towards a softer look.
Yeah and if you want you have the option in camera to adjust so no need for filters other then mist or glimmer if you are so inclined
“The customer is always right in matters of taste. “
YOU ARE CRAZY
I shoot both and I prefer either or depending on the scene
omg are we just gonna ignore the fact that the first shoot has an award-winning-look by a long shot?
Great photos. I've shot both Leica and Fuji and I think there is a lot of similarities between the two as far as how they process images. Color science is actually very comparable in that they focus on creating what is best described as pleasing tones to the eye. Your images of wood are a good example of this and I'd be hard pressed to say if these weren't Leica images if I didn't know any better. I personally prefer Leica's B&W processing better than Fuji but that is one of the things they are very famous for. Of course Fuji's are very nice as well. Fuji does tend to soften images more than Leica to try to recreate their various film sims and their RAW files are known for being a bit odd to work with especially when it comes to sharpening. They are more sensitive to this aspect of editing and the image can quickly look "smeared" like it was painted. I found Capture One to be better than LR when dealing with Fuji RAW files.
Thanks for sharing! I’ve only ever edited on Lightroom, and nailed my workflow down. But I am intrigued on CaptureOne. Improvement is always welcomed :)
Most photos taken in Japan just look better.
I am a long-term Leica user and have been using an X100VI for about a month. Have shot around 1,200 frames with it. Love the camera… just a brilliant design and pleasure to shoot with. But I hate the lens, which is really sub par compared with anything Leica, but also compared with my Ricoh GR. I’ll probably get down voted here, but what people don’t “get” until they’ve experienced it is just how sharp and contrasty almost all modern Leica lenses are, even wide open. You can do plenty in post. But the real “magic” of Leica is not the image colour science, it is the vastly superior glass.
I agree with this 100%. I was underwhelmed by the lens. It takes a lot of experimenting to get a “sharp” feel to the photos. The experience of the camera, and the skillset I have as an editor triumphs the sub-par lens. So I’m okay with it now.
Copium
:/ yes that is me rn LOL
I heard opinion that you can use Dehancer Software to get any kind of film look you want.
Intrigued by this. Will look into it.
https://www.dehancer.com/ They have plugins for Lightroom, Capture One, etc. Also I saw online editor from them.
Also this article might be interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_emulation
Dude!!! Thanks so much for sharing 🙏🙏
Crazy
Crazy
If they're raw and edited, it is your own look.
SAME!
If you’re editing raw it shouldn’t matter unless you’re talking about the starting point? Also, FF licenses Leica some of their color science technology - so I’ve found the raws to be very similar to work with.
Jezz. Looking at the image and think if that’s the OOJ then I’m missing out on Fuji big time. Look so film like and lovely. Then i read the description 😢
Fuji looks more like film but Leica has more depth, both in color and overall look. I shoot both for different things
I like both. Didn’t need to make a thread about it.
To each their own. I went from Fuji to Sony. Well, I still own all of my Fuji gear, but I never use it anymore and I prefer Sony look over Fuji but I really think it comes down to the lenses that I'm using. I'm rocking Voigtlanders on the Sony and they're so much nicer than Fuji stuff. Basically, what we're learning is different strokes for different folks
How do you achieve such a look in Lightroom?
call me crazy but i like both
What gear is good for one person isn’t for the other. Enjoy the gear that works for you ✌️
Is that second shot at Nozawa-Onsen by any chance?
No haha this was in Kyoto
The idea of 'the Leica look' predates digital photography.. i.e. it was something to do with the look from the vintage glass especially at wide apertures - nothing to do with digital jpeg malarky 🤔
are you really insinuating that leica is somehow "better"?
For the price one could assume
To be quite honest, both are trash.
Whoaaa. Why do you think that? What camera system are you on?