[Leica] Fuji choice and Leica

[pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein)]

I looked seriously at the X-Pro1 some time ago.  I wanted a replacement 
for my aging Panny G1, which was my "other than Leica" camera.

I liked the feel of the X-Pro1, the discrete control buttons, the image 
quality, especially at high ISO (as seen in other's pictures). I was put 
off by the autofocus slowness and problems with RAW support (now 
somewhat mitigated by firmware and RAW processor upgrades), and the lack 
of diopter adjustment in the viewfinder. Eventually micro 4/3 won out. I 
already had a couple of lenses, so the cost to upgrade to the Olympus 
OM-D E-M5 was less. The high-ISO image quality was slightly less than 
the Fuji, but quite usable. (I've since grown to love the B&W 
conversions I'm getting out of the OM-D at ISO 1600).

My one real disappointment with the OM-D is that it is not a decisive 
moment camera for fleeting expressions. (I suspect the same holds for 
the XE-1) There is a bit of delay between what happens in life and when 
you see it in the viewfinder. And, there is a little-known issue in 
micro-4/3 called Shutter Shock, which prevents you from getting the 
sharpest pictures at the most-used shutter speeds unless you program in 
an additional 1/8 second shutter delay.

Viewfinder delay is the Achilles heel of all EVF cameras. Add the delay 
in focusing a manual focus lens, and you get a combination that is fine 
for posed and static subjects, but not for action.

I've done much playing around with manual lenses (both Leica and OM) on 
DSLR and micro-4/3 bodies. For telephoto and macro, it's fine. For the 
theater or classical music concerts where the performers don't move 
around much, it's quite usable.  I did well with a 90 Summicron on the 
OM-D, acting as a 180mm f/2.  But the native lenses are just much more 
convenient and faster to work with. For anything that moves, you want 
the native lenses. Not to mention that they were designed with the 
camera format and sensor in mind.  And that Leica wide-angle lenses on 
anything but a Leica are always going to be a problem due to the steep 
angle of light hitting the sensor.

This is why, if I were to get a Fuji, I would get the X-Pro1. It gives 
you EVF when you need precise framing and can deal with slow manual 
focus, but an optical viewfinder when you are dealing with anything 
moving. And I would certainly get the Fuji lenses, just as I got the 
micro-4/3 primes.

B&W conversions from the OM-D:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at N04/8739819257/lightbox>, and the 
next 3 "Older"
and this one: 
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at N04/8656429757/lightbox>

90 Summicron on OM-D in a concert hall:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at N04/8590916253/lightbox/> and 
then next 2 "Older"

The best I could do with my cousins' relatively slow tennis game. And 
this the best of about 30 tries, with the shutter shock delay turned 
*off*, and keeping my non-viewfinder eye open to watch the ball, and and 
hitting the shutter when the ball crossed the net. Using the EVF, the 
ball was almost never even in the frame.
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/family/gladys80/P4150047.jpg.html>

I suspect you'd get similar results from an EVF-only XE-1.

--Peter


 > Steve sorry if you have posted this before and I missed the 
information. I'm
 > trying to decide between the x pro 1 to use with their 18-55 and one 
other
 > lens for now, maybe the 35 1.4.
 > As well as as my Leica glass with the Fuji adapter.
 > Or the XE-1.
 > I'm having a hard time making a decision for some reason on which 
body. Have
 > you both or have you used both that you can provide your thoughts?
 > Thanks very much,
 > And Nathan what model did you order?
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Scott
 >