Fuji { Fuji Is The New Leica } | Things.That.Make.You.Go.Hmmm.

[Gary]

I'm jumping in, better late than never I guess ...

Leica is Leica and Fuji is Fuji. And that Leica can be whatever it desires to be, as Fuji can as well. I don't think Leica wants to be, nor is Fuji the minor league club for Leica. It is obvious that Leica and Fuji have used similar design criterium in the development of their selective cameras ... hence the similarities of the final products. Both companies have distinct and niche markets. I think nearly every Fuji buyer is potentially a Leica owner. I don't see any Leica owners selling their Leica's and replacing them with a Fuji. I think one of the principle and significant attractions to having Leica is not only owning one of the best cameras/lenses around but also owning one of the most expensive 35mm sensored cameras in the world. I must admit that owning a Leica and joining this exclusive and expensive club, appeals to my vanity, (I am a mere mortal).

Gary

 

[CaptZoom]

Sorry to hear that, CaptZoom. I guess in the end what matters is how the photographer uses the tool that he/she ends up using to express his/her creative vision...what gear preference he/she chooses to use becomes less relevant - regardless of how much it costs. I ran into someone on a photo walk in San Francisco the other day who swore by her Diana. And I totally respected her for her insight. Have a great weekend!

Agreed.

Diana, Holga, etc. seem really cool man. If developing film was easier, I'd give those a try.

 

[fujidanny]

:tiphat: X-E1, M42 adapter plus 28mm close-up ring(9€), Weltblick f3,5/135mm(46€) or Tele-Ennalyt F2,8/135mm(34€):

This morning, half an hour in the garden #1
View attachment 1286
Weltblick f3,5/135mm, V, ISO 400, F8, DRauto, WBauto, STone -1

This morning, half an hour in the garden #2
View attachment 1285
Tele-Ennalyt F2,8/135mm, V, ISO 400, F8, DRauto, WBauto, STone -1

This morning, half an hour in the garden#3
View attachment 1284
Weltblick f3,5/135mm, BWr, ISO 400, F8, DRauto, WBauto, HTone +1, STone +1

This morning, half an hour in the garden #4
View attachment 1282
Tele-Ennalyt F2,8/135mm, BWr, ISO 400, F8, DRauto, WBauto, HTone +1, STone +1

This morning, half an hour in the garden #5
View attachment 1283
Tele-Ennalyt F2,8/135mm, BWr, ISO 400, F8, DRauto, WBauto, HTone +1, STone +1

All SOOC JPEGs, no PP.

No further comments...

Fujidanny

 

[spinyman]

Awesome shots.Those funny named lenses are SHARP!

 

[fujidanny]

Spinyman,

Leica is getting more and more expensive from year to year.
The quality is brilliant.
But: there are alternatives at reasonable price.

Tele-Ennalyt f2,8/135mm
View attachment 1300

This morning, half an hour in the garden #6
View attachment 1301

This morning, half an hour in the garden #7
View attachment 1302

Weltblick f3,5/135mm
View attachment 1298

This morning, half an hour in the garden#8
View attachment 1299

 

[hcreatives]

I'm jumping in, better late than never I guess ...

....I must admit that owning a Leica and joining this exclusive and expensive club, appeals to my vanity, (I am a mere mortal).

Gary

Hi Gary - no problem for jumping in late. Thanks for your thoughts. I think Zack is supposed to explain himself by what he meant by it in his follow up blog sometime this week, and never meant that Fuji will ever be Leica - I hope it doesn't actually, because then I'd never be able to own Fuji's the way I do now.

And you know, quite honestly, owning a Leica appeals to my vanity as well...although I would seriously have to think of selling an organ to own one, and even if I do...I would probably not want to shoot with it for fear of getting it scratched or damaged - so it'll be purely from a collector's item POV. I know...vain-er than vain - if there was such a thing.

Cheers from the Bay - {h}

 

[hcreatives]

@fujidanny - dude...awesome pics! That's one beasty bazooka-of-a-set-up. And it's turning out some gorgeous images...thanks for sharing!

I haven't used any other adaptor other than the Kipon. Here's my set-up: an old 50mm 1.4 Nikkor that got brought back to life - literally - because of Fuji's X-series, namely the X-Pro1. It was literally collecting dust in my closet...and it is not an exotic lens per se but I love how this lens renders on the X-Trans sensor, especially wide open. I just wish that the good folks at Fuji would bring focus peaking to the X-Pro1 and X-E1 to aid in manual focusing.

Anyways, I doubt that anyone would get an F-mount adaptor to connect to their Leica. Hence, I'm glad that Fuji is Fuji and not necessarily the "new Leica" from a literal sense.

Cheers from the Bay - {h}

 

[CaptZoom]

The last image is spectacular. Thanks for sharing.

:tiphat: X-E1, M42 adapter plus 28mm close-up ring(9€), Weltblick f3,5/135mm(46€) or Tele-Ennalyt F2,8/135mm(34€):....

....This morning, half an hour in the garden #5
View attachment 1283
Tele-Ennalyt F2,8/135mm, BWr, ISO 400, F8, DRauto, WBauto, HTone +1, STone +1

 

[CaptZoom]

Hi Gary,
I think we're generally in agreement, especially regarding Leica and Fuji being their own companies (neither being subservient to the other). Couple of things I'd like to point out:
1) The Leica M series cost about the same as the flagship full frame products from Nikon and Canon.
2) For me owning the M9 had nothing to do with the exclusivity or owning an expensive camera.
I'd say more, but this is not a Leica forum. And I need to check out some of the gorgeous photos being uploaded here

I'm jumping in, better late than never I guess ...

Leica is Leica and Fuji is Fuji. And that Leica can be whatever it desires to be, as Fuji can as well. I don't think Leica wants to be, nor is Fuji the minor league club for Leica. It is obvious that Leica and Fuji have used similar design criterium in the development of their selective cameras ... hence the similarities of the final products. Both companies have distinct and niche markets. I think nearly every Fuji buyer is potentially a Leica owner. I don't see any Leica owners selling their Leica's and replacing them with a Fuji. I think one of the principle and significant attractions to having Leica is not only owning one of the best cameras/lenses around but also owning one of the most expensive 35mm sensored cameras in the world. I must admit that owning a Leica and joining this exclusive and expensive club, appeals to my vanity, (I am a mere mortal).

Gary

 

[Gary]

CaptZoom, you may be the exception. In photography, as in life, there are always exceptions. I never took a scientific poll, but having been around and a Leica owner in a former life, I think the high cost of a Leica, at some level, is an appealing and compelling factor for many Leica owners. I'm not passing judgement, just sayin'. I own 1D's, which yes, cost similarly to an M series. I think when you compare a pro level Nikon or Canon to a Leica, there is a significant difference in capabilities and performance in favor of Canon/Nikon.

Gary

 

[flysurfer]

It's rare that people buy a camera for one single reason. Usually, many factors are in involvement, and brand image is definitely one of those factors. If Casio came up with a camera system like the M 240 that offered the same quality (and wanted to charge Leica prices), it would bomb like hell, nobody would take it seriously. People would think "belated April fools". OTOH, we have Hasselblad overstepping their image boundaries with the Lunar. This camera is so over-the-top that not even the powerful Hasselblad brand can save it, it's a good example of how to ruin a once valuable brand. It's also a cautionary tale for Leica, as it suggests that Leica needs stay "in character". They can't be too many different things to different people, or the brand will suffer.

Fuji is in the process of building a reputable brand image for their digital camera products. They are legendary for their film products, but this is their history, not present or future. The X series is Fujifilm's effort to reinvent their camera business with a solid brand image, as they clearly see there is no viable future in entry-level compact cameras. This battle is already lost, smartphones and new products like Google Glass are taking this market. Obviously, the retro design of the X series makes people draw parallels to Leica, and that's okay, it's not that bad when you are building a camera brand and your products are associated with Leica. But Fuji needs to be careful that they aren't considered a knock-off. They try to counter this danger with innovation, think hybrid viewfinder. It seems to work, as influential bloggers now write that Fuji already is what Leica should be. They are basically telling Leica to learn from Fuji, not the other way around.

 

[CaptZoom]

Gary, I can't speak for other owners.

CaptZoom, you may be the exception. In photography, as in life, there are always exceptions. I never took a scientific poll, but having been around and a Leica owner in a former life, I think the high cost of a Leica, at some level, is an appealing and compelling factor for many Leica owners. I'm not passing judgement, just sayin'.

Gary, I can't speak for other owners. That being said, the Leica "special/limited editions" are marketed directly at status conscious buyers, ie charging 10-15k premium for paint!?!

I own 1D's, which yes, cost similarly to an M series. I think when you compare a pro level Nikon or Canon to a Leica, there is a significant difference in capabilities and performance in favor of Canon/Nikon.
Gary

Depends on the situation. Sports Illustrated type sports photography, extremely hazardous situations, situations requiring perspective control are areas where the SLRs are the right tools (though for perspective control MF maybe a better tool still).

 

[CaptZoom]

It's rare that people buy a camera for one single reason. Usually, many factors are in involvement, and brand image is definitely one of those factors. If Casio came up with a camera system like the M 240 that offered the same quality (and wanted to charge Leica prices), it would bomb like hell, nobody would take it seriously. People would think "belated April fools". OTOH, we have Hasselblad overstepping their image boundaries with the Lunar. This camera is so over-the-top that not even the powerful Hasselblad brand can save it, it's a good example of how to ruin a once valuable brand. It's also a cautionary tale for Leica, as it suggests that Leica needs stay "in character". They can't be too many different things to different people, or the brand will suffer.

We're generally in agreement, though I'm brand agnostic. If Casio (or whomever) comes out with a rangefinder system camera (that can mount LTM and M mount glass without degradation of IQ) I would consider it. I'm very keen on RF focusing because it suits my shooting style. For me, it was the paramount concern in choosing the Leica.

Fuji is in the process of building a reputable brand image for their digital camera products. They are legendary for their film products, but this is their history, not present or future. The X series is Fujifilm's effort to reinvent their camera business with a solid brand image, as they clearly see there is no viable future in entry-level compact cameras. This battle is already lost, smartphones and new products like Google Glass are taking this market. Obviously, the retro design of the X series makes people draw parallels to Leica, and that's okay, it's not that bad when you are building a camera brand and your products are associated with Leica. But Fuji needs to be careful that they aren't considered a knock-off. They try to counter this danger with innovation, think hybrid viewfinder. It seems to work, as influential bloggers now write that Fuji already is what Leica should be.

Fuji's using time tested and perfected camera interface (aperture dial, shutter dial, etc), which is something Leica is also holding on to. Couple that with the retro look (something Leica never grew out of), and there's enough fodder for comparisons. But like you mentioned, the similarities are generally superficial. I really hope Fuji succeeds. What they're coming up with is really exciting (the hybrid viewfinders, built in optical magnification, built in ND filters, new sensor architecture sans the Bayer Array, etc). The revolution started by Panasonic/Olympus via 4/3 and m4/3 has led us to the Fuji X-series and the Sony NEX series. The future looks extremely bright for photographers. I can't wait to see what's next.

They are basically telling Leica to learn from Fuji, not the other way around.

Leica's not going to be competing with Fuji (or Sony/Lumix/Olympus/Pentax). At least, that's their formally announced strategy at the moment. And they have the RF market cornered, which is apparently big enough to sustain them (at least for the time being).

 

[Phoenix]

I was reading this and I found myself smiling and nodding for it rings true, in a weird way it is like looking back in time but parallel with the present, let me explain what I mean. I the past we had Leica producing their M3, M4, M5 etc.. and Fuji had their GW690, TX-2, GF670, etc.. and were aptly called "Texas Leicas" and imho this was an indication of the effect of brand image and the parallel comparison between the two which will always occur, I find this particularly interesting since Fuji's main competitor at the time for its bread and butter was Kodak.

Instead of leading the way in producing and developing sensor technology Kodak decided to rest on it's laurels and just release entry level compacts and point and shoots while everyone else were pushing the envelope with sensor technology, and I think this is where Fuji as a company and a brand really shines by reinventing themselves and by innovation and as Rico mentioned Leica should learn from Fuji.

 

[fujidanny]

:clap2: Phoenix

 

[CaptZoom]

Kodak didn't sit on its laurels, it committed ritual suicide! Amazingly Kodak was one of the early innovators in digital photography (with a deep patent portfolio). The higher ups in the company didn't want the film sales to suffer, so they crippled the digital wing of the company. We all know the rest.

Leica is innovating...no need to look any further than their lenses. And they're innovating in cameras as well- the X and S series cameras. The X series was one of the first (after the Sigma DP series), and the S is the only game in town for what it offers. As is the M. The new M is a transitional product. The next version should be quite interesting. I'm skipping the M240, simply because my M9 continues satisfy my needs. Furthermore, in an additional 3 years it will have been fully amortized justifying the purchase of its replacement.

 

[Gary]

Leica was on the ropes, I believe months away from collapse. New management has righted the ship and it is seemingly cruising along a proper course with the wind in their sails, the sun on their face. The new leadership didn't reinvent Leica as much as overhauled the good ship. Unlike Kodak who choose to simply look the other way. Nikon was similar to Kodak, while Canon was developing and perfecting CMOS and jumping in with both feet into the digital waters, Nikon said there is no future for digital technology in professional photography. Soon, all you were seeing were those white L lenses at the major sporting events. News photography was a genre which Nikon completely dominated for decades, nobody was even close. Nikon took a terrible beating in the early 2000's but came back swinging, changed their business model and jumped into digital with both feet and now Canon is lagging in sensor development. Kodak seem to just bank on their monopolistic film division which dominated the world for half a century.

Back to the point Captain, for my type of shooting and for what I shoot, the difference between Leica and Fuji is not significant. If the difference in the photographic experience, (remembering from my film days), and the differences in the final image isn't significant, then I see little point in spending significantly more for little return. Of course we are all different, we see photography differently with different expectations and we have different levels of disposal income.

Personally, I would love to shoot Leica, I just haven't seen any significant improvements in Leica camera handling/performance and in Leica image quality to justify the extra expenses. Until that happens, I will continue to shoot with the poor man's Leica - lol.

Gary

 

[CaptZoom]

Back to the point Captain, for my type of shooting and for what I shoot, the difference between Leica and Fuji is not significant. If the difference in the photographic experience, (remembering from my film days), and the differences in the final image isn't significant, then I see little point in spending significantly more for little return. Of course we are all different, we see photography differently with different expectations and we have different levels of disposal income.

Personally, I would love to shoot Leica, I just haven't seen any significant improvements in Leica camera handling/performance and in Leica image quality to justify the extra expenses. Until that happens, I will continue to shoot with the poor man's Leica - lol.

Gary

Oh man...I didn't mean to insinuate that every one should use a Leica, or that if one doesn't than they're some how inferior! If that's how I've come across, I apologize.
It's a wonderful time to be a photographer. There are plenty of choices and niches to fit our individual needs.
I'm not saying nor do I believe that Fuji is the poor man's Leica. Fuji's providing their own system and it has its advantages. Take, for example, the leaf shutter in the X100s and what that does to your flashes

 

[Gary]

Oh man...I didn't mean to insinuate that every one should use a Leica, or that if one doesn't than they're some how inferior! If that's how I've come across, I apologize.
It's a wonderful time to be a photographer. There are plenty of choices and niches to fit our individual needs.
I'm not saying nor do I believe that Fuji is the poor man's Leica. Fuji's providing their own system and it has its advantages. Take, for example, the leaf shutter in the X100s and what that does to your flashes

Hey Captain,

You didn't insinuate any of that ... and I hope I did't come across as if you did insinuate any of which you didn't want to insinuate (lol). As both of us are speaking only for ourselves, just for clarity sake, I was just expressing my personal take on Leica.

Today I was at my camera shop and again I was leaving my fingerprints on another M, this time a Monochrome. Actually, calling the Fuji a poor man's Leica was a line used in a different thread. I don't think Fuji started out with an intent to copy Leica. When you use similar design criteria, you will end up with a similar product. I believe Leica and Fuji used similar design criterium, hence the similarities in design. While I think there is some truth to Fuji is a poor man's Leica, there is equal truth to stating Leica is a rich man's Fuji. But the larger truth is than none of that matters. What does matter is not what we shoot with ... but that we shoot. What we choose to shoot with is minuscule when compared to the images we capture or the photographs we create.

Gary

 

[CaptZoom]

We are in agreement.

That Monochrom really interests me, and I know at some point I'll own it (or something similar). But before taking that plunge, I need to learn using filters.

Hey Captain,

You didn't insinuate any of that ... and I hope I did't come across as if you did insinuate any of which you didn't want to insinuate (lol). As both of us are speaking only for ourselves, just for clarity sake, I was just expressing my personal take on Leica.

Today I was at my camera shop and again I was leaving my fingerprints on another M, this time a Monochrome. Actually, calling the Fuji a poor man's Leica was a line used in a different thread. I don't think Fuji started out with an intent to copy Leica. When you use similar design criteria, you will end up with a similar product. I believe Leica and Fuji used similar design criterium, hence the similarities in design. While I think there is some truth to Fuji is a poor man's Leica, there is equal truth to stating that Leica is a rich man's Fuji. But the larger truth is than none of that matters. What does matter is not what we shoot with ... but that we shoot. What we choose to shoot with is minuscule when compared to the images we capture or the photographs we create.

Gary