The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Xpro1 or X-E1 for Leica M lenses?

V

Vivek

Guest
Regarding the EVF in the XE-1.

A Japanese web magazine published Fujifilm Mr. Ueno's interview.
1. EVF is the same speed as X-Pro1 46fps. (Sony Nex 7 60fps) The reason why X-E1 is slower than Sony is X-Trans CMOS.
2. EVF latency is less than 20ms, which should be totally acceptable.

The OMD refresh is also 60fps/120fps.
Thanks for your post.

This essentially points to the basic problems with the Fuji X. If, even, the camera's own processor's can not handle the output, no wonder the generic Adobe programs fail miserably. Fuji should come up with a better, faster processor, at least to make the camera responsive. One of these days I am sure they will. :)
 

Braeside

New member
Apparently Fuji are going to assist third parties like Adobe and Apple with the raw processing.

Anecdotal Evidence

I don't find the Fuji particularly unresponsive, but more processing power would always be welcomed. I'm NOT jumping to the XE-1 from the X-Pro 1 as for me there is little if anything to be gained, I'll wait and see what Fuji bring out in the future as an upgrade to X-Pro 1.
 

jamriman

New member
Didn't know much about the OMD till now. The EVF is the best out there. Any success with M lenses? Again does the GXR win? Oops, No focus coupling. I think I answered my own question Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Rayto

New member
Thanks for your post.

This essentially points to the basic problems with the Fuji X. If, even, the camera's own processor's can not handle the output, no wonder the generic Adobe programs fail miserably. Fuji should come up with a better, faster processor, at least to make the camera responsive. One of these days I am sure they will. :)
I believe this discussion supports your view quite well. However it points out just how difficult it might be for any solution beyond in camera processing. The link may not work as I've had issues linking into the Fuji X forum (perhaps my iPad, it's in the Fuji X Post Production Forum/Problems raw conversion software has with the X-Pro1).

Problems RAW conversion software have with the X-Pro 1 - Fuji X Forum

I find all of this fascinating. I realize that it does nothing to improve our lot in life with respect to using the Adobe's of the world. However, I believe Fuji has opened up Pandora's box with X Trans. By freeing themselves of Bayer and moving towards in camera processing with output being some sort of super jpeg/tiff file, all camera manufacturers may have far more flexibility in improving output IQ. Might be better for the Adobe's of the world as well as they can continue to do what they do well, management and edit OOC images, as opposed to rendering however they see fit. Fuji is hardly the only example of one app doing better than another. With my very limited experience, Nikon also suffers in the hands of some rendering machines but does quite well with others.
 
I also have a 3rd party M adapter (can't remember the brand) but in actual fact the only M lens I use is the Voigtlander 12mm and basically just walk around at f8 without focusing. The onscreen level is more important for wides. The 12mm is much better behaved than the 15 with regards to cyan/magenta edges.

There are of course many exceptions but personally I find myself sticking with the fuji lenses, at least in relation to the M lens lineup I have. There is just no compelling reason to use M glass over the Fuji. Fuji lenses being that good and M lenses losing characteristics as they were designed for FF.

Probably the best reason is that the focusing ring is real on an M lens and feels more natural, even with the 3x zoom on firmware 2, it doesn't inspire frequent usage, I was trying it in an aquarium and gave up, reverting to taking lots of shots using A/F, even on slow moving creatures it will drive a man insane.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Didn't know much about the OMD till now. The EVF is the best out there. Any success with M lenses? Again does the GXR win? Oops, No focus coupling. I think I answered my own question Thanks.
HI There . .
Focus coupling?
Surely none of the adapters are focus coupled - and nor do they need to be.
Manual focusing on the OMD EVF is very easy and good - the image quality is excellent on most M lenses above 24mm. . . . . but then the Zuiko lenses are very good, and so are some of the Panasonic lenses, and they do as well as Leica lenses on the OMD, so why not take advantage of them?

I think this is the trouble - the real answer to the original question:

Xpro1 or X-E1 for Leica M lenses?

Is . . . . neither - really the correct answer is to use a Leica M if you want the best out of them . . . and with all these other (less than full frame) cameras produce less than stellar results . . . . Except perhaps the Ricoh, where they have made an explicit effort with their M unit.

Not to denigrate the Fuji (or the OMD or the NEX) great cameras all, just not perfect for M lenses.
 

jamriman

New member
HI There . .
Focus coupling?
Surely none of the adapters are focus coupled - and nor do they need to be.
Manual focusing on the OMD EVF is very easy and good - the image quality is excellent on most M lenses above 24mm. . . . . but then the Zuiko lenses are very good, and so are some of the Panasonic lenses, and they do as well as Leica lenses on the OMD, so why not take advantage of them?

I think this is the trouble - the real answer to the original question:

Xpro1 or X-E1 for Leica M lenses?

Is . . . . neither - really the correct answer is to use a Leica M if you want the best out of them . . . and with all these other (less than full frame) cameras produce less than stellar results . . . . Except perhaps the Ricoh, where they have made an explicit effort with their M unit.

Not to denigrate the Fuji (or the OMD or the NEX) great cameras all, just not perfect for M lenses.
Ahhh yes! Thanks! The perfect answer to perhaps a dumb question!
 

jamriman

New member
and just pulled the trigger on the GXR listed right here on the forum. Thanks for helping decide on the right choice for me needs!
 

jamriman

New member
Thanks! Just hoping for some guidance. I have an EOS 5D with 2 C/Y lenses with EOS adapters. I have a canon 24 1.4 FD converted to an EOS and a 55 1.2 FD which has an EOS mount which I could convert back to an FD mount. So should I trash the c/y to eos adapters and get an c/y to M adapter, or should I get a Canon EOS to M adapter and use all the lenses I have with it? I suppose an FD to M adapter has no advantage over the EOS to M adapter. Please advise. Thanks in advance!!!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks! Just hoping for some guidance. I have an EOS 5D with 2 C/Y lenses with EOS adapters. I have a canon 24 1.4 FD converted to an EOS and a 55 1.2 FD which has an EOS mount which I could convert back to an FD mount. So should I trash the c/y to eos adapters and get an c/y to M adapter, or should I get a Canon EOS to M adapter and use all the lenses I have with it? I suppose an FD to M adapter has no advantage over the EOS to M adapter. Please advise. Thanks in advance!!!
You asked the same question on RFF ... thought I'd copy my answer here too.

The issue that comes up with stacking multiple adapters has to do with the variations in how well the adapters fit each other to properly center and align the lens. Each coupling adds the possibility of something being slightly off, and the potential for misalignment. I've also found variations in fit between different lenses and different brands of M-mount adapters.

So the economical thing to do is to buy an adapter to allow all your lenses modified to mount on Canon EOS mount to be fitted to the GXR. But the best thing to do is to obtain a mount adapter for each lens native mount to fit it to M-mount.

Somewhere in between is probably the practical thing to do: buy a dedicated, high quality mount for each of the lenses that you'll be using most of the time on the GXR, and buy a decent EOS to M-mount adapter for the rest that you don't use terribly often.

I've got mount adapters to fit Nikon, Pentax M42, Pentax K, and Olympus OM lenses to FourThirds SLR, Micro-FourThirds and now M-bayonet mounts. As time as progressed, however, I've slowly acquired all M-bayonet mount lenses for my normal use and retained only the Nikkor macro capable lenses that I adapt to M-bayonet. Why? Because, in general, the M-bayonet lenses are smaller, better performing, and sometimes faster than the lenses I was adapting: I just like using them more. And I can also use them on the M9 and other M-bayonet bodies I've got, where the adapted SLR lenses really only make sense to use on the GXR since they don't have the rangefinder coupling.

(I don't use the SLR lenses that often anymore, so I bought one very high quality Rayqual Nikon F to Leica M adapter. It fits perfectly, with no slop whatever, on all three of the Nikkors I have kept and its mount release does not mechanically interfere with the Nikkors' aperture ring, the most usual cause of issues IME.)
 

jamriman

New member
Wow, thanks & thanks again! Are Kipon adapters any good? Should I just stick with Raqual? As I understand, slr lenses can only be zoned focused since not coupled? So you can't use live view focus peeking?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Wow, thanks & thanks again! Are Kipon adapters any good? Should I just stick with Raqual?
Kipon adapters are generally pretty good, but not at the same quality level as the Rayqual IME. There's more variability in dimensioning. Also, the Rayqual adapters all come with very good quality M-mount back caps, which saves you a few dollars in buying caps. (many of the less expensive caps don't fit very tightly and have a tendency to fall off.)

As I understand, slr lenses can only be zoned focused since not coupled? So you can't use live view focus peeking?
If you're talking about the GXR, focusing is done TTL with the Live View through LCD or EVF. The rangefinder mechanism is not relevant to use of any lenses on the GXR, so in that context there's no difference between using an M-mount lens and an SLR lens via an adapter on the GXR.

But my GXR is now complement to my M9, so for me it's better to have all my usual lens choices be M-mount with rangefinder coupling, since the M9 can ONLY measure focus with the rangefinder. (The new M due to be available next year will also have Live View and focus peaking ... which is when I'll consider whether to upgrade from my M9 or sell the GXR kit and add the new M body. There's a big step up in price, of course.)
 

jamriman

New member
Yes that step up in price is why I want the GXR to begin with. This time I just refuse to sell my MP-9 for the new M. Better put the funds towards the impossible to afford maybe used Mono M. Thanks again for you kindness!
 

StephenPatterson

New member
If the X-E1 sensor could handle wide M lenses without smearing the corners I would absolutely buy one in a heartbeat, even without focus peaking. It would make a perfect backup (actually companion is a better word) camera for the M9.

I think Leica has shown with the M-E that we're not going to get an inexpensive EVF only camera from them for the next two to three years, but I wonder if anyone else will come forward?
 

jonoslack

Active member
If the X-E1 sensor could handle wide M lenses without smearing the corners I would absolutely buy one in a heartbeat, even without focus peaking. It would make a perfect backup (actually companion is a better word) camera for the M9.

I think Leica has shown with the M-E that we're not going to get an inexpensive EVF only camera from them for the next two to three years, but I wonder if anyone else will come forward?
HI Stephen
Have you given up on the M?
personally, I don't really mind whether I'm shooting full frame - or cropped sensor. But I'm absolutely certain that I can't shoot mixed. Seems to me that the M9 would be a perfect backup for the M.

all the best
 

StephenPatterson

New member
Hi Jono,

No, I haven't given up on the M, but I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions. New features aside it will be interesting to see if the M's new CMOS sensor can equal or surpass the IQ of the M9's CCD. It might be that the new M makes a good backup for the M9 :D We shall have to wait and see...

As for me I really enjoy my M9, and shoot with it every day, but after the sun goes down it just runs out of steam. Granted that most of my images are captured in relatively good light, and I rarely find the need to push the M9 beyond ISO1250, but if the capability was there I'm sure that I would continue to use my Leica glass throughout the evening hours. If the X-E1 was up to the task, for those times when my M9 hit the proverbial ISO brick wall, that would have worked just fine for me.

Cheers,
 

tmldds

New member
I have been shooting with an M9 until the arrival of my MM. The M9 has been sitting in the cabinet, but I still need a color camera for family activities, and scenery. The small XE1 fulfills my need very well with my M lenses. However, I may still pick up a Fuji lens or two, the upcoming 23mm and the 18-55 Zoom.
 
Top