Fuji X2 vs Leica CL

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've been shooting almost exclusively with my new Leica CL APS-C camera and its lenses for the past 2 months, but a photo opportunity last night fell outside of its range. Close quarters, low light levels and a need for autofocus -- this was a job for the Fuji 16/1.4! (The Leica lens complement is fairly small, remarkably sharp, but doesn't have fast wide angles.) Here's an example:

XT2F0377 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr X-T2, 16/1.4 @ ISO 320

Pictures from the show are at: https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/MCZ7Mq

scott

 

[iiiNelson]

It would seem that Micro 4/3 and Fujifilm are the best choices for people that want cropped sensors and high quality lenses. Sony has good bodies in the A6xxx line but limited lens selection for cropped sensors (though you could technically use the FF lenses that are high quality) and Leica seems to be an even worse choice IMO than Sony in that realm. With Sony you do have a few great options from Sigma and some of the Sony f/1.8 primes and all purpose zooms are decent but maybe a tad overpriced for what they are.

 

[Vivek]

Over priced compared to the CL that uses the NEX-5N sensor?

Are you well? :bugeyes:

 

[iiiNelson]

Over priced compared to the CL that uses the NEX-5N sensor?

Are you well? :bugeyes:

Well no... Not compared to Leica but I mean compared to the camera equipment that is otherwise rationally priced from Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and the like that mostly perform better than what Sony offers for the APS-C bodies. The FF stuff is priced more than fairly IMO.

 

[Vivek]

Thanks for the clarification.

Of late, I have been seeing an explosion of camera carrying people in the small city i live in.

It is not only small DSLRs but more and more mirrorless. Quite a few Fujis, along with Olympus, and Sonys.

 

[MCTuomey]

Nice work, Scott.

If you’re a fan of Leica glass, and aps-c is attractive from a weight, size, and cost perspective, then a CL is superior to Fuji or Sony aps-c bodies to adapt the various Leica mounts, especially M-mount lenses.

For me it’s about the glass. I shoot Canon to use my TSE lenses. I shoot Leica to use my 35 & 50 luxes and my 75 Cron. If I had any loxia lenses i’d shoot Sony.

 

[msadat]

Nice work, Scott.

If you’re a fan of Leica glass, and aps-c is attractive from a weight, size, and cost perspective, then a CL is superior to Fuji or Sony aps-c bodies to adapt the various Leica mounts, especially M-mount lenses.

For me it’s about the glass. I shoot Canon to use my TSE lenses. I shoot Leica to use my 35 & 50 luxes and my 75 Cron. If I had any loxia lenses i’d shoot Sony.

actually the sony a6500 is the best since u can also auto focus leica m lenses with couple different adapters

 

[Satrycon]

not sure about that..its quite a subjective statement ...i'm getting beautiful results with my new Fuji X-H1 with M [50lux and 90APO] lenses via the Fujifilm M adapter. [and Ive printed quite a few shots already]

a CL is superior to Fuji or Sony aps-c bodies to adapt the various Leica mounts, especially M-mount lenses.

 

[Paratom]

I find either Fuji and also CL lenses so gut that I really dont enjoy messing around with M lenses on such cameras with a crop sensor.
I find the whole discussion Fuji vs Leica CL vs Sony xyz really useless. These are all great systems IMO.

The discussion might make sense if anybody was really interested to find out what is best for him. But it seems this is more something like "my brand ist better than your brand" thing.
Of course we all know Leica is best anyways.

 

[jdphoto]

As this was already discussed in the Leica forum, just use the one that works best for you. It's not always about the specs. The most inspiration comes from the camera you want to use.

 

[MCTuomey]

not sure about that..its quite a subjective statement ...i'm getting beautiful results with my new Fuji X-H1 with M [50lux and 90APO] lenses via the Fujifilm M adapter. [and Ive printed quite a few shots already]

Interesting result you obtained ... in my case with both X-T1 and X-T2 bodies, using 35 lux, 50 lux, 75apo, smeary corners and only acceptable sharpness on center. Files were no way close to print quality. H1 has same sensor and stack as far I know, so you must be doing something clearly better. Sean Reid and Jono Slack have commented on poor obtained with M glass on Fuji X bodies.

 

[retow]

Interesting result you obtained ... in my case with both X-T1 and X-T2 bodies, using 35 lux, 50 lux, 75apo, smeary corners and only acceptable sharpness on center. Files were no way close to print quality. H1 has same sensor and stack as far I know, so you must be doing something clearly better. Sean Reid and Jono Slack have commented on poor obtained with M glass on Fuji X bodies.

Leica bodies or Ricoh's ancient GXR are the best match for M lenses. Sony's E aps-c mounts are quite ok, the FE a try and be frustrated experience for anything shorter than 50mm. The rest of the mirrorless bunch is not good enough, be it mft or Fuji.

 

[Satrycon]

that's fascinating....but since i shoot at only f1.4 or f2 i don't care about corners and edges..which are slightly smeary on the SL601 as well at those apertures

the prints look good and sharp with lovely colors..that's all i care about...oh and the cash i receive for the prints

Interesting result you obtained ... in my case with both X-T1 and X-T2 bodies, using 35 lux, 50 lux, 75apo, smeary corners and only acceptable sharpness on center. Files were no way close to print quality. H1 has same sensor and stack as far I know, so you must be doing something clearly better. Sean Reid and Jono Slack have commented on poor obtained with M glass on Fuji X bodies.