Just strictly IQ only. Leica M9 with a 50 Summilux vs. Fuji X Pro 1 with a 35 1.4. They both provide the same approximate field of view. At base ISO is the Leica image quality vastly superior to the Fuji?
One thing is for certain, the 50 summilux asph smashes the Fuji 35/1.4 in all respects and gives you a stop less DOF if you want to isolate the subject.
Strictly IQ speaking, I would expect the Fuji to be better, regardless of the pointlessness of such comparison between FF and APS-C, RF and mirrorless, manual focus and AF, 12K and 2K.
Edward, what are you basing that on?
Demosaicing is far more mature for Bayer and thus less funny stuff happens with the M9. Moire is easily controlled through Capture One or Photoshop and optically we both know the Leica lens is better.
The OP is strictly speaking about base ISO.
To clarify let's assume the subject is a natural light waist up portrait in a outdoor environment. Base ISO shot at f2. Image quality referring to sharpness, detail, skin tones, etc
rent M9 and XP1 and take some shots to see what you like better. You're the only person who can answer it. I like my M9 IQ much better than everything I had before (Nikon D3S, D700, Fuji Xp1, Nex 7, etc) but it's me.
allstarimaging wrote:
Just strictly IQ only. Leica M9 with a 50 Summilux vs. Fuji X Pro 1 with a 35 1.4. They both provide the same approximate field of view. At base ISO is the Leica image quality vastly superior to the Fuji?
Last week I had a post on this forum asking if the "Leica look" was real or myth. The conclusion drawn from that post was that the "Leica look" was not unique and that via post processing the same results could be achieved with other systems. So now in this post it seems that the image quality between the Fuji and M9 are not vastly different. So what the forum members are telling me is that for someone like myself that knows what they are doing with a camera and can afford a Leica that I might as well save buy a Fuji and save my money for a vacation to take pictures
I can understand doing that with an incapable camera as I myself did for so long with the GH1 as my main camera. But with a camera that is capable of doing more you still wouldn't use it?
allstarimaging wrote:
Just strictly IQ only. Leica M9 with a 50 Summilux vs. Fuji X Pro 1 with a 35 1.4. They both provide the same approximate field of view. At base ISO is the Leica image quality vastly superior to the Fuji?
Jack
Of course Leica will be better: slightly higher resolution, higher color resolution. The so called fuji sharpness is the desert of their PP as well as their colors.
allstarimaging wrote:
Last week I had a post on this forum asking if the "Leica look" was real or myth. The conclusion drawn from that post was that the "Leica look" was not unique and that via post processing the same results could be achieved with other systems. So now in this post it seems that the image quality between the Fuji and M9 are not vastly different. So what the forum members are telling me is that for someone like myself that knows what they are doing with a camera and can afford a Leica that I might as well save buy a Fuji and save my money for a vacation to take pictures ...Show more →
The conclusion I drew from your other post was that the "Leica look" may not be unique, but Leica's lens quality across their entire range certainly was. In other words, almost all modern Leica's are outstanding though they may be outstanding in different ways.
thrice wrote:
Edward, what are you basing that on?
Demosaicing is far more mature for Bayer and thus less funny stuff happens with the M9. Moire is easily controlled through Capture One or Photoshop and optically we both know the Leica lens is better.
The OP is strictly speaking about base ISO.
Actually that was a bit of a sarcastic answer. I am pretty sure that on DXO mark, the Fuji sensor will get the higher score (it seems Sony sensors are ahead of everyone else at the moment). But of course, the Leica will take the better pictures
allstarimaging wrote:
Just strictly IQ only. Leica M9 with a 50 Summilux vs. Fuji X Pro 1 with a 35 1.4. They both provide the same approximate field of view. At base ISO is the Leica image quality vastly superior to the Fuji?
Jack
Would that be including the post capture image tweaks Fuji performs on these files for image enhancement?
Hmmm, many of us wouldn't take the X-Pro1 over other aps-c sensors on the market at base ISO, let alone the M9. The X-Pro1's strength is high ISO, not low ISO.
douglasf13 wrote:
Hmmm, many of us wouldn't take the X-Pro1 over other aps-c sensors on the market at base ISO, let alone the M9. The X-Pro1's strength is high ISO, not low ISO.
That is very interesting, Doug. I confess not to know anything about the Fuji IQ, having no interest in it, I didn't follow the pertaining threads! Quite surprising actually.
