johnvanr wrote:
Anyway, of course I agree that the IQ from the Leica is better. I’m just not sure you can notice that in most prints or digital displays.
I'm sure you can't but I would consider such bodies and systems as different enough not to be real competitors.
In fact, I would buy both to have the Fuji AF, IBIS, zooms, etc and a MF Leica M mount lens holder.
I like Cam, but he is goofy at times. Maybe that's why I like him.. The saving grace of this video is he owns both those cameras so his assessment can be considered reasonable.
It is interesting to see that the focus aids in the 'old' Fuji are better than the brand new and four times more expensive M.
I gave Fuji a try quite a few times (X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, GFX100RF) hoping to like it - I could never feel fully satisfied with the image quality from a rendering and sharpness perspective even with some of the better XF lenses (23mm f1.4 WR, 56mm f1.2 WR, 90mm f2 WR).
I'm not sure it's a crop sensor vs full frame situation so maybe it's their philosophy. I think Leica images especially with their APO lenses have much more sharpness and better rendering (more 3d) than what I got from Fuji.
pmeheut wrote:
I'm sure you can't but I would consider such bodies and systems as different enough not to be real competitors.
In fact, I would buy both to have the Fuji AF, IBIS, zooms, etc and a MF Leica M mount lens holder.
I’ve decided to sell my M11. For my use case for that camera, my MFT gear is good enough. Only issue is that there’s no small MFT lens that provides a DoF scale at 28mm equivalency. So, I may keep my X-E5 just for that reason. Otherwise, I don’t think there’s a real advantage of APS-c over MFT.
I said my use case, because I keep my R5 and GFX100s, among other gear.
Impossible to shoot this on the Fuji from this spot with that framing with that lens- I have thousands of examples.
Its great that you love fuji and crop sensors- Some of us like to shoot with M lenses and not loose half the glass-
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying you can’t shoot this on a Fuji with a Leica lens. Why not? You just need a shorter lens. And Fuji has plenty of lenses too.
johnvanr wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying you can’t shoot this on a Fuji with a Leica lens. Why not? You just need a shorter lens. And Fuji has plenty of lenses too.
Indeed. I'm not convinced: why would such a picture impossible with a Fuji?
But more to the point, why does such a picture need a full frame sensor and not a crop one?
johnvanr wrote:
I’ve decided to sell my M11. For my use case for that camera, my MFT gear is good enough. Only issue is that there’s no small MFT lens that provides a DoF scale at 28mm equivalency. So, I may keep my X-E5 just for that reason. Otherwise, I don’t think there’s a real advantage of APS-c over MFT.
I said my use case, because I keep my R5 and GFX100s, among other gear.
Why not? Like me and many others here, you have too much gear already
Impossible to shoot this on the Fuji from this spot with that framing with that lens- I have thousands of examples.
Its great that you love fuji and crop sensors- Some of us like to shoot with M lenses and not loose half the glass-
I don't know. I would love to compare that shot with one taken from the same spot with a Fuji X mount camera and the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO Macro for X-mount at f/2.8 creating a similar field of view and depth of field. Yeah, the Fuji would be 40 MP instead of 60 MP but I am not at all sure you could tell the difference between the two shots. And although I love Leica M mount glass, I love the tiny Voigtlanders for X mount too. In my experience shooting them are a lot like shooting with Leica M mount glass. No real rangefinder of course, but that shot you posted in one in which I wouldn't be using the rangefinder even with the Leica. That is a shot in which I would use prefocus.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't know. I would love to compare that shot with one taken from the same spot with a Fuji X mount camera and the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO Macro for X-mount at f/2.8 (creating a similar field of view and depth of field). Yeah, the Fuji would be (40 MP instead of 60 MP) but I am not at all sure you could tell the difference between the two shots. And although I love Leica M mount glass, I love the tiny Voigtlanders for X mount too. In my experience shooting them are a lot like shooting with Leica M mount glass. No real rangefinder of course, but that shot you posted in one in which I wouldn't be using the rangefinder even with the Leica. That is a shot that in which I would use prefocus....Show more →
That’s my whole point-
You have to use a different lens to achieve the same framing. I want my 50 to be 50 and my 35 to be 35. Fuji is great but I don’t want a crop sensor for this very reason…
Nov 05, 2025 at 02:46 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
You have to use a different lens to achieve the same framing. I want my 50 to be 50 and my 35 to be 35. Fuji is great but I don’t want a crop sensor for this very reason…
Ok, but I am happy with my 23mm being my 35mm on Fuji and my 35mm being my 50mm on Fuji and I couldn't care less about the number on the lens, just the look it provides, but of course YMMV.
RustyRus wrote:
You have to use a different lens to achieve the same framing. I want my 50 to be 50 and my 35 to be 35. Fuji is great but I don’t want a crop sensor for this very reason…
Yes but this was not my point above: I would not buy a Fuji to use M lenses. I would to use native lenses and they are cheap compared to Leica.
My question to retrofocus was: why does he need a FF sensor?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, but I am happy with my 23mm being my 35mm on Fuji and my 35mm being my 50mm on Fuji and I couldn't care less about the number on the lens, just the look it provides, but of course YMMV.
