It occurred to me while watching this and his previous EV-1 video that Leica did not improve focusing aids on EV-1 on a purpose. This way Leica-centric image sharing groups will keep posting somewhat out of focus images and it still will be Ok
It’s kind of funny to hear Leica people talk down on ‘crop sensors’ when the magic of the M camera was they were the ‘crop’ sensors of their day…
That said, it seems that the 35mm film format is a special space due to physics. Maybe it is just market size, but the lenses for smaller and larger sensors just don’t have the flexibility- not fast enough to control DOF, or too big. Maybe if APS-C or MFT were a bigger market, we’d get more super-fast, shorter lenses.
For me, the biggest difference between them is that I have no interest in M-EV1, but I have to talk myself out of buying an X-E5 every time someone brings it up. I love the little half-framers. They make the best adventure cams in my book.
Nov 05, 2025 at 08:35 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
anselwannab wrote:
It’s kind of funny to hear Leica people talk down on ‘crop sensors’ when the magic of the M camera was they were the ‘crop’ sensors of their day…
That said, it seems that the 35mm film format is a special space due to physics. Maybe it is just market size, but the lenses for smaller and larger sensors just don’t have the flexibility- not fast enough to control DOF, or too big. Maybe if APS-C or MFT were a bigger market, we’d get more super-fast, shorter lenses.
I'm not sure what you are looking for but I have a 23mm f/1.2, 27mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.2, and 56mm f/1.2 lens for APS-C. Voigtlander even makes a 35 f/0.90 for Fuji X mount and there are other quite fast lenses with pretty shallow depth of field for APS-C. It is not as if these lenses don't exist.
anselwannab wrote:
It’s kind of funny to hear Leica people talk down on ‘crop sensors’ when the magic of the M camera was they were the ‘crop’ sensors of their day…
That said, it seems that the 35mm film format is a special space due to physics. Maybe it is just market size, but the lenses for smaller and larger sensors just don’t have the flexibility- not fast enough to control DOF, or too big. Maybe if APS-C or MFT were a bigger market, we’d get more super-fast, shorter lenses.
My first DSLR - the Canon Rebel XT - was a crop sensor camera, and I worked with it for four years until I upgraded to the FF Canon 5D MkII at the time. I did not like working with the crop sensor at all - always the 1.6x extension factor adjusting the field of view and with one aperture stop increased DoF - I definitely prefer as another poster mentioned that 50 mm is 50 mm! Since I am photographing predominantly wide and ultra-wide, crop sensor is another debit for me - 11 and 12 mm lenses or even wider like circular fisheye are impossible to get with crop sensor in the same quality. I sold my Rebel XT camera and set of cropped sensor lenses soon after going back to the FF format.
There are pretty much only two kind of cameras I won't consider upfront: smaller than FF sensor and fixed lens (or even combination of both). I can see that this works very well for others but it's not for me.
I had no idea about that Retro EVF layout in the X-E5.. I am loving that now. Typically I'm not a big Cam fan, but that tip was worth watching the video for. Never changing that view back!
Forget about image quality differences. Whenever I've picked up a Fuji camera it felt like an empty container. It just didn't have a pleasant 'heft' or 'feel' to it, which of course is extremely subjective. A Leica M on the other hand, for me at least, feels 'substantial' as do the M lenses, especially the chromed brass ones.
Of course the lower weight is a perfectly legitimate reason to like Fuji...
When you're at the Leica price point, there's a lot of subjectivity at play. The entire user experience is relevant to the enjoyment of the gear. And IMO that includes how the gear feels in hand and in use. IMO a Leica M feels premium. It feels solid, 'real', substantial and like a $10K slab of gold.
rscheffler wrote:
Forget about image quality differences. Whenever I've picked up a Fuji camera it felt like an empty container. It just didn't have a pleasant 'heft' or 'feel' to it, which of course is extremely subjective. A Leica M on the other hand, for me at least, feels 'substantial' as do the M lenses, especially the chromed brass ones.
Of course the lower weight is a perfectly legitimate reason to like Fuji...
When you're at the Leica price point, there's a lot of subjectivity at play. The entire user experience is relevant to the enjoyment of the gear. And IMO that includes how the gear feels in hand and in use. IMO a Leica M feels premium. It feels solid, 'real', substantial and like a $10K slab of gold. ...Show more →
Definitely agree with you on this. I love my X series cameras, but they are plastic toys. Feel the same about the GFX.
I will say when it comes down to user enjoyment and software, I think Fuji definitely has Leica beat. The entire 'ecosystem' of film simulations, even the film sim button on the X-E5, that retro EVF view i just mentioned.. that has provided a level of enjoyment and exploration that Leica has never offered, at least for me.
IQ, physical sensation, lens lineup, definitely all in Leica's favor.. but Fuji has their own things going on for sure.
I very much enjoy using both.. as you can see from the random snap of the coffee table behind me. :P
iPhone 17 Pro MaxiPhone 17 Pro Max back triple camera 6.765mm f/1.78 lens7mmf/1.81/30s1600 ISO0.0 EV
rscheffler wrote:
Forget about image quality differences. Whenever I've picked up a Fuji camera it felt like an empty container. It just didn't have a pleasant 'heft' or 'feel' to it, which of course is extremely subjective. A Leica M on the other hand, for me at least, feels 'substantial' as do the M lenses, especially the chromed brass ones.
Of course the lower weight is a perfectly legitimate reason to like Fuji...
When you're at the Leica price point, there's a lot of subjectivity at play. The entire user experience is relevant to the enjoyment of the gear. And IMO that includes how the gear feels in hand and in use. IMO a Leica M feels premium. It feels solid, 'real', substantial and like a $10K slab of gold. ...Show more →
Yet, at the same time, the Leica isn’t weather sealed and the rangefinder can be knocked out of alignment. And, for example, the new cheaper Chinese lenses often feel sturdy and heavy but we don’t know how they’re actually constructed. Heft is very much only half the story.
Personally, the cameras I have or have had I trusted most to withstand a beating are my Canon 1 series and my Olympus OM1s. The Leica Q is also up there. Fuji, as you also say, is not.
johnvanr wrote:
Yet, at the same time, the Leica isn’t weather sealed and the rangefinder can be knocked out of alignment. And, for example, the new cheaper Chinese lenses often feel sturdy and heavy but we don’t know how they’re actually constructed. Heft is very much only half the story.
Personally, the cameras I have or have had I trusted most to withstand a beating are my Canon 1 series and my Olympus OM1s. The Leica Q is also up there. Fuji, as you also say, is not.
I think we need to keep context in this regard. You can go by specs like the lack of claimed weather sealing and the ability to knock mechanical parts out of alignment through abuse. However, the Leica M has over 70 years of a superb reliability and maintainability record. Often in very risky use cases. I find the materials used and the build quality of Leica products in general to be among the best in the industry.
As you have pointed out one can use heavy materials to give the appearance of quality, but it is in the machining where many fall down. On the other hand, Leica has more than 100 years of well earned reputation for the best design and machining tolerances to stand on.
retrofocus wrote:
My first DSLR - the Canon Rebel XT - was a crop sensor camera, and I worked with it for four years until I upgraded to the FF Canon 5D MkII at the time. I did not like working with the crop sensor at all - always the 1.6x extension factor adjusting the field of view and with one aperture stop increased DoF - I definitely prefer as another poster mentioned that 50 mm is 50 mm!
Strange because photographers have used conversion factors for a very long time. Ever heard of medium and large format? Can you imagine someone saying it does not want a Blad 500 because a 80mm is not a 50mm?
retrofocus wrote:
Since I am photographing predominantly wide and ultra-wide, crop sensor is another debit for me - 11 and 12 mm lenses or even wider like circular fisheye are impossible to get with crop sensor in the same quality.
You live in a very strange world.
retrofocus wrote:
I sold my Rebel XT camera and set of cropped sensor lenses soon after going back to the FF format.
Makes sense but this has nothing to do with the smaller sensor: the 5DII is a much better camera than the Rebel XT (I owned both).
So we will never know which pictures one cannot shoot with a Fuji because of the APS sensor.
I use a Fuji X-E3 with Voigtländer M lenses via an adapter. It’s not that I wouldn’t want to shoot with a Leica, but I just can’t quite accept the price. The crop factor cuts off the vignetting and soft corners, leaving only the best part of the lenses :-) .
Makten wrote:
Why? Seems very silly to care about a number that makes no difference to the output.
Yup. I think people just get a bit funny because they're not used to multiple formats and the "Full Frame" implies that this is the one and true format. I mean...my Schneider 135mm is standard-wide on the 4x5. If I were to mount it on a FF camera it becomes a mid tele. Should I be complaining about it?
Nov 06, 2025 at 06:20 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
retrofocus wrote:
My first DSLR - the Canon Rebel XT - was a crop sensor camera, and I worked with it for four years until I upgraded to the FF Canon 5D MkII at the time. I did not like working with the crop sensor at all - always the 1.6x extension factor adjusting the field of view and with one aperture stop increased DoF - I definitely prefer as another poster mentioned that 50 mm is 50 mm! Since I am photographing predominantly wide and ultra-wide, crop sensor is another debit for me - 11 and 12 mm lenses or even wider like circular fisheye are impossible to get with crop sensor in the same quality. I sold my Rebel XT camera and set of cropped sensor lenses soon after going back to the FF format.
There are pretty much only two kind of cameras I won't consider upfront: smaller than FF sensor and fixed lens (or even combination of both). I can see that this works very well for others but it's not for me. ...Show more →
If you want wider than 12mm on FF, then it is hard to find an equivalent on APS-C, but for Fuji, they make a quite good 8mm f/3.5 and an excellent 8-16mm f/2.8 zoom (their top performing ultra-wide zoom), so you can get as wide of a filed of view as a 12mm on full frame quite easily for that system. So, if you want something truly ultra wide (wider than 12mm on FF), then yes that is easier to do on a FF system, but if you are happy with 12mm as your widest lens on FF, then that is easy to do on Fuji APS-C anyway.
After watching this video I realized I can see Leica Looks applied to the scene ( Leica's creative photo styles) through the EVF on my SL3. Not sure why I didn't pay attention to this sooner. But there it is.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I'm not sure what you are looking for but I have a 23mm f/1.2, 27mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.2, and 56mm f/1.2 lens for APS-C. Voigtlander even makes a 35 f/0.90 for Fuji X mount and there are other quite fast lenses with pretty shallow depth of field for APS-C. It is not as if these lenses don't exist.
After posting, I went and looked. It’s been a few years since I was looking at lenses for a system for a replacement for my X100T. That 27mm would get me pretty close to my digital CL, as in 1970s M-mount CL.
An M11 with a 40mm versus the latest Fuji with the 27mm would be interesting. That 23mm is nice, but pretty big.
If the M were light and the XE5 a brick, some people would say that the lightness is a key property.
BrandonSi wrote:
Definitely agree with you on this. I love my X series cameras, but they are plastic toys. Feel the same about the GFX.
The difference between plastic and metal bodies is simple - a “plastic” camera looks pretty much the same after ten years of daily use. Well, except for some old film Nikon cameras that became a sticky mess literally (how did that happen). Meanwhile, we’re already discussing scratches on the just-released HB. And I learned the word patina on Leica forums. I like my cameras plastic.
olegkin wrote:
It occurred to me while watching this and his previous EV-1 video that Leica did not improve focusing aids on EV-1 on a purpose. This way Leica-centric image sharing groups will keep posting somewhat out of focus images and it still will be Ok
Poorly composed, monochrome, slightly out of focus...it's the LEICA LOOK!
Really thought that at this price point, the X-E5 would have had a better EVF than the same one Fuji have been putting in all their lower/mid-tier cameras for the past few generations.
