This is a short article to address the question of what camera to choose for street photography without taking cost into consideration. I own and have used fuji cameras for street photography (I currently have the x-pro 2) and I recently tried a couple of leica rangefinders : the M240 and the new M10.
Many would say the comparison is unfair or that these two cameras and completely different beasts in philosophy and in use. I now disagree with this since the salesman at the leica store in Paris gave me the same arguments to buy the leica as those I gave to myself to get the x-pro2. I’ll be going through these arguments.
Argument number 1: The Leica M10 is compact.
Yes, it is a feat of engineering to get some much into such a little package. Here is a view from the site camerasize.com . I have on the left the fujifilm x-pro2 with the 23mm f/2 lens attached. I bought this lens because of its comact size compared to the 23mm f/1.4. The package weighs 675g. On the right is the leica M10 with the summilux 35mm f/1.4 On this view it looks about the same size but in reality the leica looks smaller. It weighs more though at 980g. Compact but heavy! The is quite a lot of brass in the leica body whereas the fuji has an magnesium shell. The construction of the fuji is very good but the leica is like a brick.
If you sacrifice the f/1.4 aperture to go for the summicron 35mm f/2, the size difference is greater still.
In conclusion for this part, for the same focal length and same maximum aperture, the leica is more compact. The explanation is twofold. First of all the leica lenses are manual focus so there are no motors or focusing mecanisms in leica lenses. This makes them thinner. Secondly, the sensor in the leica is deeply recessed into the body whereas it is closer to the lens in the fuji. This makes the lens designs shorter for the leicas. I’ll get into comparing the sensors later. Bear with me!
Argument number 2: You can change/check the settings without switching on the camera.
Here is the second reason I like fuji cameras. The lenses have aperture rings, there is a shutter speed dial and an iso dial. (This is new on the leica m10 compared to the previous digital models.) The fuji has a small advantage here with the exposure compensation dial being on top a verifiable. The leica has a wheel for the exposure compensation on the top right hand side of the back of the body, easily accessible with the thumb.
Argument number 3: The image quality is sensationnal.
Well I tested both cameras and I have to agree. The fuji images a great, I love the colours and the x-trans sensor gives very acceptable photos up to 12800 iso. The pictures that come out of the leica are better. Many would argue that the lenses are very special that there is some leica magic. I do not dispute this although I find it difficult to test. The fact of the matter is that leica puts a larger sensor in a smaller camera and with a lens that has a larger aperture, the difference can become huge. Just think of it : f/2 on the crop sensor x-pro2 gives more or less the same depth of field as f/3 on a full frame (that is just over 1 stop). With a summilux f/1.4 lens, that is another stop. Where it is difficult to get a good background blur on the fuji 23mm for a subject at 5-10 metres away, the leica can manage. Lets look!
Fujiflm x-pro 2 with 23mm f/2 at f/2 at 1/950s at ISO 200.
Leica M10 with summilux 35mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 and 1/500s. ISO 100
Notice the better subject separation in the second photo, what they call the 3D pop?
Question number 1 : What about focusing?
I have used a manual rangefinder camera twice in my life for a total of 30 minutes. I find it great fun but difficult to nail exact focus. The two previous photos were taken out of a shop window with people walking across the frame.
With the fuji, I frame first, place a focus square where I want the passer-by to be and then wait and shoot. The advantage is that the fuji x-pro2 focusing very fast and accurately. The difficulty is choosing the focus point correctly. Although the little joystick is fast and easy to use to move the focus point, in the heat of the action it is not fast enough. Here is a 100% crop:
With the leica, I focused on a spot of the pavement at a distance I estimated a person would walk through. Then I composed the photo and waited. The difficulty is choosing the right distance to focus. The advantage is that you can take to person wherever you like in the frame, the focus is already correct. Here is a 100% crop.
The focus is not bad but not spot on. The photo was taken at 1/500s, plenty fast enough to freeze rhe action.
The question is : does precise focus matter? The more I take photos, the more I feel that focus and noise are not important. The main factors that make a photo are the composition and the subject. Depth of field comes into the composition, colours do too. How many photos from the masters of photography like Henri Cartier Bresson do not have the exacting focus digital cameras give us now? What do we get out of pixel peeping? I think that good focus is important, exact focus is not. But I’m not a professional photographer and I don’t do fashion.
Question number 2 : What else ?
The leica doesn’t do video, I don’t either. The lens frames in the viewfinder go from 28mm to 135mm. I like the 24mm lens for landscapes and I use the 50-140 f/2.8 zoom occasionally (for concerts and portraits for example). The x-pro2 has extensive menus enabling Multi / Spot / Average / Center Weighted exposure control. It has an hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder, it has manual shutter up to 1/8000s and electronic shutter up to 1/32 000s which is great in bright light. It has dual SD slots, a very wide selection of focal lengths for the lenses you can mount with zoom lenses that leica does not provide. It is a complete package that works extremely well and provides the controls for a very varied number of situations. In street photography, I use a simple setup and few of these bells&whistles but I like keeping my options open.
The leica, although not a one-trick pony (you can mount a wide angle lens and use liveview), is an exercise in restrictions. But restrictions can be liberating can’t they? Is less more?
I tried out a summicron 50mm f/2 recently too and I’ll post a comparison with the fuji 35mm f/1.4. The results should be about the same shouldn’t they?
21 thoughts on “Fuji vs Leica : a street photographers dream.”
Excellent article and pertinent for those of us considering Leica vs. Fuji. I think it is a matter of preference between the two cameras…until you factor in the price. A 5000.00 dollar price difference, body alone, does not justify the Leica on plain photographic output terms. Simplicity is expensive!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that marginal image quality gains are exponentially expensive. There is however some attraction and fascination for Leica rangefinders in the group of fuji x-pro photographers. They are also very different beasts!
I would also consider the hybrid combination. I would go with the x-pro2, a Leica M to Fujinon XF adapter, and the Leica Summilux/Summicron lenses. Those Fujifilm X cameras are a joy to use with adapters and manual lenses, they provide great tools for focus assistance (focus peak, center zoom and digita-ragefinder split-view. You can “taste” almost all the awesome legacy manual lenses on the market. ,)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Marcio, I have tried an got very good results with a summicron 50mm. However the focusing is very different from one camera to another and more importantly it is difficult (or impossible) to have a 35mm equivalent. You would need a 23mm leica lens. The 50mm makes a very nice portrait lens (it converts to 75mm).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then there’s walking around with $10K of Leica on the street.
No amount of black tape is going to hide it.
Don’t kid yourself that nobody knows what a Leica is either.
I was shooting in Hanoi in the old quarter and a man in a coffee shop told me that I should be very careful walking around with a Leica.
Today, I shoot street with a $500 Richo GR…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course you are right, I think I’d be scared stiff. I plaster my x-pro2 with black tape because it is an expensive camera….!! I’ve heard only good things about the Ricoh GR by the way.
For this reason someone (like me) uses to insure his expensive photo gears. I have a medium format digital back and cannot even think to take it out of home without an insurance policy. Way better than tape. Usually they charge around 3% of the insured value, yearly. ,)
You better have life insurance too, because its not the monetary value of the gear I’m talking about…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, where do you live? Anyway, I’ll take your suggestion for a life insurance. 🙂
Yes, although I would be worried, it wouldn’t stop me going out with a leica setup. I’ve travelled with two fuji bodies (x-t2 and x-pro2) with 3 lenses to India and Thailand. After the first couple of hours, you don’t think about money or danger, you visit and concentrate on your photography. Leica gear is a step up in price but I think the idea is the same. I live in France and have a good insurance. My gear is not insured seperately, I subscribe to a mutual insurance company that is very reliable. They even insure my gear on holiday in my caravan (that you can break into with a teaspoon!)
I might change my tune if I run into trouble one day, but you only live once!
“The question is : does precise focus matter? The more I take photos, the more I feel that focus and noise are not important.”
Perhaps you ought to work harder at using your camera properly. Or just give up photography.
The author probably tried to say that the short moment you would catch is more important than an obsession with perfect focus.
The author seems to say that the moment you might want to take and never come again is more important than an obsession with perfect focus.
Thank you, very interesting, however Image 1 and 2 are slightly different in light and aperture. IMO, That’s enough to make different look in 3d effect
I possess a Leica M 262 and a Fuji Xpro2 with variety of lenses. It certainly takes a lot of time to master focusing with range finder in Leica and low light situations are even more demanding. On other hand Fuji is a joy to work with. Argument Leica fan boys take is that Leicas make you take time in making a photograph and that’s why they are manual and slow. On other hand Fuji Fan Boys make an argument that time should be spent on composition rather than trying to focus. Both arguments are valid in their own way. But ultimately what matters is the final result. If you take a photograph even with a $500 body & lens which has a wow factor than its not important what body it was. Leica is more a symbol of status and luxury and I don’t quite agree with this bullshit of Leica pop and magic or that 3D feel. My old trusted Nikon Df gives me so much more standout pictures with real pop and tack sharp focus. Leica owners who spend $7000 on a Leica body and another $20000 on lenses have to justify that purchase and hence so much talk about that magic. Good photographers create magic with quite respected but cheap Ricoh GR also and are widely appreciated.
I have a relatively new Leica 10 with a used Summilux 28 mm f1.4 – I spent more on the camera than I did on my car, and I will still be making payments on the visa card I have hidden from my wife for the next year or so……I also own a Fuji xt1 and xt2 with a 16mm f1.4 and 23 and 35mm f2 – I have always been fascinated by Leica since an early teen, the brass body and the image quality and simply the mystique have all made it the one camera I have always wanted to own…I fell my Fuji only comes close to looking like a Leica when you have the camera set to Velvia color mode, which is kind of a cheat right there, and then there is still not the same amount of pop in the color…..would I say the Leica is worth the money? well, it is to me and that is all that matters – I see the difference all the time in image quality – the Leica wins hands down but at ten grand does cut deep though I can’t say I have any regrets – if my wife finds out what I spent then a different story-
If you want a Leica, then get one.. It is expensive but so is Fuji. If all you can affor is a 300 dollars digital camera by all means get a Nikon D300 or D700 or something else 10yrs old from ebay. It works. If you want a digital rangefinder camera, get a Leica because fujifilm cameras are not true rangefinders. If you want a complex camera w/ autofocus, get a Fujifilm. If you need it to be simple, get a Leica. Don´t get hung up on price because in the end photography is expensive anyway.
I have an X-pro2. I have lusted after Leicas for many years but for some reason or another have not had an opportunity to get one. I’m glad to see that the phrase “You get what you pay for” is still valid. My solution? 1957 Summicron 50 f2 Dualrange on an adapter or any Fujinon for the moment. Good enough is good enough.
I have a Leica M6 and three primes the 50 f2 the 90 2.8 and the 28 2.8 and have enjoyed using them on various trips. I have learned a little over the years and have a number of great landscapes and environmental portraits that only a leica lens can make. I am now trying a digital fujifilm the entry level camera and see how a Leica lens works on it.
I have also wanted to try a Leica albeit a digital one, but after trying Sony and Nikon cameras, I like the way the Fujifilm cameras feel, especially the x-pro and x100 lines. I have been looking at their GFX lineup recently, the cost is about that of a Leica… big cameras though!