A Tale Of Three Cameras
Musings on the Leica M10, the Fuji X-Pro-2, and the Ricoh GR III
At first glance you might think these are completely different cameras for completely different photographers but they are more the same than one might think. The biggest difference is probably the price with the M10 still approaching five grand for the body alone. All of these cameras can be had used and all of them probably hold their value better than the run-of-the-mill digital cameras of the same vintage. The surprise you might not expect is that the GR is the king in terms of costing more used than what it cost new. The other two are great values compared to newer models.
All three are in the realm of “compact” cameras that would be considered for those that might want something different than a workhorse do-it-all camera you already have. While the do-it-all camera system can be made far more compact merely by what lens you decide to take, these three cameras primarily exist to limit choice to one degree or another, keeping what you carry compact. All three are also in that sweet-spot of 24mpix sensors.
Who are these cameras for?
There are plenty of photographers where each of these might be the primary, one-and-only, camera but for most they are a secondary camera. You certainly don’t need all three, especially if you own another “do it all” system camera. All of these are luxury second system cameras unless you settle on a very limited, restricted set of choices as your only camera. I own all three in addition to my “do-it-all” Canon stuff… Why?
The Fuji X-Pro
Long ago this was the “flag ship” of the Fuji X line-up. Today it’s still the official top of the line but in reality Fuji updates the X-pro far more slowly than the rest of its cameras. I’m not sure we’ll see an X-Pro 4 and I’m not sure Fuji knows what to do with it. If we do see a fourth rendition I expect it will probably be the most expensive body in their line-up but I am not at all confident anyone, including myself will have much interest. I was one of the first out of the gate to by the X-Pro 3. Surprise, I sold it after about six months because I consider it a total flop. There was not one new feature I considered better than the X-Pro 2. In fact I found the cheapest, most banged up X-Pro 2 I could find and bought that. Today you can find a well-used X-Pro 2 for about $1000.
The entire purpose of this camera was the optical viewfinder and Fuji really screwed the pooch on this version as they compromised its functionality and focused on a better EVF. From my point of view there is absolutely no reason to buy the X-pro if you are primarily, or even exclusively going to use the EVF. How did they screw it up? A ton of ways, too many to enumerate but here’s a few…
The old OVF was fantastic and innovative, they even one-upped Leica. Yes the OVF was not as good optically as a Leica but it had two zoom levels, one for wide lenses and one for normal/short-tele lenses. Gone… I loved how great the old one was with 28mm lenses, even 24mm lenses, the new one was terrible for anything under 50mm (35mm equiv).
The new better EVF was not that much better. I couldn’t tell unless they were side-by-side. The new EVF was certainly not on the level of the Leica Q or even the SL. Worse was the changes made for a better EVF experience sill compromised even the not-bad but not-great EVF they installed.
Added non-sense features like that fake film-tab screen on the back that showed what film simulation was selected.
Oh and a screen that you could not use unless flipped down… kind of a low-courage way of emulating an M10-D that has no screen at all. Honestly a stupid idea. In my opinion they would have been far better off by just getting rid of the back screen entirely like the M10-D/M11-D. You still have the EVF for settings, menus, and image review as an escape hatch… To many compromises for the concept of this camera.
Titanium. Hmmm, sounds good I guess. No charm at all beyond the notion that titanium=good. Magnesium was fine, actually better. The execution was crappy and honestly in the best pictures as well as real-life that thin titanium look cheap compared to the painted magnesium of previous cameras. They doubled down on this with a super-durable coating that cost extra and again looked horrible most of the time due to finger prints. Even the painted version just didn’t look or feel as good as the previous models. Fail!
A “better” sensor that did nothing except prove that the wonky X-trans filter array arrangement doesn’t seem to work well as the resolution increases. Want proof'? How come the GFX medium format cameras don’t have it but have all the same “film simulation” JPEG settings???
Okay, that’s enough. Fuji had courage when they introduced the X-100 and then the X-Pro 1. They did improve while still being courageous with the X-Pro 2. They lost their way with the X-Pro 3 and I don’t think they know where to go with this given the flag-ship position and pricing. My suggestion is to back off the “must be better” than the XT line as a do-it-all camera and double down on the OVF goodness, give photographers a version without a screen for an M10-D thing (better weather sealing and maybe even less cost as opposed to Leica). Make it clear the XT is a do-it-all and the X-Pro is not instead of trying to make it so. Give us a real premium feel and finish like brass and paint, the X-Pro 2 paint was great, give us a gloss option too. Make it an object of joy. Give us a monochrome version EXCLUSIVE to the X-Pro line. Heck Leica just stole the X-E concept from you and put made an M.
Let’s face it, Fuji is now a system company that is far more interested in delivering a system camera that can compete with Canon/Nikon/Etc than they are at being a niche camera company. They have two cameras to consider if you want some sort of non-system camera, The X-100 series and the GFX100RF, the X Pro-3 was a strange beast trying to be both a system camera and a specialized use camera, it failed at both. In a way the X Pro cameras are kind of specialized use cameras that have a “system camera” escape hatch. I discovered that by ruining my Fuji X experience entirely when I jumped into it as an alternative to my Canon system way, way back.
The Leica M
Every body knows this camera and its system. It is not a general purpose “do-it-all” system. It’s not supposed to be. For some it can and is their only camera but for most it’s not. There are a lot of things to like about the Leica M. It’s limiting and it forces you to make different choices and approach subjects differently by giving you no options. It’s not at all like a Leica Q or Leica SL system, there are no escape hatches when you choose an M camera. The Leica SL is an escape hatch of sorts for manual focus M glass but then again so is any other mirrorless camera with a cheap adapter.
I love my M cameras and in the film days it was my everyday carry camera. Most of my favorite photographs of my children were made with a film M camera. The lenses are ludicrously expensive but you don’t need all of them, there’s no point in having all of them. You only need the ones that you are going to use on the narrow field where this camera shines. There are many third-party bargains out there now as well, some of them in the great category. The M is meant to be a limited system where you can travel light and self-limit what your options are.
Note I used the term M rather than a specific model. Why do I own a digital M is really the question… It’s a simple answer, film prices are just too high for me to use my film M cameras. Personally I’d rather shoot a film M camera and I have zero interest in better, faster, higher resolution M cameras. My 24mpix M10 is fine and always will be. Maybe a monochrome version is in my future but probably not. Shoot an M for the shooting experience and how it forces you to approach subjects differently. Shoot an M to forcibly limit your options, Shoot and M to remove any notion of carrying a large bag of gear. All great reasons, heck if you already have settled on a restricted amount of lens options and your photographic world revolves around that limited set of options go ahead and make it your only option.
The Ricoh GR
The two cameras above may not seem similar but in practice they should be. Why would one want an M camera or an X Pro with a giant bag of lenses and other crap? Honestly I don’t see the point. Yes, you could put a zoom lens on an X Pro but why? In practice the M and X Pro will primarily be used with one lens, something in the normal-ish category hooked to the camera most of the time. The minor difference is that one might chuck an alternate lens in their pocket “just in case”. If a normal is your go-to lens you may chuck a 35mm or 28mm in your pocket. The reverse is also true. The GR is a camera where you want a wide and don’t have the option of a normal in your pocket.
Now there’s an option of making that more of a normal lens only decision as well. We have the GR IIIx with a 40mm in addition to the 28mm. In practice for what the M and X Pro are actually good for, you can see they are practically the same camera with one giant, glaring difference — size. The GR can and does fit in your pocket. The other two do not. The GR is literally a take it everywhere camera, the other two can be but there are so many times I have decided not to take either. The GR is a real camera that like your phone comes with you everywhere. That is the difference. Unless you actually bring your M or your X Pro or your X-100 everywhere the GR is the option where you will.
I’ve owned the original APS-C GR and got rid of it because at the time it was superfluous. Most of the time I had another camera with me so it was an add-on. It’s the same reason I got rid of my X-100 cameras in multiple versions. If I was unwilling to bring an M or and X-Pro I was unwilling to bring my X-100. Not so with the GR but I didn’t realize that at the time. That’s the GR’s killer feature and it’s why I didn’t bother comparing it to The Leica Q cameras that are arguably more comparable given the fixed-lens, auto-focus, and now focal length parity with the GR IIIx and the Q 43.
Not so final thoughts
I’ll share some of my fixed-lens camera thoughts as well as my impressions of “image quality” between these cameras next time. Until then I am in a place where I think fixed lens cameras are fine, even great for cameras that will actually go with you everywhere. If they don’t I’m not sure I’m on board but might be.