Even though the Fuji and the Leica are very similar, the Leica Lenses and the Leica sensor which has its priority color space always seem to come up with a more pleasing and better detailed photograph. If you can afford the Leica then go for it. Also remember that in 10 years the value of the Leica will probably be similar to what you pay for it, where the Fuji will be left in the closet or off to Good Will.

I agree that the quality of a modern zoom lens is between very good and excellent. There are many times when a zoom lens is necessary to catch the action (sports, birds, auto racing to name a few)
The reality is that for those of us who have both zoom and prime lenses if we study our photographs the pictures have taken with our prime lenses always stand out. That is not because the quality of the prime is better than a zoom, it is because when we use a zoom, we get lazy, and our composition is frequently by chance. When we use a prime lens we spend far more time composing the shot, and we MOVE to make it better. And When we have a zoom, the temptation is to stand in one place and go click, click, click is enormous!

A lot depends on your planned use, the Hasselblad is great for studio work, product shots and portraits. Unless you are planning on spending a significant amount of time on each photo, using a Hasselblad for landscape, street, or vacation photography just doesn't work. Leica lenses are superior to the Zeiss lenses that Hasselblad uses, but the larger format wins in the studio. I gave up the Hasselblad for Leica since it is a far better camera for everyday use, and the M11 is an amazing camera. Try and not be seduced by zoom lenses or lenses other then Leica the Leica Summilux-M 35mm and the Leica Summicron-M 50mm are great lenses and you pay a lot for them but the detail you end up with is amazing.

There is a lot leftover from film that has been adapted by digital, ISO being one of them. It is good to see a posting which is correct and not so technical that few can understand. If you have the time, do another on resolution which I believe is the most misunderstood term in the camera world.

Go to Costco, the cost is less, and in a direct comparison with Blurb, they have a Superior product

I have a great Leica with an LED Screen and viewfinder, from my experience it is the best LED viewfinder around, however I also have a Nikon D850 with an optical viewfinder... The optical viewfinder is so superior to the LED viewfinder in virtually every situation. I cannot comprehend why any serious photographer would want to use an LED viewfinder in any situation other than a studio.

I agree about the B&W... I have some great Paris photos I took in B&W when I lived there.

Having lived in Paris, and traveled to the majority of cities in Europe my suggestion is to leave the Canon at home, bring the Leica, buy or rent the Leica 21mm... It will be wide enough for most things, and is fast enough for inside most churches etc. My last trip there was with my Nikon D750 and a 18-35mm lens, I don't think I zoomed in more than a couple of times. A 50mm is far too tight to be of much use, anything over 50mm is useless (Don't think you can get a great picture from the top of the Eiffel Tower or from Sacre coeur with a big zoom, the odds of the weather cooperating are against you) A DSLR is too big and too obvious and too hard to carry, you will look like a tourist no matter what you do, but don't stand out more than necessary.

I am a Leica user, it comes with me on trips and any serious photo shoot. I love the detail I get from the Leica (primarily using Leica's very expensive lenses). My main camera for anything serious is my Nikon D850, however it is very heavy and full frame lenses weigh a ton... It comes with me when I am doing a serious photo trip or shoot. I love the viewfinder on the Nikon, it allows precise framing under anything but astrophotography (I use the "Live View" for that)
I have had several Sony mirrorless cameras, the original a6000 & two full frame versions. Although Sony mirrorless cameras seem be in right now, I have rarely been happy with the results. The autofocus in low light is dismal, the luminance dynamic range is not anywhere near either the Leica or the Nikon, the color is OK but not spectacular (like the Leica)and I have never found a lens for the Sony that makes me say "WOW". I am about to dump my whole Sony kit, hopefully to get enough to buy a Leica lens!

First, traveling in Paris or anywhere in Europe there is always the possibility of theft, however having your camera taken by violence (gunpoint, mugging, being physically attacked) is less likely than in any city in the US. The most likely method of theft is having your camera lifted from a table while you are at a restaurant, or someone grabbing it off your shoulder on the metro. Get a really strong camera strap (Peak design make some great ones) that will not break or be cut easily, if possible always have the camera securely over your chest, and basically don't be stupid and careless! As far as taking a full frame camera remember it weighs more, lenses weigh more, only bring one lens something like an 18 - 35, you will often need to shoot wider, but rarely ever tight. Paris is my favorite big European city, I have lived there and visited many times. Enjoy your trip, take great pictures.

I have a trip coming up and "which lens to take" is always a consideration... So I looked back at the photos I have taken on other trips and noticed that (a) about 60% of my shots were as wide as possible, in my case 18mm (using an 18-35mm lens) on a Nikon D850 (b) About 30% were relatively tight 85mm (using a 24-85mm lens, or an 85mm prime) The 10% left over were either a zoom adjustment or on rare occasions a long zoom (200mm to 400mm) and although some of my Zoom photos were great, the added weight, space and need to change lenses outweighed any advantages... If I had a lightweight 18-85mm lens then that is the only one I would take, but for this trip I plan on taking the 18-35mm & the 24-85mm. Now if I am taking a car trip, everything comes from the 100-600 to the strobe, the tripod (I can really go on here).

With digital cameras light meters are not as valuable as with film since you can see what you will get in the viewfinder or instantly thereafter. With film it is a different story since you will not know the results until the film is developed... However a light meter is still a very valuable tool when shooting portraits or still life (aka product shots).
When using a light meter the object is to (a) find the brightest and darkest parts of your picture, then make the calculation to see if your sensor or film will handle the luminance differences, if not adjust your lights so that they do. If parts of your picture are over exposed there is nothing Lightroom or any other program can fix. Note you frequently see this in landscape photography where the sky is blown out and it becomes a flat white. (b) the biggest use for a light meter is to help in adjusting lights so that your photo has more character, depth and interest by making the highlighted object (eg a can of soup, or some flowers) slightly stand out from the rest of the frame... These subtle lighting differences can be seen by the light meter and the camera but the eye will hide them. Finally (c) when doing strobe or flash photography being able to again see what the bright parts of your frame will be is necessary. OR you can just take a whole bunch of photos with different f stops and choose the best later!

When I worked with high speed photography I did a slow motion shot of a fishing rod snapping a fly/hook... I did the shot at 1600 fps (1/1600) and the result was still blurry do to the speed it was moving... Depending on your need, backlight is essential along with the highest possible shutter speed... You can find the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThFCg0tBDck.. the shot I am talking about is 1:45 into the video but there are several other fly fishing shots that may interest you.

This is something I suspect that many of you deal with… First: I have 2 very good cameras a Nikon D850 and a Sony a7 II… Along with a modest selection of lenses. I do not need another (or even a replacement) camera since I no longer earning a living with a camera.

I dream of getting a Leica!

I am not willing to spend $10,000 or more for a high-end Leica with a lens or two, but I am open to spending $3,000 which puts me at the lower end of the Leica line, and since B&H has a TL2 with an 18 – 56 mm lens for $2,500 I am very tempted. Even though it has an APSC sensor and comes without a viewfinder.

There is no good reason to get a lower end Leica, it is unlikely that the quality of the photos would be better than either my Sony or my Nikon. However, I have heard about the “Leica Look” and the detail I see in reference photos is very good.

I know that I am just trying to convince myself that a Leica will give me something worth the expenditure.

The real reason I want a Leica is ego!

My Uncle had an old 35mm Leica Rangefinder which I admired from a distance (he would never let me touch it) and I dreamed that someday I would get myself a camera like that.

Running around with a Leica, would make me feel “unique” even though few would notice the camera make.

When it comes down to facts, taking better pictures with the TL2 Leica Camera, is probably minimal.

So, I get back to “there is no good reason to get another camera”.

But I want a Leica…

Then I go back to the beginning… Just like a loop in a computer program.


Am I the only one doing this sort of thing? Or do many of you keep looking at a new camera or lens telling yourself that it would make you stand out in the crowd? The selling point to yourself is that with this new toy you would be able to take better photos.

There is color resolution, and there is luminance resolution... they are entirely different things. The color resolution in film has never been great, even with the "best" film, red colors never came out properly, while greens usually are too prominent. With color; digital has it all over any film. HOWEVER the luminance resolution of film far outpaces that of digital giving up to or even above 3,000 steps between black and white while digital is lucky to achieve 1/3 of that.

Since blowing up from 35mm film to say 8 x 10 creates more grain (think noise) then digital it loses out to any 17mp and up digital camera. BUT once you get to medium format, shooting black and white film and using an enlarger with a good lens and high quality photo paper you obtain superior results to any digital camera... (Note if you were to scan the film then print the results you are back to the digital world and you have defeated the purpose)

The result is you can get better results in color using digital but if you want the incredible black and white look of an Ansel Adams "print" then the "old" silver nitrite chemical process can blow that 46mp camera out of the water.