David Woods Save you much more than 7k . The combination of Leica M10 monochrom and the summilux 35mm is more than $20,000 compare to fujifilm Xt3 and 23mm 1.4 is about 3k .
I found it strange that you chose the standard monochrome with the Fuji when I suppose most people who shoot monochrome on a Fuji shot the Acros simulation.
I shoot with standard monochrome as well. At first, it was Acros all the way. Then, I noticed that I wasn't so happy with high ISO shots in Acros.(3200, and above) Loss of detail, and sometimes too much grain. Fortunately, for what I like, standard B&W looks very good. I shoot it 'flat'; shadows=0, highlights=0, and no colour filter. The first image in this set was shot with those settings. www.tamedmonkey.com/concert-shots It's straight out of camera, other than a slight crop.
Honestly, In this case think that proper exposure and lens used has more effect on the image, rather than the the image sensor. Back in the film days it sure did matter what type of film we were using. Anyway the person operating the camera makes the difference. A talented and skilled photographer makes way better pictures with his smartphone, compared to an average one with a Leica.
I chose B all the way. But the difference doesn't justify the price point. I would like to see the results using the ACROS in the Fujifilm, because is such a beautiful thing.
Me too i picked B also but i have a fuji and shoot acros not including it doesnt really show what fuji can do With acros my shots look much better than the fuji shots shown here.
Oh give me a break. None of the Sony shots look "flat" or have "blown highlights". None of them. If any shots were similar, it was the Leica and Sony, both having slightly shallower depth of field.
Honestly, I had to do so much careful looking to see any real difference between any of them. I also had no clear preference for any one camera. That in itself is *very* instructive - it means I wouldn't be any happier with Leica's results than I am with my X-T3. Now whether the Leica is a better shooting experience, that's not something I'm likely to find out (can't afford one!).
Once it got to the portrait B really stood out. For the price, the Fuji and Somy really held up. Would be interesting to try this with the same sumi lens adapted on all three. I bet the difference would shrink even more.
Most of my choices were C. A lot of people are in agreement that the $7k Monochrome price tag is beyond what people are willing to spend for a dedicated BW camera. Thanks for the video. I’m sure this saved people a lot of money! 💰👍
I chose mostly A and B, C had a bunch of blown highlights. But it’s hard to tell on a screen, was surprised the Fuji and Leica seemed to have similar dynamic ranges on screen. I use Sony cameras but the highlights were definitely blown, which is why with Sony you have to shoot raw and covert to mono later.
They're all good. Every one of them can be tweaked a bit in post to look just like one of the others. All it really comes down to is personal preference. FWIW, I shoot B&W exclusively. With a Fuji X-T2, and Fuji X100F, but the reasons why aren't addressed just by looking at the images. I really prefer Fuji's straight out of camera jpegs, I like having autofocus, and I really like Fuji's electronic viewfinder.
I have and love my XT3 and chose Leica #1 in every shot followed by Sony (in a few, though, Sony and Fuji were hard to decide between). How much is that Leica? ;)
@@DB-nl9xw Yet they managed to get a better job regarding focus than the Fuji or the Sony since most of those two weren't actually really in focus as it seemed. That can't be just because of the lack of a CFA.
I can’t do these blind tests. When I see the Leica M Monochrome as a gallery, I’m blown away by the tonal range, subtlety of grays, resolution, etc. The Fujis are softer than the other two. It would be better for me to see all the A’s, then all the B’s, then all the C’s. It takes a while for my eyes to open up to the sensor environment. Really it’s not about quick, first impressions. Also, the lens makes a huge difference. It’s pretty amazing to see what happens to a Fuji with great Leica glass attached. On another note, I understand Daniel Morrison B&W conversions of Sony A7Rii are pretty darn close to Leica Monochrome-easily the next best thing. I may try to convert my Nex6 which is just sitting around (since I hate Sony color anyway). For me (low fixed income) I would have to decide to only shoot digital B&W to even entertain the thought of owning the Leica-but would probably go back to film if that were the case. 8x10 film images blow every single alternative out of the universe, including $10K medium format digital.
I could tell which was which having owned 2 of the 3 cameras. for the best part the differences are subtle yet obvious. I could tell straight away which set the Sony was. it just looks a little flatter. The fuji and Leica are remarkably close, but the real difference was noticed in the portrait. The Leica just takes the edge with its dynamic range. A Leica is my dream camera, however I am more then happy to stick with the Fuji as bang for buck its possibly the best camera on the market
I picked mostly A & B. The difference is negligible given the difference in price. Wonder why some of the A7III shots looked a bit overexposed. The one shot where I thought the Leica really stood out was the portraits. Nice deep tones.
I get pretty good B+W using Olympus - They should be in the test as well At the moment I'm using the original EM5 but the Pen F does better, especially in Mono Mode 2. Bring it back Olympus!
I actually liked the Sony in some of the shots, but boy, the XT-3’s monochrome mode really feels just like the M10’s images in most cases in my opinion.
Great idea btw ! I picked B mostly ! Do you have a link to the full res of the comparison files ? It would be great to go through them at full res on a larger screen (not a small smart phone lol) Thanks !
I didn't quite catch that they would be the same camera throughout so the Fuji and Sony got varied guesses but I seemed to pick out the Leica. There must be something a little extra to it. The fact it's much higher resolution by default probably helps (watched in 1440p) but there's something about the tones that did translate as well.
I couldn’t get the difference in most cases I thought images C were the Leica. To be honest Even if have the money I wouldn’t buy the monochrome camera
I chose mostly photos from the leica, followed by the Fuji. The portrait taken with the leica was striking and really stood out. The sony lacked midrange tonality.
I watched this video twice with the knowledge of knowing which was which. I don't see that much of a difference between these images that would bother me. I could change the contrast, highlight and shadow detail in Lightroom or Photoshop. I like the idea of various film emulsion choices on the FujifilmX-T3; although Lightroom has black-and-white presets. Now that I saw this test I could never justify spending that kind of money on a dedicated black-and-white camera. Since Leica has had success with there former monochrome camera, I believe they will succeed with this one. Even though I would not buy a camera like this it is a great camera and I pray for the success of Leica.
I loved the As and was pleasantly surprised it was a Fuji. I don't own the system, but to think that the Leica would not please me aesthetically leaves no doubt in my mind that I am not missing out on anything.
Very nice comparisson. Ive choose mostly B for its sharpness, but the Sony is slightly overexposured, what i like, because of the contrast. So my blindtest was: 1. all close together. C has the nicest contrast, b B the better sharpness 2. all close together, i choose A for overall look, B for sharpness(here i assumed, that A must be the Fuji) 3. looks all similiar for me. Nice photo from each camera 4. B for its sharpness C for contrast 5. B 6. B When i make photos in B/W, my focus is on sharpness. The contrast is something, you can adjust in the camera itself. I was a little bit dissappointed by the Fuji, cuz iv got a Fuji XT2 by my own. But you need to set the noise reduction on -2 and switch off the noise reduction on long term photos to get maximum sharpness.(in the other way its a little bit more blury to cancel the noice) The overall sharpness is the point, why i prefer the 35mm f/2.0 over the 35mm f/1.4 Fuji lens.
I do know what you mean but to be far we are watching though UA-cam and I would bet there is very little difference they all be very good. To see any of these you need to see the prints. Not to mention the user experience and the Leica will be both the hardest to use but will give you the biggest sense of achievement if when or if you get it right. Great video thanks I hope your fires go way soon.
I chose B in all of the sets. Common points in each set are: A and B almost have the same dynamic range and overall looks similar. C on the otherhand was bright as hell on all tests and I found myself just gravitating back towards A and B. Also, during the pixel peeping parts, C was "clearly" the softest of the 3. And B was just sharper to me compared to the A.
From my perspective I consistently chose A & C as my choices. Sharpness and finer details in the trees and grass but they also had more contrast. B to me looked a bit flat but had smoother transitions. C looked a bit overexposed as compared to A & B. In the last group I was sure C was the leica as they appeared sharpest. Overall I preferred A. I'm wondering if Fujifilm was the under dog as it was the only camera with a 23mm lens while the Lieca and Sony had 35mm lenses. Loss of detail in the A group could be due to a larger crop. Funny enough I own the Fujifilm X-Pro 3 and shoot a lot in ACROSS. It could be my eye is accustom to the look of the Fujifilm. I am a Leica fan but this test took the obsession for Leica out of my head.
I chose mostly A or B, with C often overexposed. I would like to see this mono comparison: Fuji Acros, Olympus Pen F Mono #2, Lumix L. Monochrome D - all tend to lean to greater contrast. Hard to tell true sharpness with YT compression.
My pick, most B and 1 A and 1 C. I wonder why Fujifilm don't make a X100V Monochrom? That will be a favorite for street and Black and White photography.
All depend on the scene, on some the higher highligts of Sony complement more the shot. For portrait at the end, A and B have a nice balance and C dont come out as good. I found A a bit on the dark side on most of the shots. B have a overhall betted balance. For sharpness, they are all sharp enougth. At the end nothing that can't be tweeked in camera for your personal preferences.
The RAW files in the Monochrome are monochrome. The files are insane and shadow detail is unlike anything I’ve seen before. Just expose for highlights and as long as they’re not blown out, you can push these RAW files crazy hard
I shoot black & white images with a Fuji X-Pro2 digital mirrorless with a Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 lens and a Leica M10 digital rangefinder with a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 lens. The black and white images produced by my two cameras are very similar. I was not surprised that I thought the A images and the B images in your blind test were very similar. However, I was surprised that I preferred the Sony C images to the other two. To me, the whites in Fuji and the Leica images appeared to be too muddy. The Sony whites appeared to be cleaner or brighter.
Cool test of which I set out to try and ID the M10M camera and I managed 4 of 6 images. The last 2 images is where I stumbled. Depending on the scene, one can really see the difference of the Mono sensor. Thanks, really enjoyed this video!
I thought the Leica really stood out on two images, the portrait of the girl and the flowers. The sharpness really stood out with the flowers and the gradients were amazing on the portrait. As a Fuji x-pro shooter I know that the Acros profile has similar characteristics when used, and is a serious contender for the price.
If you know the three brands, it was pretty obvious which was which. I began photography shooting B&W film, and I loved the pictures from the M10 Mono (the tones look "right"). Do I love it enough to spend that much money when my a7R III can do a decent job? Probably not.
huh, i was always torn between A and B, that's good since i'm a Fuji X-T3 shooter haha. Sony pics were always a hard no for me, didnt win a single round for me. Glad i can tell and like the Fuji images way more than Sony considering i switched from Sony to Fuji a year ago.
B > A > C. C is too flat and artificial (bad post processing?). A is not bad, but slightly flat and blurry. B has most natural resolution and gradations. But it is very hard to judge based on UA-cam video.
What the comments tell you, is we all know what we like. Not what the camera likes. When we know what we like, we then know the camera we prefer. I preferred A. The contrast was stronger. But that is what I like in an image. I would have liked to see finer detail and texture. Getting closer to see what you do not normally.. Great video. No BS
Here's what I liked: 1.)A 2.)B 3.)B 4.)A 5.)B 6.)A. Sum: Fuji=3 and Leica=3. So, I choose each for different reasons. In the end, I would pick the Fuji, as I have more variety in film types to choose from (ex. Monochrome vs. Acros). To the poster, THANKS FOR THIS!!!!
i dont own any of the cameras, but for some reason i felt B looked more professional, but i chose C for alot of the images, the objects popped more. to me both B and C were a tie. if i was to pick one, i would go for B with slight increase in exposure. if i couldn't adjust anything, then i would go for C as i felt it did the most pleasing straight out of camera.
Selected B (3x), A (2x) and C, (1x). Can't help wonder if having recently purchased a Leica in which I'm shooting mostly B&W influenced my choices. Interesting, fun blind test.
That was a surprise! The pictures I gravitated towards with crisp, sharp looks turned out to be the Sony renders!!!! Definitely for the contrast. The other two looked somewhat muddy/flat in some cases, although these days you can make mountains out of molehills with Capture One or LR anyway. So these kind of comparisons are not THAT relevant, as this video proves. The one thing to note is the micro contrast of the Leica lens. It is incredible! C1 or LR can't add that.
It blows my mind that so many people couldn’t see that B was vastly superior in every image set. how could you not see the three dimensionality of B in every shot? nevertheless it’s a bogus test because he didn’t use the same lens on each camera.
I picked A, A, C B, B, A so it was a mix, each looked great, some seem to excel in a certain way. I have a Sony a7r 4 I was about to go do some b&w shooting. great video.
Was right about the three. I could see better sharpness in the Leica pictures and thought about the smaller sensor in the Fujifilm… for lower dynamic range
Didn't pick a single Sony file. They look contrasty which means not enough grays in them which means less micro-contrast. Im sure Leica kills it, bigger censor, more megapix, dedicated mono censor but hard to tell from UA-cam. $8,300 body alone is overkill TBH. OK have expensive lenses im ok with that, but body alone $8,300 is way too much (even though i still want it lol) also slow buffer too.
I chose mostly B and nearly none of C. A is very close to B and in most cases are difficult to chose between them. Taking the price into consideration, I think Fujifilm X-T3 is my choice.
first place B, you can see it beats A and C .especially where is micro conntrast. in tecture where you can find more tones of grey, where in A and C you can see less tone differencies. second place is A and the looser is C.
Thanks for your video. I found the Leica pictures very easily. But I’m not sure if it was the sensor or the lens itself. These pictures had the best sharpness. The tonality was less different then I thought. My conclusion is that I can buy any M and keep concentrating on the lenses. Cheers
I picked B. But only just. Perhaps because I’m used to emulating a similar (not same) Leica M look with my Olympus OMD’s simply by selecting Low Key gradation and Contrast +1.
Exposure wasn‘t always identical. And things like cloud coverage were sometimes slightly different between the cameras. Both have huge impact in overall contrast and light, which is way more emphasised when there‘s no color, so it would have been crucial that both exposure and cloud cloud coverage were the same across all cameras, but they weren‘t. You can clearly notice how more or less clouds completely change the light and the way you see the image, so it‘s not a fair comparison in my opinion. I did the test anyway, for the sake of it, and most of the images I chose were from the Leica. I personally use the Fujifilm X-T3.
Looking back with the express knowledge of which option is which has me now preferring B over anything else. All this tells me is I can't trust my eyes.
Figures, I chose two A, two B and two C haha. I knew going in that I wouldn't gravitate toward the lighter tonality due to my personal bias of darker imagery and tighter contrast, so factors such as sharpness or unknown comp/shot bias surely pulled the two C Sony votes out of me. Fuji Freak Photographer here. Never even held a Leica (would love to experience one) and Sony for video. Olympus for nostalgia and film, Nikon for general all-purpose price to feature ratio and lens selection, Canon for the Rebel young love years, Panasonic for vid gigs, and...good old Zuiko glass for artistic experimentation) :-D Peace. I am presently gearing up to begin my official photography-centered (rather than art film) channel. Come by and say hi! You guys are great. Thank you for the content and inspiration.
For me the Leica was the sharpest in most cases while the A7 was the one with the more natural feeling and overall better dynamic range. Because the sharpness has more to do with the lens then the sensor, I'd go with the A7 in this comparison. I'd been more interested in the performance in lowlight situations. I'm wondering, if the monochrome sensor would make the difference here. Btw.: the coloursensors are coming with a special benefit for bw-photography. They offer you the color-based control of contrast when you're editing.
I chose B and thought it was the Leia because of the slightly more contrasty images, however, before zooming they all look near identical, once again proving that unless your enlarging images hugely you'd never ever tell the difference. In fairness to the Leica, people shoot Leica because of the overall style of the body and the shooting experience and they way you shoot a Leica (zone focus) and the minimal features. This doesn't justify the price though.
Surprisingly, I guessed Fuji as A, Leica as B and Sony as C - i preferred the Leica in every shot except for the 1st one, where A seemed to have a bit more details in the palmtree in the top left corner. Leica was just sharper in every shot, and especially on image set 6, the tonality is significantly better.
In the blind test, I chose Fuji once, Leica twice and Sony three times. For some images, the Dept of Field already made it possible to distinguish between full format and APS-C. The factual results of the sony are great, Leica is a bit sharper and Fuji is really good. The Sony is for me a camera where I would create the black and white processing in Lightroom. The Leica is for people with time and a love for analog composition. The Fuji is for me the ideal camera for black and white photography, here I set my film simulation depending on the motif, landscape/portrait/architecture, which I then also see through the viewfinder.
Ok, I’m a Sony shooter and I saw this video just to see the comparison of size between the M series with a regular A7 iii camera and... WTF! The image quality of leica is stunning! No kidding. I even thought you was changing the letters of the cameras but my result was exactly this. No kidding, is beautiful image from the leica. From best to worst... BCA CBA BCA BCA BCA BAC BCA No kidding, I’m going to try the leica 10p to see if chromatic cameras are this good, no kidding in this case the difference was enormous to me. Damn it! I want a leica now.
It’s true that it’s difficult to discern the differences between the fantastic XT-3 and the Monochrom. It requires full resolution files on a properly calibrated high res monitor to properly appreciate the tonality and detail of the M10M. The vast majority of us don’t need a dedicated black and white camera, and to most people the very idea of such sounds silly ($13k camera that shoots only B&W?). But it’s a niche product for pros who can use it to its full potential, and those who have money to spare of course.
I thought there was little between A & B but marginally preferred A and assumed incorrectly that was the Leica. On other videos its been the Leica and not Fuji that I've preferred and with more of an obvious difference but I think that was the Fuji X100V against the Leica Q2.
I picked Leica 3 times, Fuji 2 times, and Sony once (F, L, S, L, L, F in image set order). They were often close, and it often came down mainly to which one had an overall tonal balance that I somewhat preferred, but at least on UA-cam probably not enough difference for me to consider adding a Leica to my Fuji X-H1 and X-T20 :)
I preferred the images coming out of A and B over C for every set, mostly because C seemed over exposed with less details in the highlights. The result was that C always looked less contrasty. Between A and B I thought that B had the sharper image when zoomed in, the the shadows were crushed. For web publishing I'd prefer A, but for actual prints I feel like B or C (with better compensation for exposure) would be more ideal.
I picked C through about 60% of the samples and B through the rest. Putting brightness aside, I found the dynamic range more subtle on the Sony/Leica images. For architecture, I actually preferred the Sharpness of the Sony though that has a lot to do with the lens, more than the camera body. For portraits, the Leica was the clear winner with how sorry and smooth it made the skin appear. The Fuji and to a lesser extent the Sony really flopped when it came to skin tone. . One criticism I have is that I really wish you tested all three cameras with the same lens. It's quite easy to adapt Leica glass to these other formats.
I chose C from the first go. But it needs some editing to make it look the way the other two looked. It looked one stop brighter than the rest of the two. Also, it is sharper than the Leica's Pixel Heavy sensor in some photos. Also, the bokeh from the Sony A7iii and the Sony 35mm is out of the world.
As a (film) Leica user, was great to go through the blind test seriously... and to my surprise I was pretty set on B as of the first couple of images, and after a while I thought the bokeh of the Summilux really gave it away, as it looked so familiar. However I was surprised just how close it was to the Fuji on a couple of shots. Leica is just such a joy to use, but on a budget I'd go for Fujifilm and be perfectly happy. Was disappointed by the Sony -- was expecting more of the sensor and Zeiss-branded glass.
Well overall I preferred A and was quite surprised of this being Fuji X-Trans monochrome and not Leica M10. I felt the B pics had more contrast but felt this being to hard in most situations and the C, the Sony, overall being to flat. However it remains to be seen to what extend either the Fuji or Leica can be fine tuned to the desired individual look...
My results were Fuji: last place 5 times, 1st place once (5x3+1=16) Sony: 1st place twice, 2nd place 4 times (2+2x4=10) Leica: 1st place 3 times, 2nd place 2 times, last once (3+2x2+3=10) So either the Sony or Leica win, and I think the Leica edges out, but that price isn't very nice. I personally find this useful because I was wondering if "fake" B&W looks bad, so it's good to have some information to clear up that question.
Fun video. It was super obvious C was the Sony the whole time. I shoot Sony and the whole video was a good reminder of why I underexpose slightly almost all the time. Favored B almost throughout. Fuji was a close second and favorable for some shots. Now in the hand... The difference is startling, of course.
Obviously many people do not understand the approach of the M10. It aims to give you very neutral results, which offer you the maximum possibilities in post-processing. That is why the images look "flat" sometimes.
for all the photos I chose B, which turn out to be the Leica, but fuji is just behind, need a bit more sharpness and more DOF, sony shots feel so bright and extra sharp which something for me gives less soul to the image, good job FUJI
There were a few images at the beginning that I choose A or B near the end I was choosing B or C images B was consistently mostly chosen. I think the A B and C were switching between cameras. I'd love to own a Leica but its one of those things where They'd have to sponsor me with the camera and a couple of lenses :)
I chose B all the ways as well, beautiful contrast and clarity in all the images. Appreciate the effort in making this info available, well done!
I chose C all the way and ended up shocked....being a Leica fan and user for over 40 years!
same here but i don't have leica and never liked sony pictures lol
...same to me, chosed mostly C, knowing, that it's Sonys Fullframe sensor....
same, but being a fuji fan..
Just saved me about $7K. Thanks.
just for the body...
@@mauroangelantoni6889 Just for the lens hood you mean. :-)
David Woods as if you would have bought it in the first place 😂
David Woods Save you much more than 7k . The combination of Leica M10 monochrom and the summilux 35mm is more than $20,000 compare to fujifilm Xt3 and 23mm 1.4 is about 3k .
I found it strange that you chose the standard monochrome with the Fuji when I suppose most people who shoot monochrome on a Fuji shot the Acros simulation.
Agreed. The Acros is usually best.
Acros has a stepper gradient to its tone curve in the high lights than monochrome. It makes all the samples more comparable.
Acros all the way
david neville , that’s exactly what I wanted to reply to Calvin. You’re first 🙌
I shoot with standard monochrome as well. At first, it was Acros all the way. Then, I noticed that I wasn't so happy with high ISO shots in Acros.(3200, and above) Loss of detail, and sometimes too much grain. Fortunately, for what I like, standard B&W looks very good. I shoot it 'flat'; shadows=0, highlights=0, and no colour filter. The first image in this set was shot with those settings. www.tamedmonkey.com/concert-shots
It's straight out of camera, other than a slight crop.
Honestly, In this case think that proper exposure and lens used has more effect on the image, rather than the the image sensor. Back in the film days it sure did matter what type of film we were using.
Anyway the person operating the camera makes the difference. A talented and skilled photographer makes way better pictures with his smartphone, compared to an average one with a Leica.
I chose B all the way. But the difference doesn't justify the price point. I would like to see the results using the ACROS in the Fujifilm, because is such a beautiful thing.
Yes, mate. I shoot Acros with a little heavier shadow. Or else I use Nix software.
That was my first thought. Love Acros
@@philipae27 ikr
@@davidmcc6666 ACROS all the way
Me too i picked B also but i have a fuji and shoot acros not including it doesnt really show what fuji can do
With acros my shots look much better than the fuji shots shown here.
Leica M10 and XT3 files look extremely similar, all Sony shots were easy to guess, they look flat and with blown highlights.
Pretty much my findings - I preferred B, (then A then C) especially the flower s shot where they looked more alive
XT3 was the easiest one, so blurry, no sharpness at all.
Oh give me a break. None of the Sony shots look "flat" or have "blown highlights". None of them. If any shots were similar, it was the Leica and Sony, both having slightly shallower depth of field.
How could blown highlights have anything to do with it being Sony? Pretty sure the A7iii has greater dynamic range than any Fuji.
andtothewestamerica oh no the Sony fanboys are butthurt. Sorry but the Sony was easily the worst monochrome camera and it wasn’t even close.
Honestly, I had to do so much careful looking to see any real difference between any of them. I also had no clear preference for any one camera. That in itself is *very* instructive - it means I wouldn't be any happier with Leica's results than I am with my X-T3. Now whether the Leica is a better shooting experience, that's not something I'm likely to find out (can't afford one!).
very impressed with the Fuji results plus, good to know that "Steven Buscemi" does photography videos as well
It's Steve bro lol
I picked "A" for most of the photos. "B" for two and "C" came last in all samples. Thanks, this was very interesting.
Same!
OMFG, Did you not see the three dimensionality of B? It was in every image set. The whole video is like a sales pitch for Leica.
Once it got to the portrait B really stood out. For the price, the Fuji and Somy really held up. Would be interesting to try this with the same sumi lens adapted on all three. I bet the difference would shrink even more.
agree that the portrait was considerably better on B. most fo the rest i actually preferred A
Most of my choices were C. A lot of people are in agreement that the $7k Monochrome price tag is beyond what people are willing to spend for a dedicated BW camera. Thanks for the video. I’m sure this saved people a lot of money! 💰👍
I did guest B most of the time for Leica images. The contrast and the sharpness was the leica characteristic.
Same
I chose mostly A and B, C had a bunch of blown highlights. But it’s hard to tell on a screen, was surprised the Fuji and Leica seemed to have similar dynamic ranges on screen. I use Sony cameras but the highlights were definitely blown, which is why with Sony you have to shoot raw and covert to mono later.
They're all good. Every one of them can be tweaked a bit in post to look just like one of the others. All it really comes down to is personal preference.
FWIW, I shoot B&W exclusively. With a Fuji X-T2, and Fuji X100F, but the reasons why aren't addressed just by looking at the images. I really prefer Fuji's straight out of camera jpegs, I like having autofocus, and I really like Fuji's electronic viewfinder.
That was interesting. I chose NONE of the Leica versions but almost all the Sony ones. Odd because I use, and love, my Fujifilm X-T3. Hmmmmmmm.
I have and love my XT3 and chose Leica #1 in every shot followed by Sony (in a few, though, Sony and Fuji were hard to decide between). How much is that Leica? ;)
I think the problem is the manual focus of the Leica is hard to nail to get the best sharpness and contrast
Same here. Sony all the way and one Fuji.
@@DB-nl9xw Yet they managed to get a better job regarding focus than the Fuji or the Sony since most of those two weren't actually really in focus as it seemed. That can't be just because of the lack of a CFA.
diotough - well, a combination of things are probably at work there.
1- great glass
2- no colour filter
3- 40MP vs 24MP
4- software settings
straight A's!. I was a little nervous but now happy I went the Fuji way!
Mostly A and B from time to time. Never C...
I can’t do these blind tests. When I see the Leica M Monochrome as a gallery, I’m blown away by the tonal range, subtlety of grays, resolution, etc. The Fujis are softer than the other two. It would be better for me to see all the A’s, then all the B’s, then all the C’s. It takes a while for my eyes to open up to the sensor environment. Really it’s not about quick, first impressions. Also, the lens makes a huge difference. It’s pretty amazing to see what happens to a Fuji with great Leica glass attached. On another note, I understand Daniel Morrison B&W conversions of Sony A7Rii are pretty darn close to Leica Monochrome-easily the next best thing. I may try to convert my Nex6 which is just sitting around (since I hate Sony color anyway). For me (low fixed income) I would have to decide to only shoot digital B&W to even entertain the thought of owning the Leica-but would probably go back to film if that were the case. 8x10 film images blow every single alternative out of the universe, including $10K medium format digital.
I choose A, and seems consistent with my own experience shooting B&W on my Fujifilm cameras. I mainly prefer the Fuji’s rendering of the skies.
I like A, though to have a monochrome Leica is always my dream.
I coudn't make any difference just by watching the video at the normal speed ! So, I keep my XT3.
I could tell which was which having owned 2 of the 3 cameras. for the best part the differences are subtle yet obvious. I could tell straight away which set the Sony was. it just looks a little flatter. The fuji and Leica are remarkably close, but the real difference was noticed in the portrait. The Leica just takes the edge with its dynamic range. A Leica is my dream camera, however I am more then happy to stick with the Fuji as bang for buck its possibly the best camera on the market
I picked mostly A & B. The difference is negligible given the difference in price. Wonder why some of the A7III shots looked a bit overexposed. The one shot where I thought the Leica really stood out was the portraits. Nice deep tones.
exactly. the Leica looked so interesting on the portraits not sure why? but it did.
I get pretty good B+W using Olympus - They should be in the test as well
At the moment I'm using the original EM5 but the Pen F does better, especially in Mono Mode 2. Bring it back Olympus!
I actually liked the Sony in some of the shots, but boy, the XT-3’s monochrome mode really feels just like the M10’s images in most cases in my opinion.
Great idea btw ! I picked B mostly ! Do you have a link to the full res of the comparison files ? It would be great to go through them at full res on a larger screen (not a small smart phone lol) Thanks !
I’m surprised that I liked more of the Sony pictures, seeing as I shoot fuji; but I do edit my fuji shots, so I prob don’t like out-of-camera results
This is the best advantage of Fuji cameras!
I didn't quite catch that they would be the same camera throughout so the Fuji and Sony got varied guesses but I seemed to pick out the Leica. There must be something a little extra to it. The fact it's much higher resolution by default probably helps (watched in 1440p) but there's something about the tones that did translate as well.
I couldn’t get the difference in most cases I thought images C were the Leica. To be honest Even if have the money I wouldn’t buy the monochrome camera
dito
I chose mostly photos from the leica, followed by the Fuji. The portrait taken with the leica was striking and really stood out. The sony lacked midrange tonality.
I watched this video twice with the knowledge of knowing which was which. I don't see that much of a difference between these images that would bother me. I could change the contrast, highlight and shadow detail in Lightroom or Photoshop. I like the idea of various film emulsion choices on the FujifilmX-T3; although Lightroom has black-and-white presets. Now that I saw this test I could never justify spending that kind of money on a dedicated black-and-white camera. Since Leica has had success with there former monochrome camera, I believe they will succeed with this one. Even though I would not buy a camera like this it is a great camera and I pray for the success of Leica.
I loved the As and was pleasantly surprised it was a Fuji. I don't own the system, but to think that the Leica would not please me aesthetically leaves no doubt in my mind that I am not missing out on anything.
Very nice comparisson. Ive choose mostly B for its sharpness, but the Sony is slightly overexposured, what i like, because of the contrast.
So my blindtest was:
1. all close together. C has the nicest contrast, b B the better sharpness
2. all close together, i choose A for overall look, B for sharpness(here i assumed, that A must be the Fuji)
3. looks all similiar for me. Nice photo from each camera
4. B for its sharpness C for contrast
5. B
6. B
When i make photos in B/W, my focus is on sharpness. The contrast is something, you can adjust in the camera itself.
I was a little bit dissappointed by the Fuji, cuz iv got a Fuji XT2 by my own. But you need to set the noise reduction on -2 and switch off the noise reduction on long term photos to get maximum sharpness.(in the other way its a little bit more blury to cancel the noice) The overall sharpness is the point, why i prefer the 35mm f/2.0 over the 35mm f/1.4 Fuji lens.
I mostly chose the Leica M10 with a couple of times going with the X-T3. The A7iii was usually third.
I do know what you mean but to be far we are watching though UA-cam and I would bet there is very little difference they all be very good. To see any of these you need to see the prints. Not to mention the user experience and the Leica will be both the hardest to use but will give you the biggest sense of achievement if when or if you get it right. Great video thanks I hope your fires go way soon.
I chose B in all of the sets. Common points in each set are:
A and B almost have the same dynamic range and overall looks similar. C on the otherhand was bright as hell on all tests and I found myself just gravitating back towards A and B. Also, during the pixel peeping parts, C was "clearly" the softest of the 3. And B was just sharper to me compared to the A.
I chose "B" for most and "C" for some
From my perspective I consistently chose A & C as my choices. Sharpness and finer details in the trees and grass but they also had more contrast. B to me looked a bit flat but had smoother transitions. C looked a bit overexposed as compared to A & B. In the last group I was sure C was the leica as they appeared sharpest. Overall I preferred A. I'm wondering if Fujifilm was the under dog as it was the only camera with a 23mm lens while the Lieca and Sony had 35mm lenses. Loss of detail in the A group could be due to a larger crop. Funny enough I own the Fujifilm X-Pro 3 and shoot a lot in ACROSS. It could be my eye is accustom to the look of the Fujifilm. I am a Leica fan but this test took the obsession for Leica out of my head.
But 23mm on fuji is a 35mm equivalent. No crop applied then.
I am with you. On my cell phone I have chosen A for the first shots and C for the last ones....Never B....
Snap!
I chose mostly A or B, with C often overexposed. I would like to see this mono comparison: Fuji Acros, Olympus Pen F Mono #2, Lumix L. Monochrome D - all tend to lean to greater contrast. Hard to tell true sharpness with YT compression.
Well, it's pretty easy to guess judging from the sharpness (the zoomed in section, the Leica is sharper because of the 40mpx resolution).
Fritzkier Its about the 40Mp and the Lens that outperformes the other lenses by miles.. So the comparison is not fair at all.
My pick, most B and 1 A and 1 C. I wonder why Fujifilm don't make a X100V Monochrom? That will be a favorite for street and Black and White photography.
I have a Sony A7iii and an X-Pro1. I’ll definitely keep the X-Pro1 for black and white jpg straight of out camera. It’s magnificent
This video made me love my Fujifilm even more :D
All depend on the scene, on some the higher highligts of Sony complement more the shot. For portrait at the end, A and B have a nice balance and C dont come out as good. I found A a bit on the dark side on most of the shots. B have a overhall betted balance. For sharpness, they are all sharp enougth. At the end nothing that can't be tweeked in camera for your personal preferences.
I would never use a monochrome mode on any camera. You can do so much more by processing a RAW file in software.
The RAW files in the Monochrome are monochrome. The files are insane and shadow detail is unlike anything I’ve seen before. Just expose for highlights and as long as they’re not blown out, you can push these RAW files crazy hard
I shoot black & white images with a Fuji X-Pro2 digital mirrorless with a Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 lens and a Leica M10 digital rangefinder with a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 lens. The black and white images produced by my two cameras are very similar.
I was not surprised that I thought the A images and the B images in your blind test were very similar. However, I was surprised that I preferred the Sony C images to the other two. To me, the whites in Fuji and the Leica images appeared to be too muddy. The Sony whites appeared to be cleaner or brighter.
Cool test of which I set out to try and ID the M10M camera and I managed 4 of 6 images. The last 2 images is where I stumbled. Depending on the scene, one can really see the difference of the Mono sensor. Thanks, really enjoyed this video!
I thought the Leica really stood out on two images, the portrait of the girl and the flowers. The sharpness really stood out with the flowers and the gradients were amazing on the portrait. As a Fuji x-pro shooter I know that the Acros profile has similar characteristics when used, and is a serious contender for the price.
The portrait shot was terrible. My 6 years old kid could focus better than that!
The exposure was sometimes different .
If you know the three brands, it was pretty obvious which was which. I began photography shooting B&W film, and I loved the pictures from the M10 Mono (the tones look "right"). Do I love it enough to spend that much money when my a7R III can do a decent job? Probably not.
Interesting! I had C marked worst but couldn't decide between A and B.
huh, i was always torn between A and B, that's good since i'm a Fuji X-T3 shooter haha. Sony pics were always a hard no for me, didnt win a single round for me. Glad i can tell and like the Fuji images way more than Sony considering i switched from Sony to Fuji a year ago.
I'm a Fuji user for more than 10 years. My choice was B > A > C.
B > A > C. C is too flat and artificial (bad post processing?). A is not bad, but slightly flat and blurry. B has most natural resolution and gradations. But it is very hard to judge based on UA-cam video.
What the comments tell you, is we all know what we like. Not what the camera likes. When we know what we like, we then know the camera we prefer. I preferred A. The contrast was stronger. But that is what I like in an image. I would have liked to see finer detail and texture. Getting closer to see what you do not normally.. Great video. No BS
Here's what I liked: 1.)A 2.)B 3.)B 4.)A 5.)B 6.)A. Sum: Fuji=3 and Leica=3. So, I choose each for different reasons. In the end, I would pick the Fuji, as I have more variety in film types to choose from (ex. Monochrome vs. Acros). To the poster, THANKS FOR THIS!!!!
A is consistently softer. B and C are both very sharp while C is brighter likely BSI sensor is letting in more light
i dont own any of the cameras, but for some reason i felt B looked more professional, but i chose C for alot of the images, the objects popped more. to me both B and C were a tie. if i was to pick one, i would go for B with slight increase in exposure. if i couldn't adjust anything, then i would go for C as i felt it did the most pleasing straight out of camera.
Selected B (3x), A (2x) and C, (1x). Can't help wonder if having recently purchased a Leica in which I'm shooting mostly B&W influenced my choices. Interesting, fun blind test.
That was a surprise! The pictures I gravitated towards with crisp, sharp looks turned out to be the Sony renders!!!! Definitely for the contrast. The other two looked somewhat muddy/flat in some cases, although these days you can make mountains out of molehills with Capture One or LR anyway. So these kind of comparisons are not THAT relevant, as this video proves. The one thing to note is the micro contrast of the Leica lens. It is incredible! C1 or LR can't add that.
It blows my mind that so many people couldn’t see that B was vastly superior in every image set. how could you not see the three dimensionality of B in every shot? nevertheless it’s a bogus test because he didn’t use the same lens on each camera.
Gotta justify that 7k price tag somehow..
I picked A, A, C B, B, A so it was a mix, each looked great, some seem to excel in a certain way. I have a Sony a7r 4 I was about to go do some b&w shooting. great video.
B is the definitely the look to which I gravitated four times out of the six, and picked the other two one time each, obviously. It’s that Leica look.
Was right about the three. I could see better sharpness in the Leica pictures and thought about the smaller sensor in the Fujifilm… for lower dynamic range
Didn't pick a single Sony file. They look contrasty which means not enough grays in them which means less micro-contrast. Im sure Leica kills it, bigger censor, more megapix, dedicated mono censor but hard to tell from UA-cam. $8,300 body alone is overkill TBH. OK have expensive lenses im ok with that, but body alone $8,300 is way too much (even though i still want it lol) also slow buffer too.
Differences may be more apparent when printing A3 or larger.
Wonder how many people there are with these type of cameras that just publish their photos on ig. I bet the number is pretty big.
@@benisboy2697 Kinda people who are dedicated to film, but scan the negative and edited it in lightroom, and then hashtag film is not dead.
I chose mostly B and nearly none of C. A is very close to B and in most cases are difficult to chose between them. Taking the price into consideration, I think Fujifilm X-T3 is my choice.
first place B, you can see it beats A and C .especially where is micro conntrast. in tecture where you can find more tones of grey, where in A and C you can see less tone differencies. second place is A and the looser is C.
Thanks for your video.
I found the Leica pictures very easily. But I’m not sure if it was the sensor or the lens itself. These pictures had the best sharpness. The tonality was less different then I thought.
My conclusion is that I can buy any M and keep concentrating on the lenses.
Cheers
I picked B. But only just. Perhaps because I’m used to emulating a similar (not same) Leica M look with my Olympus OMD’s simply by selecting Low Key gradation and Contrast +1.
Exposure wasn‘t always identical. And things like cloud coverage were sometimes slightly different between the cameras. Both have huge impact in overall contrast and light, which is way more emphasised when there‘s no color, so it would have been crucial that both exposure and cloud cloud coverage were the same across all cameras, but they weren‘t.
You can clearly notice how more or less clouds completely change the light and the way you see the image, so it‘s not a fair comparison in my opinion.
I did the test anyway, for the sake of it, and most of the images I chose were from the Leica. I personally use the Fujifilm X-T3.
I choose Camera A - the Fuji. No doubt. I've always wanted a Leica, but not so sure after this 😲
What surprised me the most was that none of the photos were sharp when zooming in. Interesting test. Thanks!
Our pleasure, glad you got something out of it
I generally picked C, with a secondary preference for A. The M10 being neither of the two greatly surprises me.
Looking back with the express knowledge of which option is which has me now preferring B over anything else. All this tells me is I can't trust my eyes.
Figures, I chose two A, two B and two C haha.
I knew going in that I wouldn't gravitate toward the lighter tonality due to my personal bias of darker imagery and tighter contrast, so factors such as sharpness or unknown comp/shot bias surely pulled the two C Sony votes out of me. Fuji Freak Photographer here. Never even held a Leica (would love to experience one) and Sony for video. Olympus for nostalgia and film, Nikon for general all-purpose price to feature ratio and lens selection, Canon for the Rebel young love years, Panasonic for vid gigs, and...good old Zuiko glass for artistic experimentation) :-D Peace.
I am presently gearing up to begin my official photography-centered (rather than art film) channel.
Come by and say hi!
You guys are great. Thank you for the content and inspiration.
Thanks Tobias, glad you enjoyed the video. Best of luck with your channel!
For me the Leica was the sharpest in most cases while the A7 was the one with the more natural feeling and overall better dynamic range. Because the sharpness has more to do with the lens then the sensor, I'd go with the A7 in this comparison. I'd been more interested in the performance in lowlight situations. I'm wondering, if the monochrome sensor would make the difference here. Btw.: the coloursensors are coming with a special benefit for bw-photography. They offer you the color-based control of contrast when you're editing.
I chose B and thought it was the Leia because of the slightly more contrasty images, however, before zooming they all look near identical, once again proving that unless your enlarging images hugely you'd never ever tell the difference. In fairness to the Leica, people shoot Leica because of the overall style of the body and the shooting experience and they way you shoot a Leica (zone focus) and the minimal features. This doesn't justify the price though.
Gracias! La calidad de las tres cámaras es excelente. Muy díficil elegir.
Surprisingly, I guessed Fuji as A, Leica as B and Sony as C - i preferred the Leica in every shot except for the 1st one, where A seemed to have a bit more details in the palmtree in the top left corner.
Leica was just sharper in every shot, and especially on image set 6, the tonality is significantly better.
In the blind test, I chose Fuji once, Leica twice and Sony three times. For some images, the Dept of Field already made it possible to distinguish between full format and APS-C. The factual results of the sony are great, Leica is a bit sharper and Fuji is really good. The Sony is for me a camera where I would create the black and white processing in Lightroom. The Leica is for people with time and a love for analog composition. The Fuji is for me the ideal camera for black and white photography, here I set my film simulation depending on the motif, landscape/portrait/architecture, which I then also see through the viewfinder.
I chose B all the way with A coming in second in most cases. Nice test!
Ok, I’m a Sony shooter and I saw this video just to see the comparison of size between the M series with a regular A7 iii camera and... WTF! The image quality of leica is stunning! No kidding. I even thought you was changing the letters of the cameras but my result was exactly this. No kidding, is beautiful image from the leica. From best to worst...
BCA
CBA
BCA
BCA
BCA
BAC
BCA
No kidding, I’m going to try the leica 10p to see if chromatic cameras are this good, no kidding in this case the difference was enormous to me.
Damn it! I want a leica now.
It’s true that it’s difficult to discern the differences between the fantastic XT-3 and the Monochrom. It requires full resolution files on a properly calibrated high res monitor to properly appreciate the tonality and detail of the M10M. The vast majority of us don’t need a dedicated black and white camera, and to most people the very idea of such sounds silly ($13k camera that shoots only B&W?). But it’s a niche product for pros who can use it to its full potential, and those who have money to spare of course.
I thought there was little between A & B but marginally preferred A and assumed incorrectly that was the Leica. On other videos its been the Leica and not Fuji that I've preferred and with more of an obvious difference but I think that was the Fuji X100V against the Leica Q2.
Gone back and slightly prefer B to A .. but is it because I know its a Leica now :-o
I did choose the A camera for all images, except for the image 2, where I did prefer the B camera..
Me too....
ASimages me too 💪🏼
I picked Leica 3 times, Fuji 2 times, and Sony once (F, L, S, L, L, F in image set order). They were often close, and it often came down mainly to which one had an overall tonal balance that I somewhat preferred, but at least on UA-cam probably not enough difference for me to consider adding a Leica to my Fuji X-H1 and X-T20 :)
I preferred the images coming out of A and B over C for every set, mostly because C seemed over exposed with less details in the highlights. The result was that C always looked less contrasty. Between A and B I thought that B had the sharper image when zoomed in, the the shadows were crushed. For web publishing I'd prefer A, but for actual prints I feel like B or C (with better compensation for exposure) would be more ideal.
I picked C through about 60% of the samples and B through the rest. Putting brightness aside, I found the dynamic range more subtle on the Sony/Leica images. For architecture, I actually preferred the Sharpness of the Sony though that has a lot to do with the lens, more than the camera body. For portraits, the Leica was the clear winner with how sorry and smooth it made the skin appear. The Fuji and to a lesser extent the Sony really flopped when it came to skin tone.
.
One criticism I have is that I really wish you tested all three cameras with the same lens. It's quite easy to adapt Leica glass to these other formats.
I chose C from the first go. But it needs some editing to make it look the way the other two looked. It looked one stop brighter than the rest of the two. Also, it is sharper than the Leica's Pixel Heavy sensor in some photos. Also, the bokeh from the Sony A7iii and the Sony 35mm is out of the world.
As a (film) Leica user, was great to go through the blind test seriously... and to my surprise I was pretty set on B as of the first couple of images, and after a while I thought the bokeh of the Summilux really gave it away, as it looked so familiar.
However I was surprised just how close it was to the Fuji on a couple of shots. Leica is just such a joy to use, but on a budget I'd go for Fujifilm and be perfectly happy.
Was disappointed by the Sony -- was expecting more of the sensor and Zeiss-branded glass.
Well overall I preferred A and was quite surprised of this being Fuji X-Trans monochrome and not Leica M10. I felt the B pics had more contrast but felt this being to hard in most situations and the C, the Sony, overall being to flat. However it remains to be seen to what extend either the Fuji or Leica can be fine tuned to the desired individual look...
My results were
Fuji: last place 5 times, 1st place once (5x3+1=16)
Sony: 1st place twice, 2nd place 4 times (2+2x4=10)
Leica: 1st place 3 times, 2nd place 2 times, last once (3+2x2+3=10)
So either the Sony or Leica win, and I think the Leica edges out, but that price isn't very nice. I personally find this useful because I was wondering if "fake" B&W looks bad, so it's good to have some information to clear up that question.
3:45 the man standing on the bridge was headless! I double checked many times...
shoot, scary AF
decapitated
Fun video. It was super obvious C was the Sony the whole time. I shoot Sony and the whole video was a good reminder of why I underexpose slightly almost all the time.
Favored B almost throughout. Fuji was a close second and favorable for some shots.
Now in the hand... The difference is startling, of course.
Obviously many people do not understand the approach of the M10. It aims to give you very neutral results, which offer you the maximum possibilities in post-processing. That is why the images look "flat" sometimes.
for all the photos I chose B, which turn out to be the Leica, but fuji is just behind, need a bit more sharpness and more DOF, sony shots feel so bright and extra sharp which something for me gives less soul to the image, good job FUJI
I could tell B was the M10-M with 35 'Lux, more so because the microcontrast was superior in just about every shot. Love my 'Lux!
Cool test. I found A and B were really close and generally preferred C. But personally would toned that C set down just a touch.
There were a few images at the beginning that I choose A or B near the end I was choosing B or C images B was consistently mostly chosen. I think the A B and C were switching between cameras. I'd love to own a Leica but its one of those things where They'd have to sponsor me with the camera and a couple of lenses :)