To me, at least, Leica images generally have a unique appearance about them in the way the show contrast and bokeh. It's almost 3D in nature.
I would strongly suspect that this is due to the maturity and experience of those who use Leicas. They are the antithesis of an entry-level camera, no matter how much moolah you may have in the pockets of your jeans. Experienced shooters have a way of achieving the effect they want.
And their low-light capabilities seem to be better than on my Canon... I would prefer an AF option, but like you, I also learned on - and shot exclusively on - manual focus cameras for many years so that doesn't bother me.
Yup, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of shots with fully manual equipment including large format. Not a single assignment came to me because I could manually focus a camera, load the film or transfer the reading from my Weston Master IV with its Zone System dial to the camera.
I do want the option however. I do little macro now, but at one time it nearly dominated my workload. When working just inches away from the subject, auto-focus camera and I rarely agreed on the critical point of focus. However, for most other things, I don't want to be stuck without it.
The X-pro 1 is an intriguing proposition, but I still prefer full frame for a variety of reasons.
That would be a deal-breaker for me—I do have the D700 and do not need another.
Compare camera dimensions side by side
As you can see, the XP1 is significantly larger than the X100, but not unacceptably so. Lenses are fairly compact as well. With full frame, we get into Nikon-sized lenses—bulk and weight. I already have this when needed, but want a flexible and excellent camera no larger than this. If I want to haul a body and two big zoom lenses that weigh three kilos, I can lug the D700. The XP1 and three prime lenses weigh 967g—mobility with adequate flexibility, as an urban walking around camera.
This would still be true even if sensors had not improved dramatically since the time of the D700. I fully expect the XP1 to be nearly on par with the D700 at any given ISO setting. The X100 is so close that it really does not matter practically which camera I use in low light on the basis of high-ISO quality. They are of course, entirely different cameras so I match the one I choose to the demands of the shoot. ISO is not a consideration in making the choice.
I am not one to prance about twittering "Bokeh, bokeh, bokeh", but I do control my depth of field to suit the needs of my image. I did a fun shoot at nearby Jurassic Forest, focusing upon autumn leaves in the foreground with full sized dino models in the background.
Autumn?A Somewhat Different Approach
In this case, I did use the full-frame D700 and found I did not need f/1.4 lenses. In fact most were shot f/5.6-8.0 and if anything I could have used a bit more depth of field. It was shot for the amusement of friends, as the dinos become more and more obvious from the first image to the last.
For street, I want a rich sense of place, of environment, and I do not want f/1.4 fuzzygraphs. Street photos tell a story, and the story is not sharp eyes in a haze of lost detail. In very low light, large apertures are difficult to avoid, but with the APS-C sensor, I have a little more slack. Environment is also a critical element in pretty much all my low-light stuff as well, and an eternal problem with the D700. If I want to blow out backgrounds, it is all too easy with the D700. That is not how I will shoot the XP1.
But you're absolutely right that this camera's sensor is the real game changer. The pixel array and lack of low-pass moire filter are revolutionary and I expect this camera's low light performance and sharpness to be exceptional. There are some sample images from the camera posted on their website now. Most are at low ISO but I saw one up there at 1600... None up in the stratosphere, though, so hard to tell. The photos do look great though.
FUJIFILM X-Pro1 | Sample Images | Fujifilm Global
I suspect that sample images always say a lot more about the shooter than the camera. A great shooter will make any camera look good, and a mediocre shooter can equalize the best with the merely competent cameras. Looking at the hundreds of cameras tested on the DPReview site—and the many samples for each one—the thing that stands out for me is the sameness. Nothing brilliant, nothing bad, yet another display of goods in front of a store, yet another shot of the bridge, yet another Oriental face. Take a two hour walk with a random camera and cull down to the 25 best and the gallery would be indistinguishable from the rest. The $500 entry level body samples on par with the $5,000 ultimate camera, just as most of us could do when time is limited and a bunch of samples are needed for deadline.
It would be interesting to download say 10 samples from the whole spectrum of cameras and see how many viewers could actually come close to matching them to a list of the cameras that took them. My guess is none—other than by pure chance. Cameras are amazingly good, and most camera vs camera gear-head chatter is vacuous.
In 2002, I had a chance for a trip to Nevada. At that time I had recently acquired my second digital camera, the Nikon Coolpix 5000 top-of-the-line bridge-camera. A couple of months ago, I got a call from an agency of the State of Nevada wanting to buy some of what I shot there.
(Like step out the door and shoot some, lady. It is your back yard!) But anyway, they came to Canada for photos. Ten year old technology—prior to RAW. 5MP and they were perfectly happy with the results which by now are 8×10 prints in an interpretive centre. Even earlier, I did a few shoots for a large-format, glossy, Brit hi-tech magazine with my first digital camera, the classic Coolpix 990. Some went full page width and looked fine. If I could score repeated magazine assignments with a 3.34MP camera then, and sell Nevada-shots to the State of Nevada with a 2002 5MP camera from Canada now, I would opine that one can not draw any significant conclusions about cameras from sample prints.
