Leica vs. Fujifilm? Many Leica customers will quietly sigh. A 64-page Fujifilm system brochure and an entire display case at your retailer, with different camera models, lenses, and accessories. The Leica fan has either never bought a Leica T, TL2 or CL, or has long since sold it again. Or, worst of all, he has his Leica APS-C gear lying unused in a drawer. The question is open: What did Fujifilm do so well with its APS system — and why did Leica fail so miserably?
When it comes to Leica vs. Fujifilm, it’s worth looking back to 2009. Leica launched the X1, a camera with a fixed 24mm Elmarit lens (36mm equivalent in full frame). Initial aperture 2.8, APS-C size CMOS sensor, 12.2 megapixels, external optical viewfinder to attach. This was a remarkable achievement, and initial reactions to the €1,550 camera are positive.
Leica vs. Fujifilm: Success with the X100
A year and a half later, the Japanese catch up in the Leica vs. Fujifilm race. The first X100 gets launched in 2011, shortly before the Leica M9. It has a bold retro design that does not deny its proximity to the Leica M. As with Leica’s X, the control dials are intuitive.
There is even a built-in viewfinder that you can use in either electronic or optical mode. In the Fujifilm X100, too, the APS-C sensor has a resolution of 12 megapixels. The 23mm lens offers almost the same angle of view as the X1. But is a full stop faster with its f/2 maximum aperture. The old-fashioned yet innovative camera costs €999 and turns out to be an instant sales success.
Interestingly, the starting conditions are similar. Leica and Fujifilm are both entering the APS-C market, not with an entire system but with a comparatively modest fixed-lens-no-zoom camera. At this time, the first digital SLR models with full-frame sensors are already available. Remember, in 2005 the Canon EOS 5D made the technology affordable for a wider range of customers. But APS-C is still dominant when it comes to sensor sizes.
The market for APS-C gets under pressure
Two years after the Fujifilm X100, in 2013, the Sony Alpha 7 turns out to be a true game changer as the first system camera with a full-frame sensor. At the other end of the spectrum, the compact Micro Four Thirds system is enjoying success with its small sensor. The niche for APS-C, as had already been pretty clear at the start of the Leica vs. Fujifilm competition, is becoming squeezed on both sides.
The two manufacturers decide to go their separate ways. Leica focuses on the M system, arguably the most important part of the brand’s DNA. Fujifilm opts for the smaller APS-C format and quickly and decisively builds up a system.
Fujifilm releases one camera after another
Fujifilm’s X-Pro 1 arrives in 2012, and the flagship camera is soon joined by more affordable bodies. A system emerges, named after the X-mount. The X lens range grows rapidly. The more expensive cameras feature the (by now admittedly controversial) X-Trans sensor, which offers a special colour sampling method.
Over 20 different camera models are introduced over the course of 13 years, in addition to the continuous development of the X100. In its sixth generation, the X100 has a 40-megapixel sensor, image stabilisation, a newly designed 23/2.0 lens (from the previous version V), plus a whole host of more or less useful electronic functions.
In the competition between Leica and Fujifilm, the German manufacturer does many things differently to the Japanese. The Leica T, the first system camera with an APS-C sensor, will not be introduced until 2014, and the number of lenses is always limited.
There is a wide-angle, a standard and a telephoto zoom, none with a constant aperture of f/2.8. In addition, there are a few fixed focal lengths. The 18/2.8 pancake and the 23/2.0 Summicron come from an unnamed third-party manufacturer in Japan, as do the zooms. The 35/1.4 Summilux and the 60/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit bear the “Made in Germany” though.
Full frame is on the horizon
The T camera and T system eventually became the TL system. This on the one hand documented its integration into the L-Mount and L Mount Alliance. On the other hand, it avoided trademark disputes with the former Deutsche Telekom subsidiary, T Systems. At the same time, however, the future path was pretty evident. The new L bayonet mount had a design to be full-frame compatible.
Leica vs. Fujifilm – the conditions are unequal
Today, we know that the race between Leica and Fujifilm was essentially decided from the outset. Leica, the significantly smaller manufacturer, has several strings to its bow. The M system sees the constant addition of new cameras and lenses. And in 2015, the SL system was added to the Leica portfolio with its integration into the L-Mount Alliance.
In the same year, the Wetzlar-based company introduced the Q and, according to reports, was itself surprised by its (still ongoing) success. With it, they seem to have found their own kind of answer to the Fuji X100 series.
Nevertheless, the CL was launched as the last camera in the APS-C system in 2017. As early as 2022, just eight years after the introduction of the first interchangeable APS-C camera Leica T, the system was officially discontinued.
Yet at least one question and one thought experiment remain: What did Fujifilm do better than Leica? And what would have happened if Leica hadn’t given up on APS-C? The latter must remain speculative. But there are a few answers to the core question.
Fujifilm’s strategy: make sure people talk about you
Foremost, Fujifilm has defined its role as a small manufacturer (in terms of market share) in such a way that it is smarter to occupy a niche and hold one’s own in it. Initially, this niche was high-quality compact cameras with classic ergonomics.
Then came the APS-C system and, most recently, medium format (now commonly defined as the 33×44mm sensor size). And because they were at the mercy of this niche, Fujifilm invested not only in development, but also heavily in marketing.
The Fujifilm brand knew and and still understands that it has to promote itself: to retailers, customers, and influencers. This requires a healthy mix of self-confidence and modesty. Flagship stores are part of this, but other factors are crucial for broad success, such as anchoring in the retail sector, competitive pricing, and brand image. And the love of the public. Recently, retailers have had long waiting lists for the X100VI and its interchangeable lens counterpart, the X-E5. Everything done right.
Leica’s strategy: never forget where you come from
Leica also has experience with a niche market, of course, and the red dot brand plays it well. So well, in fact, that Leica is racing from record profit to record profit and has developed from being a candidate for insolvency to a profit gem within 20 years.
The fact that the Japanese have learned a thing or two from the Wetzlar-based company in the Leica vs. Fujifilm race (right down to product design) has perhaps done Leica more good than harm.
Nevertheless, it is probably not presumptuous to say that the APS-C range has never truly enjoyed much love at Leica. Marketing quickly focused on the presumably higher-margin full-frame systems.
That may not have been a bad idea. But Leica now has almost nothing to offer at a price point that is still reasonably affordable for dedicated amateurs. And it leaves behind customers who feel they were pushed into a dead end. It is small consolation that the lenses can still be used on high-resolution L-mount cameras, albeit without really utilising the full-frame sensor.
If the Q is doing so well…
The thought experiment I announced above leads into the realm of fantasy. How could it be otherwise? I would like to illustrate what Leica and Leica customers have missed out on with two examples. Firstly, after the X1, X2 and X-E, Leica could easily have stuck with a compact camera with a great fixed focal length lens, APS sensor, IBIS, and a comparatively moderate price point.
The path to what Fujifilm now offers with the X100VI would have been a long one, for sure. And an attractive price would have required some compromises, such as manufacturing outside Germany. But with the Q, Leica has shown that it is fundamentally capable of doing this, and it is superb at implementing it as well. And perhaps the success of the Q was also the reason for saying goodbye to APS, thus avoiding in-house competition.
But what could have become of the CL…
Second example: The new X-E5 demonstrates what a successor to the CL could have looked like: With sensor image stabilisation (which would have at least largely resolved a much-lamented shortcoming of TL lenses), contemporary video functions and yet retaining a very traditional operating concept. If you look at the technical data of the CL in comparison (very nicely presented on this page), you might well come to the conclusion that this path might not have been quite so far off.
Leica owners do sometimes look somewhat enviously at the Fuji catalogue. Some of them also actually buy the products. Fujifilm has a good adapter for M-mount lenses in its range. A 50mm Summilux cuts a fine figure on the X-E5 as a high-speed 75mm lens. The same applies to other focal lengths. However, keep in mind that Leica claims that M lenses show their best performance on Leica cameras due to their special sensor glass design.
If you want something with a wider angle of view (which a cropped M lens would not cover) or a lens with autofocus for specific assignments, you will find what you’re looking for not only at Fujifilm itself, but also at Sigma and other manufacturers. And often at very reasonable prices.
What would Barnack build today?
When Leica introduced the CL, the Wetzlar marketing department went so far as to claim that this was the camera Oskar Barnack would have built today: compact, light, easy to use and at the same time with the potential for technically excellent images. All of this could also be said — and now I’m on the verge of heresy — about Fujifilm’s X-E series.
Add to that an operating concept that leaves few questions unanswered. Fujifilm is quite good at that, but not as radical as Leica. Leica’s purist approach to user experience is outstanding, and I sometimes wonder why is doesn’t get copied. I guess this is because you do need some knowledge to get on terms with Leica’s user interface.
Fuji is more mainstream here, more menu points and by far not as clean in the appearance (both the camera with its buttons and dials and the menu system). But anyone coming from Leica should quickly get to grips with a Fuji without having to spend ages poring over the manual. So, the score of Leica vs. Fujifilm match is least 1–1.
To get the full picture, it’s important to note that Leica, as the pioneer of 35mm photography, had little choice but to stick with the classic 24×36 mm format. Nothing wrong with it; this strategy has proven successful for other brands as well. Leica has done this very well.
In this respect, Fujifilm certainly had more freedom with its strategy of simply omitting full-frame. In a nutshell, one could say that Leica has preserved its DNA, while Fujifilm has created a new one (and has not denied its origins in silver halide film in its brand name).
Leica vs. Fujifilm? Or both?
So, is it Leica vs. Fujifilm, or rather Fujifilm plus Leica? Both options are logical. The brands complement each other well. Yet, a glance at the market shows that Leica has missed an opportunity.
Sony has continued with APS-C, despite a rather half-hearted approach of late. Nikon and Canon have re-entered the market, this time with considerable commitment — also to occupy a specific price segment.
And honestly, often an APS-C sensor is objectively good enough. Forty megapixels, good optics and an excellent image processing engine open massive opportunities.
Leica lacks an entry-level system
In some Leica stores, they would certainly be happy to offer customers a system entry point with a new device including an interchangeable lens for, say, just under €3,000. The CL with the 18-56 zoom or even the 18 Elmarit was fantastic for that.
Frequently, customers would certainly not have left it at that. I guess they would either have expanded their APS-C system or eventually switched to full-frame. This low entry barrier no longer exists.
It’s certainly a shame about the T/TL/TL2 cameras with their radical user interface, which were perhaps simply too far ahead of their time. Unused APS-C lenses leave their buyers with a feeling of having made a bad investment.
In fact, these lenses are also increasingly becoming useless treasures. It’s a pity that they cannot be adapted to Fujifilm’s X-mount. But this just seems impossible from a mechanical and electronic perspective.
A good camera remains a good camera
Leica customers will probably have to wait just as long for a Mini-Q with an APS sensor as they will for a resurrection of the APS part of the L-mount. That is, forever.
Panasonic will not fill the gap either, as they have clearly committed themselves to full-frame and Micro Four Thirds. Sigma seems to fully focus on new lenses (fair enough, given the enormous success).
What remains, however, are Leica APS cameras, which you can still use to enjoy photography today. Because a camera that was once good remains good!
So what did Fujifilm really do differently?
Looking at the history of Leica vs. Fujifilm, it becomes clear that for Leica, the APS-C commitment was more of a side project. Perhaps it was planned from the outset as an episode until a broad and convincing full-frame programme was in place. At Fujifilm, on the other hand, the APS-C system has been part of the brand’s core for many years and is maintained accordingly. And with great and well-deserved success.
It is understandable that a small manufacturer such as Leica cannot maintain five product lines in parallel (medium format S, full format M, SL and Q, APS-C CL/TL) and additionally engage in the compact market, as was the case at times. And yet, the comparison between Leica and Fujifilm shows how far Fujifilm had actually come and what might have been possible for Leica. Sigh.
What do you think?
Is this comparison between real commitment by Fuji — who put all their eggs in the one basket they had — while Leica blinked and lost out due to the lack of commitment? Or should Leica just never have entered the APS-C field? Or never have lost it? What could Leica do to become as accessible as Fujifilm? Or are we comparing apples and oranges? Please let us know in the comments below.
And please don’t hesitate to leave questions for our upcoming big Fujifilm review which will cover the X100VI, the X-T50 and the X-E5. We selected them because all the three are cameras that will appeal to Leica users and similarly minded photographers. We will pick up on as many questions and ideas as possible.
Make a donation to help with our running costs
Did you know that Macfilos is run by five photography enthusiasts based in the UK, USA and Europe? We cover all the substantial costs of running the site, and we do not carry advertising because it spoils readers’ enjoyment. Any amount, however small, will be appreciated, and we will write to acknowledge your generosity.
Having used a Leica X1, Fuji X-E1 and 2, various Leica Ms and a Leica Q2 (but admittedly no L-mount based cameras), I think it all comes down to user experience and unique selling points. Some users will buy Leica for the brand name but most will want to get something unique for the price, something they can’t get with the competition.
The Leica M combines a very traditional camera experience (optical rangefinder, manual focusing, dedicated speed knob and aperture ring) with top-class lenses in a very compact package with a full frame sensor and a (now) modern, clean menu. They basically have no competition and they can (unfortunately) charge as much as they want for it.
The Fuji X system probably delivers the next best thing if you are after that kind of experience (rangefinder-shaped camera with dedicated speed knob and aperture ring on most of their lenses) and, with an X-Pro (or an X100), you even keep an OVF. You trade a smaller sensor for much cheaper prices. Fair enough. Again, not much competition.
Now, did the Leica APS-C mirrorless system bring anything unique to the APS-C mirrorless market, already occupied by Sony and Fuji? The lack of viewfinder until the CL and the very limited lens range (mostly slow zooms) certainly did not help.
Excellent article JP. Commitment is essential. And having seen what happened to the T/CL I would e.g. strongly advise Leica against (as rumored) releasing a new medium format system on the market. Unless Leica finds its own niche it would have a very hard time competing against Hasselblad and Fuji. Both Hasselblad and Fuji are 100% committed to their systems whereas Leica is truly only 100% committed to the M. It does not stop there though, both Hasselblad and Fuji listen to their customers, every release is a significant improvement over the previous one, they operate at a much faster pace than Leica and they are honestly much more innovative than present day Leica as well.
I suspect you are right on this. You might have seen on a rumour site recently, that the L-Mount system accounts for only about 8% of Leica sales. I don’t know if this is true or not, but it shows that the M and Q lines are dominant. I also think a venture into MF could be problematic without full commitment to development and a rapid lens road map.
It was 12%, wasn’t it? The 8% was for D-Lux and Sofort if I recall correctly. First of all, even if these numbers are correct, we don’t know what they mean: are lens sales included? are we talking dollar value or number of units sold? etc. Assuming these numbers are correct, the 12% would have been more than I expected… My gut feel would have been more something like 55% Q, 40% M and 5% SL (making abstraction of D-Lux/Sofort). That being said, I still do believe the L-mount has a lot of potential, especially in the video (hybrid) market, but that potential would need to come from companies like DJI and Blackmagic stepping in. I do not expect much organic growth from Panasonic/Sigma/Leica.
You are probably right… I was writing from memory and didn’t check. I agree on the potential for L-Mount.