Fuji x100 compared to Leica X1 M9

Not much of an article there, it's basically just three columns with a few generic specifications that everybody knows by now anyway.

My favourite is the remark "May vary upon actual release" in the X100 column, closely followed by the sentence "if we were to assume that you can only afford a 35mm lens for you M9, highly unlikely we know for big spending Leica owners" which seems to form the basis for his inclusion of the M9 in the first place.

So it's basically just more of the same buzz that we've been witnessing over the last four months or so.
 
Last edited:
I don't see that the M9 belongs in this comparison but it's intersting to see what you get on the Fuji that you don't get on the X1.

You do get that red dot on the X1 though and that means a lot to some buyers ... not to mention you get to spend a grand more of your hard earned dosh!
 
There is one other point to compare.... 4 actual people are using the X1 and a grand total of ZERO are using the X100.

How about waiting til the little toy is actual out and being used before making comparisons? It may be the greatest camera ever, or a piece of beetle dung, regardless of what we have read about the X100. We won't know that until some folks actually have it and use it.
 
rover said:
There is one other point to compare.... 4 actual people are using the X1 and a grand total of ZERO are using the X100.

How about waiting til the little toy is actual out and being used before making comparisons? It may be the greatest camera ever, or a piece of beetle dung, regardless of what we have read about the X100. We won't know that until some folks actually have it and use it.
Click to expand...

Chances are ist's going to be neither. But a decent camera with some quirks and warts and highlights.
 
The more information I see about the X100 the less I care about it.
Especially after looking at the "sample" images. Everything was shot at 200 ISO
I wonder why they didn't bother to show higher ISO settings? Also, it seems the samples were highly compressed and they were of terrible subject matter.
 
Perfection does not exist in the real world. This applies to cameras as well. Someone can complain that high end Canon or Nikon are heavy with too many menus to navigate. Someone else can complain that the M9 has low high ISO performances, the X1 has slow autofocus (I'm a satisfied owner of this last camera, actually learning how to use it).
But these are real cameras. I feel sure that when the interesting X100 will be sold someone will start to complain for something. Does it mean it is (will be) a bad camera? Not at all, only that there are different photographer with different needs or expectations. It' s part of statistic that someone after purchasing can be not completely satisfied. Just my opinion, cheers

robert
 
Lets face it these cameras (like the Olympus offerings of the last year or so) are designed in large part to appeal to those like us who enjoy older cameras - as proven by their retro styling. I was very nearly tempted to buy an Oly E-P1 or 2 but what killed it for me was - no eye level finder (at least in the early version and only afterward at considerable expense , poor AF and mediocre lens performance based on reports I had read.) I suppose I must own up to being a bit unfair. The fixed focal length Oly lens for this camera seemed to have a better rep and it also had an optical finder that was not over the top expensive unlike the electronic one. But that still left the other issues to deal with.

I must admit the styling of the new x100 is very nice indeed. Lets wait and see how it performs. They claim they have gone down the fixed lens route to give better lens performance. Lets see if they actually hit the target. If they hail that and the focus then it might prove tempting.

Having said that unless it is really something "out of the box" I do not see myself buying one though. I now have an M8 as my "real" camera and a Canon G11 as my lazy man's camera. I would only be tempted if I fall in love.
 
Keith said:
...but it's intersting to see what you get on the Fuji that you don't get on the X1.

You do get that red dot on the X1 though and that means a lot to some buyers ... not to mention you get to spend a grand more of your hard earned dosh!
Click to expand...

Well, that's all nice and all... but I've used my X1 for over a year now and that has to be worth something. :rolleyes:

I'll buy the Fuji, but will keep my X1 as well. It's a great camera despite its ridiculous price tag and slow operation... yes, I said it. Great camera even after the Fuji is released.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, that's all nice and all... but I've used my X1 for over a year now and that has to be worth something. :rolleyes:

I'll buy the Fuji, but will keep my X1 as well. It's a great camera despite its ridiculous price tag and slow operation... yes, I said it. Great camera even after the Fuji is released.
Click to expand...

Curious as to why you plan to keep the X1 once you get the X100 (how is it better than the X100 or differentiates itself from X100).
 
monochromejrnl said:
Curious as to why you plan to keep the X1 once you get the X100 (how is it better than the X100 or differentiates itself from X100).
Click to expand...

Just because I like it... why do I only need to use one camera? The X1 is smaller and lighter... for one thing. It might not be better, but I'm attached to it. I'm not going to sell my Ricoh GXR either. Many would feel these are duplicative... but I don't mind.
 
jsrockit said:
Just because I like it... why do I only need to use one camera? The X1 is smaller and lighter... for one thing. It might not be better, but I'm attached to it. I'm not going to sell my Ricoh GXR either. Many would feel these are duplicative... but I don't mind.
Click to expand...

I see - I can understand - I've become attached to my Contax IIa despite the fact that I rarely use it (M3 is so much better) - then again, I've been planning to sell the CIIa for a while now but can't seem to pull the trigger.

I've noticed a few X1 owners are trying to sell their cameras on the Toronto CL and every couple of weeks they seem to be re-listed at lower asking prices. Personally I couldn't afford to own both and would be compelled to sell the X1 before it's resale value dropped anymore than it has, but it's great if you can afford to keep all three despite the 'overlap'.

It'll be interesting to see if there are any significant differences in IQ between the two when you get the X100.

I currently use GF-1 with 20 and 14mm lenses as my sole digital camera. The IQ from it is more than adequate for prints up to 8x10 and sufficient for 11x14 to my eye. The single most compelling feature of the X100 and the only reason I'm considering it once I get my hands on one is the hybrid OVF/EVF. If IQ is as I suspect no better or worse then the current generation of APS-C dSLR AND the hybrid viewfinder is bright and uncluttered then I might be compelled to buy it.
 
wallace said:
Would it also be curious if someone buys, let's say a Bessa R2M though he already owns a Leica M6 ???
Click to expand...

No, but it would be curious to me if someone who owns a a Bessa L (no viewfinder) and a permanently fixed CV35/2.5 then later buys a M6 with a 35'cron and decides to keep Bessa L.
 
monochromejrnl said:
Personally I couldn't afford to own both and would be compelled to sell the X1 before it's resale value dropped anymore than it has, but it's great if you can afford to keep all three despite the 'overlap'.
Click to expand...

That's understandable. If I could only afford one, I'd probably be into only having an X100 barring any catastrophic shortcomings. By the way, the only thing I have in life is a few cameras, no car, no home, no crazy bills... I choose to live this way and that way I can afford a few cameras.

It'll be interesting to see if there are any significant differences in IQ between the two when you get the X100.
Click to expand...

Well, the X1 is great in this department. It's better than the GXR A12 in this respect. If the X100 beats either of these, I'll be fine with it.

I currently use GF-1 with 20 and 14mm lenses as my sole digital camera. The IQ from it is more than adequate for prints up to 8x10 and sufficient for 11x14 to my eye.
Click to expand...

It's a great camera. I've used one in the past and have made 12x18" prints from it (I used 2:3 mode). I just bought a G2 so my girlfriend will go out and photograph with me... it's pretty nice too. She wanted an EVF, a Zoom, and quick AF in a small package. G2 seemed perfect.

The single most compelling feature of the X100 and the only reason I'm considering it once I get my hands on one is the hybrid OVF/EVF. If IQ is as I suspect no better or worse then the current generation of APS-C dSLR AND the hybrid viewfinder is bright and uncluttered then I might be compelled to buy it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I like it. If it is as good as it looks it will become my primary camera... even over my M8.2. 35mm FL is my favorite and the high ISO and ND filters should allow me to shoot in any situation. I hope Fuji doesn't f it up.
 
If Leica could make the X2 a screw mount fit (with a few new elmarit lenses) they would blow Fuji out of the water...
 
Why buy blue clothes when you have ::gasp:: red clothes? Why would anybody buy an Armani suit when you already have one from Old Navy?

The mind boggles.
 
FalseDigital said:
The more information I see about the X100 the less I care about it.
Especially after looking at the "sample" images. Everything was shot at 200 ISO
I wonder why they didn't bother to show higher ISO settings? Also, it seems the samples were highly compressed and they were of terrible subject matter.
Click to expand...

There are actually numerous samples out at the moment, probably about 20 of them over iso 400. Some at iso 3200, 6400 and 12800. They're amazing - far better than my 5d.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom