Can the Fuji x100s compare to a film Leica? Camera advice needed.

I owned the original X100 (also an X-Pro1, which I still have), an M6, and now an MP.

The X100 was a great camera, and the X100s is even better.

In no way was it comparable in usability to either of my film Leicas.
 
M and film is a Bicycle
X100 is a Vespa

Once you get there does it matter how you arrived?

I like both very much. You can't loose.

Cheers!

oh and 5Dii (my personal fave) is a Land rover in this case :p
 
edge100 said:
I owned the original X100 (also an X-Pro1, which I still have), an M6, and now an MP.

The X100 was a great camera, and the X100s is even better.

In no way was it comparable in usability to either of my film Leicas.
Click to expand...

As an owner and user of an M2, an M4-P, an M9-P and an X100, I'd have to say they're comparable, in that they're all very good picture-making machines, once you learn how to use them.

As a low-light camera, the X100 has 'em all beat, IMO.
 
maggieo said:
As an owner and user of an M2, an M4-P, an M9-P and an X100, I'd have to say they're comparable, in that they're all very good picture-making machines, once you learn how to use them.

As a low-light camera, the X100 has 'em all beat, IMO.
Click to expand...

The X100 is a brilliant picture-making machine. No disagreement here.

As for low light, well, I suppose that's subjective. I'd take pushed Tri-X, Delta 3200, or CineStill over the X100.
 
I was never a fan of those filmstocks, so yeah, totally subjective. All of them can be made to work wonderfully.
 
there's still no way to change scale focus "in a snap" like you can on a leica, and the autofocus at ev3-5 is about 1-2 generations away from good dslr autofocus, but it will work great if you don't need it to do that sort of thing.
 
ray*j*gun said:
This is off point ... well maybe not....I brought my M8u to a camera shop this weekend where they had a Sony A7 on display (the manager had never seen an M) and in 5 mins the customers were all over the M and had abandoned the Sony based only on feel and touch. I am certainly aware of the digi revolution lol but a Leica still feels like a man among boys. (Commence throwing rocks.... now lol)
Click to expand...

I don't own a digital M but an M4 and M6 and I agree. Nothing else is a Leica.
 
f16sunshine said:
M and film is a Bicycle
X100 is a Vespa

Once you get there does it matter how you arrived?

I like both very much. You can't loose.

Cheers!

oh and 5Dii (my personal fave) is a Land rover in this case :p
Click to expand...

If that bicycle is a late 70s Bianchi Rekord in Celeste #227 with full 6-spd Super Record you'd have that Vespa way more than half beaten. :D

s-a
 
I've both the X100 and X100s and a number of Leicas. I don't buy the perspective that the X100 series is a digital rangefinder. It isn't a rangefinder and it is smaller than the Leicas. Function is rather different, but not the new age controls found on Sony mirrorless. So, best advice given in this thread is to find a local shop and try the X100(s) for yourself... or rent one.

For me, the color rendition can replace color film... I still love Velvia 50... but black and white is a different beast and I still prefer film to my digital conversions.
 
What wonderful but varied responses! You guys/gals are brilliant! Thanks so much! Based on your comments it seems it is definitely worth giving the Fuji a try.

Just to clarify that I'm not a Leica fanboy but I just love the M7/35mm summicron/Provia 100 combo. It is the best setup I have used for street photography but film costs/processing and time scanning is bleeding me dry. The digital Leicas just don't work for me. I used the M9 for a few months and the M240 for a week and neither agreed with me.

I really only need a camera with manual controls, ISO up to 800, quiet shutter but no lag, zone focusing, great lens performance at f8 with minimal distortion, and an OVF. Is that too much to ask? :D

One more question if I may…how would the Fuji x100s compare with the XPro1/23mm lens in terms of my needs? The only real difference I can see is that the XPro1-23mm combo is physically larger. Is the OVF different?
 
Love mine. Not a Leica, but not meant to be. Utterly silent, reasonably fast AF even in low light (though, perhaps, not at f2/iso6400), great low-light camera (I shoot at 6400 all the time), tiny... If you're using it in situations with actual light (to replace Provia 100), ISO 800 will give lovely files with plenty fast AF.

X-Pro is a bigger camera. One of the real attractions to me about the x100s is that it's P&S size, and I shoot with relative abandon when the mood strikes.

Note - RAW files are that weird Fuji format, so if you shoot RAW, either get a great graphics card for your computer or be prepared for a fair amount of image lag in LR. That's probably the worst thing I can say about the camera.
 
I had the x100 and x100s and sold both and kept the Leicas.
Controls fiddly -- loose on/ off switch.
Rangefinder focussing is not replicated by the x100.
Yes you can use auto ISO and easily change the aperture and shutter speed.
Fuji flares easily wide open and soft wide open and close focus.
Noise might be less than the M8 or m9 but at the expense of acuity.
Viewfinder is dimmer and smaller than the leica 0.72
 
Digital is not film and Fuji x100s is not Leica. I have seen film emulated files better or worse but none of them looked like film. Apples and oranges imo.
 
Michalm said:
Digital is not film and Fuji x100s is not Leica. I have seen film emulated files better or worse but none of them looked like film. Apples and oranges imo.
Click to expand...

a digital sensor captures three greyscale image of each additive color, the same as our eyes or like kodochrome.

that is the content of the RAW file - there is no color - color is added through interpolation with software. so its the raw converter or the jpg engine in the camera that assigns color as red green and blue.

what this means is the more RAw software improves the more RAW files from the past will improve.

not to forget any image that you see on your monitor is produced by the color and contrast capability of your monitor........
 
I bought an x100 as a stop gap while my M9 was away getting fixed, the only reason I sold it was I worried I wouldn't use the M9 enough anymore.
 
I think you can do most of what you had on your list with the X100/s. It is a remarkable little camera that exceeded the very considerable hype that preceded its release. I am fussy and like my M2 and digital Ms as much as anyone, but for a single camera all day I am very happy with my X100, especially the OVF, and increasingly the EVF. The lens is a beauty. Not zero distortion, but not noticeable distortion in most shots, and I am interested in buildings and shoot a lot of them. The cleverness is everywhere in this camera. I got a panning shot of a cyclist coming down a city street, and I was able to switch from aperture priority to shutter priority at 1/30s in a second or so, and made the shot. That's like a Leica, except I didn't have to do any calculations. You can use auto-ISO in the way that you want to, setting aperture and speed and letting the camera pick the ISO. I think if I was travelling I would just take the X100.
 
Pretty much the only problem with the x100s is that it doesn have the following written on it with big fat red letters:

THIS IS NOT A RANGEFINDER
DO NOT COMPARE WITH A RANGEFINDER

Admittedly, the fact that it looks like an RF doesnt really help but what can you do.
If someone absolutely needs to compare it with something try the Hexar AF, you will find it's a very good digital translation.
 
I use both (Fuji X100s and Leica M4 and M6.) The Fuji is a great little APS-C digital camera with a fixed lens and the Leica is a great little 35mm film camera with interchangeable lenses.

The Fuji might look like a Leica (kind of) on the outside, but that's where it all ends. The Fuji is 100% electronic with the 'feeling' of using an analog camera. The OVF is simply a window with an electronic overlay. The aperture ring on the lens is not mechanical but electronic. Although Fuji did a good job of giving it a 'feel' of using a mechanical lens. The Fuji also has electronic manual focusing.

The Leica is fully mechanical aside from a metering system that relies on battery power. The Leica focuses manually without electronics. The Leica also allows you to mount Leitz, Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander M mount lenses. The Fuji lens is pretty decent stopped down but is soft in the corners wide open. Most Leica lenses can be used wide open with little if any compromises.

With the Fuji you can use it in low light, but you're limited with film ISO using the Leica. But then again, one is film and one is digital. You get a true film 'look' with the Leica and you get a digitized 'film look' with the Fuji. Both will look fine depending on your tastes and needs, etc.. I happen to like the look of film which is why I have film cameras in addition to digital cameras. They aren't the same animal both in function and in the images they produce.

In the end, it's not like comparing a Honda with a Toyota, or a BMW with an Audi. A digital Fuji and a Leica film M are two completely different cameras in both function, feel, and image production. Neither are a substitute for each other.
 
The X100 is a middle-of-the-road sized camera. If you're going X100, take the M9 (if you like RF shooting...I think the M9 faster in use). If you want a compact, get a Ricoh GR and slip it into your pocket.

The X100 has great color in it's jpegs, and great for low-light, but I'm a RAW shooter and go b&w very often anyway.

Also, an observation from the past three days here in Texas...the M9 can be handled easily with gloves on...the X100, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom