willie_901
Veteran
bob338
Well-known
He sounds more and more like Ken Rockwell.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^--- Please, elaborate.
bob338
Well-known
Puts seems to glorify almost everything he writes about.
Ken glorifies everything he writes about.
Ken glorifies everything he writes about.
bob338
Well-known
I compared Puts to Ken because it seems to me that he desperately seems to want to write a positive review of it for some reason. Comparing an X100 to a full frame Leica is absurd.
Perhaps I would consider the review more if there weren't test charts involved. Since when do Leica-philes go by test charts? The Japanese had us beat decades ago! People buy Leica lenses, or so I thought, because they have a characteristic look about them, not because you can photograph a newspaper or zoom in on some inconsequential tiny part of the image.
Comparing A3 prints from each camera is nonsense. That's like comparing 2 different 35mm lenses at f8; you're not going to see much difference, they're both probably acceptable. My Canon Elph(or whatever it's called) can print to A3 without any issues.
The X100 is a sheep in wolf's clothing, and for whatever reason people haven't figured that out yet, even Erwin Puts.
my .02
Perhaps I would consider the review more if there weren't test charts involved. Since when do Leica-philes go by test charts? The Japanese had us beat decades ago! People buy Leica lenses, or so I thought, because they have a characteristic look about them, not because you can photograph a newspaper or zoom in on some inconsequential tiny part of the image.
Comparing A3 prints from each camera is nonsense. That's like comparing 2 different 35mm lenses at f8; you're not going to see much difference, they're both probably acceptable. My Canon Elph(or whatever it's called) can print to A3 without any issues.
The X100 is a sheep in wolf's clothing, and for whatever reason people haven't figured that out yet, even Erwin Puts.
my .02
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Have you extensively used both cameras, Bob, or are you just blowing smoke?
I ask, because Puts bases his arguments on evidence, and you (so far) don't.
I ask, because Puts bases his arguments on evidence, and you (so far) don't.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Evidence for what, Patrick? What claims does Puts make that are unsupported by his test photographs? Both you and Bob are a bit... vague on this point.
(I should note, by the way, that I own neither an X100 nor a digital M, so I've made no purchases that require defending here.)
(I should note, by the way, that I own neither an X100 nor a digital M, so I've made no purchases that require defending here.)
Last edited:
rdeleskie
Well-known
How is a X100 a sheep in wolf's clothing?
bob338
Well-known
bob338
Well-known
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
What other "point-and-shoots" can you name that offer full manual control, and have a heads-up real-time DoF graph and histogram in the finder, Bob?
Last edited:
bob338
Well-known
If I were looking for a war I would say RD-1, but I'm not. I'm just tired of hearing about this thing.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Of course they're different. That would be the point of doing a comparison, yes?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I guess those features were added to the RD-1 in a late-braking and poorly-publicized firmware update. You might want to let Sean Reid know.
bob338
Well-known
Oops, point taken. I guess I should have countered with 'Who wants manual controls in a digital point and shoot?
I guess those features were added to the RD-1 in a late-braking and poorly-publicized firmware update. You might want to let Sean Reid know.
a10101100
Owl in a human suit.
maybe the comparison is based solely on the appearance! *chuckles
i'm not a technical person, far from it.. and am pretty new to my M9 and never used the X100 though I was reading reviews and even manuals waiting for it to be released.. but i just found the price tag a bit ridiculous.. i wont mind to have one to try for free though!
I love the M experience but i really miss getting up close and personal shots with my food (and coffee)!
oh yes, now i sound like a bit of nut, no?
i'm not a technical person, far from it.. and am pretty new to my M9 and never used the X100 though I was reading reviews and even manuals waiting for it to be released.. but i just found the price tag a bit ridiculous.. i wont mind to have one to try for free though!
I love the M experience but i really miss getting up close and personal shots with my food (and coffee)!
oh yes, now i sound like a bit of nut, no?
rdeleskie
Well-known
I read Puts' review, based on the link provided by the OP (thanks for including it Bob).
It seems Puts started out comparing the X100 to the Leica CM and X1 - fair comparisons IMO (they are all luxo fixed-lens compacts). Here the analogy would not be a Bugatti and a Corvette, but an Audi and a Lexus ("semi-affordable" German vs Japanese luxury items).
I think he wandered into the M9 comparison primarily for rhetorical reasons. If I remember correctly, Puts, like many others, has been speculating about what direction Leica might take with the M series rangefinder. What will/can an M10 be like? Simply a M9 with a more recent sensor? Or are there other ways they might integrate modern technology while still retaining the essential appeal and functionality of the classic M design? The X100 seems to have provoking such musings among other commentators, probably because it combines high build-quality and a retro look along with a dual-system viewfinder. (OT, I don't consider the M8/M9 to be self-consciously retro in the way the X100 is, but that's another discussion I think).
The upcoming Sony NEX7 will likely generate further discussion along the same lines.
Puts comparison between a current APS-C and a two-year old FF sensor is interesting (and not entirely surprising) from a qualitative perspective. But I agree with Bob when he says it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
Extrapolating from Puts' article, another question poses itself: going forward, if Leica digital-Ms are not to be defined strictly by the technical quality of their sensors, their "retro" styling, or their possession of alternate/optical viewfinder (because other new cameras can provide rough equivalents of these things), then what are to be their defining features? At the same time, can a future digital-M incorporate any of the technology found in cameras like the X100 (dual-style viewfinder, live-view, AF, etc.) the upcoming NEX7, the current GXR Mount A12, and still retain it's essential Leica-ness?
The first question is easier to answer than the first, I think. Lens selection and quality, rangefinder focusing and ergonomics still make the M-series unique, as do the optimization of the digital-M sensors (no AA filter, micro lenses, etc.). These are the reasons I recently chose to buy an M8 as opposed to a X100, NEX5n/7, GXR, etc. (My "new" M8 also has something else these other cameras don't have: a roundtrip ticket to NJ to fix the vertical line problem ;p)
But what if you added a true rangefinder to a GXR with the new Mount A12 module? Or a digital/live-view rangefinder to a NEX7? And could a Leica M10 or M11 incorporate any of the features of those cameras and still be a "true" M-series camera?
This is a more intriguing question I think, and more difficult to answer. Leica chose to answer "no" to a similar question in the 1980s & 90s (where the CLE and Hexar RF were technologically "more advanced"). I wonder how they will answer it this time around.
It seems Puts started out comparing the X100 to the Leica CM and X1 - fair comparisons IMO (they are all luxo fixed-lens compacts). Here the analogy would not be a Bugatti and a Corvette, but an Audi and a Lexus ("semi-affordable" German vs Japanese luxury items).
I think he wandered into the M9 comparison primarily for rhetorical reasons. If I remember correctly, Puts, like many others, has been speculating about what direction Leica might take with the M series rangefinder. What will/can an M10 be like? Simply a M9 with a more recent sensor? Or are there other ways they might integrate modern technology while still retaining the essential appeal and functionality of the classic M design? The X100 seems to have provoking such musings among other commentators, probably because it combines high build-quality and a retro look along with a dual-system viewfinder. (OT, I don't consider the M8/M9 to be self-consciously retro in the way the X100 is, but that's another discussion I think).
The upcoming Sony NEX7 will likely generate further discussion along the same lines.
Puts comparison between a current APS-C and a two-year old FF sensor is interesting (and not entirely surprising) from a qualitative perspective. But I agree with Bob when he says it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
Extrapolating from Puts' article, another question poses itself: going forward, if Leica digital-Ms are not to be defined strictly by the technical quality of their sensors, their "retro" styling, or their possession of alternate/optical viewfinder (because other new cameras can provide rough equivalents of these things), then what are to be their defining features? At the same time, can a future digital-M incorporate any of the technology found in cameras like the X100 (dual-style viewfinder, live-view, AF, etc.) the upcoming NEX7, the current GXR Mount A12, and still retain it's essential Leica-ness?
The first question is easier to answer than the first, I think. Lens selection and quality, rangefinder focusing and ergonomics still make the M-series unique, as do the optimization of the digital-M sensors (no AA filter, micro lenses, etc.). These are the reasons I recently chose to buy an M8 as opposed to a X100, NEX5n/7, GXR, etc. (My "new" M8 also has something else these other cameras don't have: a roundtrip ticket to NJ to fix the vertical line problem ;p)
But what if you added a true rangefinder to a GXR with the new Mount A12 module? Or a digital/live-view rangefinder to a NEX7? And could a Leica M10 or M11 incorporate any of the features of those cameras and still be a "true" M-series camera?
This is a more intriguing question I think, and more difficult to answer. Leica chose to answer "no" to a similar question in the 1980s & 90s (where the CLE and Hexar RF were technologically "more advanced"). I wonder how they will answer it this time around.
Last edited:
palec
Well-known
I agree with you, there is a certain assurance about which way most reviews at imx.nl are done after reading first few sentences. Be it continuous bashing of Voigtländer lenses and praising Leica ones as an example. Reviewer finds or not sympathy towards certain product and the review is done to support this theory.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That's inaccurate.
Puts has heaped praise on a number of Cosina-manufactured lenses*, and he's said that many others are good -- fully usable for pictorial photography -- but not at the top, in a technical sense.
How can one begin to call that "continuous bashing?"
*Notably, he thinks extremely highly of several ZM's including the 50 Planar (equal to the Summicron); 25 and 21 Biogon (right up there with Leica designs that were available at the same time); 35 C-Biogon (as good as the Summarit, which he says is as good as the Summicron ASPH -- but with the C-Biogon having better overall flare control); similarly, he praises the 50/3.5 Heliar which, he indicates, gives the current collapsible Elmarit a sound thrashing.
palec
Well-known
He always finds something (varying from review to review) on similar Leica products better, that's it.
I remember an article about Cosina's own glass lab and the result was that's not worth the trouble, because Leitz did have one in past and now they don't. Always having Leica as a benchmark does not make sense to me.
I should add that in past I have found his direct comparisons and tests flawed (like digital M9 vs technical film). If all his reviews and opinions are done this way, I have real doubts in their validity.
I remember an article about Cosina's own glass lab and the result was that's not worth the trouble, because Leitz did have one in past and now they don't. Always having Leica as a benchmark does not make sense to me.
I should add that in past I have found his direct comparisons and tests flawed (like digital M9 vs technical film). If all his reviews and opinions are done this way, I have real doubts in their validity.