Moriturii
Well-known
I have one word to Erwin Puts.
Paragraphs.
Use them. Can't read a wall of text, it's ridiculous.
Paragraphs.
Use them. Can't read a wall of text, it's ridiculous.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Amazing. Puts posts a reasonable and fairly nuanced comparison of two cameras, and the game here is to thoroughly misrepresent what he's actually written.
I'm done with this thread.
I'm done with this thread.
flyalf
Well-known
This thread shows Internet foras in a nutshell. There are always someone just wanting to publish destructive critics.
My opinions are that Puts have done a good piece of work, he is not comparing apples versus oranges but two digital camera's that can solve some of the same photographic challenges and both are producing high quality output. For me this was useful. For other that already own both cameras and have done this comparison I urge you to post results that differ from Puts.
My opinions are that Puts have done a good piece of work, he is not comparing apples versus oranges but two digital camera's that can solve some of the same photographic challenges and both are producing high quality output. For me this was useful. For other that already own both cameras and have done this comparison I urge you to post results that differ from Puts.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
^--- please elaborate
I have to agree with that... I use both and I think Puts, whom I don't care for due to writing style, is actually right on point.
Therefore, you keep coming into threads about the camera?
When I don't care for a camera, I don't read about it.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
seems a reasonable 'light' review to me. Seems fairly objective and the images do the talking. I dont think he over hypes the X100 at all, merely stating that at modest enlargements the differences in image quality are minimal. I think that's what most people expected to read.
willie_901
Veteran
Any camera with automatic exposure can be used as a point & shoot camera. Even an optical RF film camera with aperture automation can be set to a hyperfocal point and used like a P&S camera. So the P&S label is meaningless.
Puts showed a $,1700 lens on a $7,000 camera outperforms a $1,200 camera. The question is: are the results with Leica's technology 7 times better? The answer depends on the viewpoint and needs of the photographer... and of course there is no single correct answer.
My take is: Puts is mostly interested in the future challenges Leica faces from state-of-the-art CMOS sensors and innovative technologies like the X100's OVF/EVF system.
As a X100 owner I think Puts addressed the X100 AF controversy well. There is no controversy. The X100 AF works as most contrast AF systems work. The AF is competent and one has to invest some time in learning how to use it. My keeper rate (or frustration rate) is about the same as I experienced with a Zeiss Ikon M camera. For both cameras miss-focused photos are entirely my fault. My in-focus rate with D200/300700 cameras and an AF lens approaches 100%. But I won't carry the DSLRs with me where ever I go so the in-focus rate is zero if I don't use the camera because it's large, heavy and loud.
Finally I was surprised the M9 still exhibits some degree of IR contamination. This is the first I'd seen this.
Puts showed a $,1700 lens on a $7,000 camera outperforms a $1,200 camera. The question is: are the results with Leica's technology 7 times better? The answer depends on the viewpoint and needs of the photographer... and of course there is no single correct answer.
My take is: Puts is mostly interested in the future challenges Leica faces from state-of-the-art CMOS sensors and innovative technologies like the X100's OVF/EVF system.
As a X100 owner I think Puts addressed the X100 AF controversy well. There is no controversy. The X100 AF works as most contrast AF systems work. The AF is competent and one has to invest some time in learning how to use it. My keeper rate (or frustration rate) is about the same as I experienced with a Zeiss Ikon M camera. For both cameras miss-focused photos are entirely my fault. My in-focus rate with D200/300700 cameras and an AF lens approaches 100%. But I won't carry the DSLRs with me where ever I go so the in-focus rate is zero if I don't use the camera because it's large, heavy and loud.
Finally I was surprised the M9 still exhibits some degree of IR contamination. This is the first I'd seen this.
elmer3.5
Well-known
Hi, i love my leica x1 because it´s small and with a 24mm lens i set 10 feet and f5.6 and go shooting without concern!
The m9 doesn´t have crop factor so i can use all sort of lenses on it, of course technology (and brands) will out perform the m9 sensor in many ways but when will them outperform the m9 in terms of crop factor.
The m9 is a punching camera without crop sensor, and will be that way for many many years!
Would love to see some nex, fuji camera or sigma cam with FF sensor!!!
Bye
The m9 doesn´t have crop factor so i can use all sort of lenses on it, of course technology (and brands) will out perform the m9 sensor in many ways but when will them outperform the m9 in terms of crop factor.
The m9 is a punching camera without crop sensor, and will be that way for many many years!
Would love to see some nex, fuji camera or sigma cam with FF sensor!!!
Bye
bob338
Well-known
How often have I commented on the X100? Maybe a couple of times, at most, and that doesn't seem excessive to me.
Therefore, you keep coming into threads about the camera?
When I don't care for a camera, I don't read about it.
Ok, my mistake... I thought you said you were tired of hearing about the camera. I just thought if you were tired, you'd ignore threads like this. However, I'm sure you don't need this lecture from me, so I apologize.