Hands on review from Rangefinder shooter in Tokyo

Catto

Catto

Photographer
Local time
2:18 AM
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
134
Location
Sydney, NSW Australia
View My Gallery
At Steve Huff's blog...

After his first day with it, he says (among other things)...
"Compared to the Leica M9 – well Steve… don’t sell or give away your M9! *The X100 is not a rangefinder camera and is not an alternate for the M9. Comparison with the Leica X1 or other high-end compacts would be more meaningful. The image quality, *performance and rangefinder handling of the M9 are well beyond the X100. This is not a surprise and was also not my reason for getting the X100. What the X100 does well over the M9 though is close-ups, useable high ISO output, good auto white balance, clean JPG output, silent shutter and pocketable size. And, lots of fun!"

Interesting other notes as well - definitely well worth a read. Sounds like he had the same problem with close-up focus that I was having, but I didn't realize the minimum distance was so great when not in macro mode. Still - I'm getting one!
R
 
Thanks Robert - that's a useful review. The manual focus option sounds very usable. I almost always pre-focus with the M4. Comparisons with M9 are meaningless for me as 1. I'll never own one and 2. the X100 was never designed to compete with the M9. It sounds like it should produce images that should be comparable with my APS-C dSLR, and that will be fine for my needs. This should be a nice companion camera to carry when I'm using the Hasselblad kit for B&W work.
 
I'm curious about what the photographer means when he says the X100 is not an alternate for the M9. Any camera can be an alternate to the M9. My Speed Graphic is an alternate to M9... it just does some things better and some worse.

Any specifics? Like: Prints made from M9 are gorgeous and prints from X100 are c**p? Or: M9 attracts babes and X100 doesn't? Or: You can change lenses on the M9, but can't seem to get the lens off the X100? Stuff like that would be helpful. Otherwise, we might as well wait until we have one in our hands.
 
My Speed Graphic is an alternate to M9... it just does some things better and some worse.
Click to expand...
I agree with Jamie. A subjective comparison is not much help to other reading an article or post. I prefer my Minolta Himatic but that doesn't make it easier for others to comprehend why.
 
Jamie and Eurotramp - at the risk of stating the obvious, did you guys follow the link, read the article, and look at the images? It seems a lot like your comments are based solely on the short excerpt I included here, not the paragraphs of commentary he made at the blog...or am I wrong?

He compares it to the M9 because he's writing a guest entry on the blog of an M9 owner, so in that context a comparison would seem totally valid...
R
 
Great news on the silent shutter - that's actually really important to me.

Not so good on the focusing being slower than the GF1 - although it seems that the manual focusing is much better thought-out than we expected. It means, to me, that it might be a meaningful replacement for my Hexar AF - which won't really do zone focusing easily.
 
I thought the review was pretty informative. I'm encouraged that the reviewer found manual focus to be easy to integrate, but I'm disappointed that the AF performance seems slower than the GF1. That's a bit of a let down. We'll see what some other users have to say.
 
Dear Catto,
Yes infact I did read the article and i follow steve huff's site once in a while.
He compares it to the M9 because he's writing a guest entry on the blog of an M9 owner, so in that context a comparison would seem totally valid...
Click to expand...
I have a philosophical aversion to a hasty comparison. Would you compare an slr with a rangefinder or even an entry level slr with a top of the line model? To me and i presume many others, a comparison is meaningless if they are not made objectively or for dis-similar products that cannot serve as a benchmark for the other. Further, it doesn't matter how the X100 stacks up against the M9, it has to stand up on its own merits.
 
thanks for posting. comparisons to M9 and X1 were not big deal to me, but if there were Speed Graphic, I would have been surprised 😱

edit: dont seem to get used to largish size of this new cam. M3 on review is almost same size.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I agree, full frame cameras are full frame cameras, I'd expect their image quality to be better - so I would expect a M9 to have better quality than an X100. Just like I'd expect a medium format film camera to have high quality than a 35mm image.

The question is more what does the X100 give you over a M9 and how important are the differences to you as an individual.
 
Paul T. said:
Great news on the silent shutter - that's actually really important to me.

Not so good on the focusing being slower than the GF1 - although it seems that the manual focusing is much better thought-out than we expected. It means, to me, that it might be a meaningful replacement for my Hexar AF - which won't really do zone focusing easily.
Click to expand...

I see from the manual that silent mode also disables the flash, clearly it's designed for theatre/music recitals etc.
 
My Review Based on What I've Read/Seen So Far...

APS-C camera that has a classic rangefinder form factor with very good APS-C output comparable to any recent APS-C DSLR. Optical/Electronic viewfinder is innovative and interesting, but "meh" doesn't float my goat all that much, seems more gimicky than useful. Can be considered a tad overpriced if compared to compact DSLR kits, 4/3'rds cameras, and EVILS but can also be viewed as a bargain if adding in the price of its high-quality fast lens, or if comparing it to alternatives from Leica - M8. (The M9 isn't a valid comparison imo, since the M9 is a high-end full frame camera costing many times more than the Fuji.) Lacks the versatility of a DSLR, a bit easier to carry around - and it's sexy looking.

I've cooled to this camera since its announcement. It's not a camera I'll ever own, happy with what I have. But it's a nice to see another alternative in this form factor that doesn't cheat on sensor size to reduce body size (and manufacturing cost) like the 4/3 cameras.

If you're looking for the best bang for the buck, my 2 cents is the fine compact DSLRs - even the entry-level ones, by the major manufacturers are still the way to go. If you get one with an articulated LCD, it's probably a better street tool as well and there are many more lens options to play around with... They're certainly more versatile at the price of some added bulk and weight (which is no big deal to me...) If you must have a rangefinder-esque form factor, this is a good option among the few but one of an average or possibly below average value proposition when all is said and done.

The best value for high image quality street photography is still the classic gear of your choosing, a roll of film, and a good neg scanner. There will never be a "full frame" digital rangefinder that you can slip in your pocket like an XA, RC, Auto S3, CC, Minox, Rollei, Retina - or even the better compact fixed-lens pont-n-shooters, which cost a fraction of the price of the digital alternatives.

A. Infrared = digital
B. Anything zoom = digital
C. Macro = digital
D. Low light = digital (4/3, APS-C, Full Frame)
E. Prolific shooting = digital

A2. The hands-down, bar none, far and away bestest image quality in good light = film (medium/large format)
B2. "The full frame advantage" in a tiny form factor = film
C2. Fun craft vs Tech-chore = film
D2. Fun inexpensive hobby collecting and using vintage cameras/lenses = film

The fundamental issue with 4/3'rds, EVILS, and this X100 is that they intrude into the domain of where film is better than digital at "B2" and are impractical technologies, overall. From a pragmatic standpoint, it makes as little sense to use this or any of the other alternatives as a tool for "B2" purposes, as it does from a pragmatic standpoint to shoot infrared film (which is completely absurd) or have some ridiculous honkin' zoom lens on a monopod attached to your film camera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
855
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
Compact Fast Lensed Rangefinder 35mm Cameras
2
Replies
22
Views
11K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
8K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
Back
Top Bottom