How many M8 and M9 owners are considering the x100 and why
- Thread starter eleskin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 11K
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, exactly -- but consider the original question.
What is an X100 going to give me than an M9 doesn't? Autofocus, which I've already said I don't like; a fixed lens; lower image quality. Why am I going to bother?
If I'm genuinely worried about the security of my camera I'm going to be as unwilling to risk $1200 as $8000+ (put a lens on the front). I'll use an older, cheaper film camera instead.
The only reason I can see to buy an X100 if you already have an M9 (or an M8/M8.2) is ... Well, OK, you could call it a 'back-up' but that looks like rationalization to me.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator:
dave lackey
Veteran
Agreed.🙂 But when is a backup with lower image quality camera a backup? Sounds like more of a band-aid than a substitute.😛 All kidding aside, why use a X100 for a backup? A backup should be just as usable and capable as the primary camera. Now, if one is to use the X100 for receptions, snaps, and other useful shooting, well,.....but not as a replacement for the primary.😉
Seems the OP has made up his mind but not sure why we are responding anyway. LOL...
Last edited by a moderator:
MIkhail
Well-known
Thanks, Roger.
I would think, for such type of work, the light pocketable camera with fast lens would be appealing.... I am sure it will not replace the M9 in versatility.
But the price, as somebody said here already, makes the digital rangefinder available to a person who wants it and cannot afford M9.
I consider myself well into an upper middle class, but cannot even think of justifications to my family to buy M9. I guess if I was a pro photographer and it was a tool needed for a job... But then, all the pros that I know (I personally know few) reach for Canon 5d..
X100 allows me to have a digital rangefinder and keep shooting pictures without looking downright silly with that NEX3 in hands stretched out in front of me...
deirdre
Well-known
I have a wait-and-see attitude about it. It looks like a digital Yashica Electro or Canonet, which is fine, but I'm unlikely to need a fixed-lens digital. I'm more likely to buy an older fixed-lens film camera, frankly.
(Cameras I have: M8, Panasonic GF1, Nikonos V. Cameras on the way: Leica CL, Zeiss Super Ikonta.)
(Cameras I have: M8, Panasonic GF1, Nikonos V. Cameras on the way: Leica CL, Zeiss Super Ikonta.)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mikhail,
Yes, indeed, it would be appealing, and yes, indeed, it won't approach the M9 in versatility.
My response is purely to the original question. As I say, it looks like a very nice camera, and many people are likely to be very happy with it, but M8/8.2/9 owners have rather fewer reasons than most for buying an RF looklike with a fixed lens.
For studio use I'd much prefer an S2, Hasselblad or a digi back for my Alpa -- nothing I do or have ever done could justify a big, 'professional' (= newspaper) Canon or Nikon DSLR -- but I'd find a fixed wide-angle very limiting for illustrating anything but the most basic articles.
I've long owned a number of smaller, lighter film cameras than my film Leicas, such as a Retina IIa and an Olympus Pen W, and I rarely use 'em for precisely the reasons listed in my Short Schrift. Indeed that's why I gave away my Konica fixed-lens RF. If I never used the more limited cameras with film, why would I do it with digital?
@Dave: Well, the obvious reason for an inferior back-up is that you can't afford two M9s -- I surely can't -- but an M8 or film M or both strikes me as a much better back-up than an X100. Note: "inferior" only in the sense that film is a lot more hassle when you're working professionally. Otherwise film is somewhere between 'at least as good' and (especially in B+W, for which there's ever less demand professionally) 'better'.
Cheers,
R.
I was close to pre-ordering the X-100. I've decided to get the M9, selling off some gear. If I really sell off some gear in a serious manner, it would get an M9 with a new Noctilux. That would mean a lot of trips to the post office for 1/3 of an F-Stop over my Nokton, so not worth it.
nex100
Established
Probably not. For less money I can get a ZM 35mm f2 Biogon and use it on the M9.
tele_player
Member
I'll consider it. I'd sometimes like autofocus, and I don't always enjoy carrying $10K worth of bling around.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I wouldn't know: I've never tried it. But $10K (or even $20K) of tools is a different matter.
Cheers,
R.
250swb
Well-known
The X100 is a superb camera for sure, and if I didn't have an M9 I'd probably buy one.
I think having one as well as an M9 would be pointless, it doesn't compliment the M9 very well, a GH2 would deal with the video, auto focus, zoom lens, telephoto and macro things that an M9 can't do very well, and fill in those gaps much better than a X100. There is no doubt its going to be a cult classic, but I'm afraid it is going to rest more on its cult status than its limited ability as a fully rounded camera.
Steve
I think having one as well as an M9 would be pointless, it doesn't compliment the M9 very well, a GH2 would deal with the video, auto focus, zoom lens, telephoto and macro things that an M9 can't do very well, and fill in those gaps much better than a X100. There is no doubt its going to be a cult classic, but I'm afraid it is going to rest more on its cult status than its limited ability as a fully rounded camera.
Steve
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Or maybe the person with the M8 or M9 realizes they'd prefer a less-expensive alternative - at 1/3 or 1/6 the cost. Considering how many times the one-lens/one body philosophy is touted on this forum, I could see this camera appealing to a lot of people - if it proves to be a producer of great images.
Personally, I'm a long way from ordering one of these. And I don't count myself a fan. But I'm willing to wait and see how it performs before declaring where it fits in the world of cameras.
And I don't mind the retro styling. The camera has to have some physical form. Why not retro? From a business perspective - based on the buzz they've created - it's pretty hard to argue that it was bad decision.
tele_player
Member
I'll admit, I only use a camera for pleasure - but it's really not 'bling' to me, either, though it could fairly be called an expensive toy. My point is that losing or damaging a $1200 camera is much less painful than losing or damaging a $10K camera and lens.
Paterson
Member
The x100 is a pro level RF camera, as digital goes it makes any other digital RF that came out six months ago obsolete. It will also be obsolete in 6 months. I do want to stress that I will probably purchase one for the following reasons. The leaf shutter is a no brainer, the high ISO capability. The fixed lens is not a problem since it equals a 35mm, thats what I use most of the time with my R2M. The ability to take macro photos and close ups is also a huge plus. Video mode, Raw files, build quality and the price. I cannot justify spending $7000 on a M9 that is limited in it's functions to that of a film camera. I would get far better results with film.
charles.k
charles.k
Having the M9, and lenses to match, my preferred option with an APS-C sized sensor and high ISO capability/Video, is to use the NEX 5, and adapter utilizing the existing M mount lenses I have already.
The X100 may be brilliant, but I will wait until it is has been fully evaluated. There many features that appear to outstanding, but does this ultimately translate to great IQ compared to the competition? I am disappointed with the lack of lens changeability, even though I often use one lens. There is a real advantage to change the look and rendering. I think Sony, summed it up suggesting that were surprised by the market response of usage of non legacy lenses on the NEX series.
The X100 may be brilliant, but I will wait until it is has been fully evaluated. There many features that appear to outstanding, but does this ultimately translate to great IQ compared to the competition? I am disappointed with the lack of lens changeability, even though I often use one lens. There is a real advantage to change the look and rendering. I think Sony, summed it up suggesting that were surprised by the market response of usage of non legacy lenses on the NEX series.
Last edited:
barnwulf
Well-known
Not me! I hardly ever use my M8. I use film cameras most all the time. Jim
250swb
Well-known
The M series Leica's have done fairly well over the years of meeting a photographers needs. Its not going to stop making photographs just because of the X100, or make photographers frustrated they don't have things like video on it (for which you could argue the X100 is particularly limited with a fixed lens). The world isn't going to suddenly find the X100 makes better photographs either. If the M9 fills the main niche in an exceptional way for a photographer its better than a camera that does many things in an average way.
But, if the X100 had been an interchangeable lens camera with an M mount.....................
Steve
Spyro
Well-known
Yeah absolutely. Reason is that all I ever use for personal work is 35/2 anyway, so I dont want to buy an interchangeable mount (that I dont need) and be stuck with a camera incapable of high ISO (that I do need). I'm thinking of keeping the Hexar AF for film and the x100 for digi and selling all RF gear.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes, I've thought about this quite hard, and my conclusion is that if you're that worried about losing or damaging a $7,000 camera, don't buy one.
I can certainly see the logic of an X100 instead of an M, if you don't mind a fixed lens, small-sensor non-rangefinder camera, but I can't see the logic of having one as well.
@Tim: At first sight it looks more retro than it is: they've been unable to resist moulding in a load of bumps and hollows which, for me, greatly reduce its retro appeal. The X1 body is infinitely better styled, except for the collapsible lens. Add a viewfinder and make the lens look more traditional and it would wipe the floor with the X100 in terms of retro styling.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Lss
Well-known
I'm very much interested in the X100, but I need to try the hybrid viewfinder myself before the decision to buy. The magnification seems rather low for a 35mm equivalent, let's see how it feels in actual use. I expect this camera to be a capable backup for the M8 with nice-to-have features such as close focus and video thrown in. It's also much cheaper than buying a Summicron 28, which is sort of my plan A at the moment.
Similar threads
- Article
