kkdanamatt
Well-known
If you have any doubts at all about keeping the X100, then sell it immediately. The price will never rise, it will only fall, so should you change your mind, you will be always be able to buy another X100 for less money in the future.
The M8 is the core of a versatile camera system.
The X100 is (one of) the best point 'n shoot digital cameras, but not a system.
Having both would solve your problem.
The M8 is the core of a versatile camera system.
The X100 is (one of) the best point 'n shoot digital cameras, but not a system.
Having both would solve your problem.
Used M8's have also held there price-point over the last 18 months. You are not risking much financially by selling the X100 and picking up an M8.
On the High-ISO, 1250 is perfectly usable on my M8. 2500 is "pushing it", but better than most people claim. Dynamic range: the X100 uses 12-bit raw files, the Kodak CCD in the M8 has better than 12-bit performance.
On the High-ISO, 1250 is perfectly usable on my M8. 2500 is "pushing it", but better than most people claim. Dynamic range: the X100 uses 12-bit raw files, the Kodak CCD in the M8 has better than 12-bit performance.
Perfect Imposter
Member
Shoot raw, expose properly and use LR3. You should have no problems at 1250, which is roughly equivalent to 1600 on the X100. However, I have to agree with the suggestions to find a way to get the M8 without selling the X100. Or maybe look at an RD-1. I think you will miss the low light capabilities of the X100 if high ISO is a priority for you.
Ntran1986
Newbie
taking a deep breath
taking a deep breath
you all are so fast with your responses. I woke up to another large influx of advice; it makes me think nobody sleeps here haha.
So after a good nights rest, I have decided to keep the x100. I feel that if I were to sell the x100, it would be months of concentrating on gathering funds and searching online for a good body and good glass. It's probably more beneficial for me to stick to what I have and focus on my photography by getting out there and shooting with what I have. In that time, I will just save and buy when the time comes when I can afford to buy an M8(or whatever is in reach at that time (M9)). The digital Ms are beautiful cameras that I hope will be in my future, but for now, I will be just grateful for what I have and enjoy photography.
Thanks everyone for writing and helping my with my decision.
taking a deep breath
you all are so fast with your responses. I woke up to another large influx of advice; it makes me think nobody sleeps here haha.
So after a good nights rest, I have decided to keep the x100. I feel that if I were to sell the x100, it would be months of concentrating on gathering funds and searching online for a good body and good glass. It's probably more beneficial for me to stick to what I have and focus on my photography by getting out there and shooting with what I have. In that time, I will just save and buy when the time comes when I can afford to buy an M8(or whatever is in reach at that time (M9)). The digital Ms are beautiful cameras that I hope will be in my future, but for now, I will be just grateful for what I have and enjoy photography.
Thanks everyone for writing and helping my with my decision.
umcelinho
Marcelo
try an epson r-d1. it's outdated but still rocks. and it's the closest to a film camera you will get in the digital realm. and you can shoot at iso 1600 with no worries - though ive been shooting at 800 tops lately and then pushing on LR3. works beautifully.
Last edited:
VINCEKTAN
Newbie
I think X100 will depreciate a faster once the supply catch up
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I'm finding my M8.2 has plenty of "great Leica feel" left in it!
My experience so far is that the reports of the M8/M8.2 being unusable above 640 seem exaggerated. There is some noise at 1250--noise that certainly would not be present with my D700, or even my D300--but that doesn't make it unusable. It's more like a smooth film grain look, IMO. At 2500, the noise can be much, too much--but only if there are very dark areas. SOme of my shots at 2500 are unusable; others are OK.
Whether it's useable at 2500 or not, I find the M8.2 itself to be highly useable. I shoot with it quickly and confidently. Though I've had it only 4 or 5 weeks, I've bonded with it! I know I would not long be happy with a camera that didn't have interchangeable lenses. I don't think there's an X100 or X1 in my future.
Last edited:
mackigator
Well-known
I'd keep the X100 for low light and get an film M6, CLE, or Hexar RF and start accumulating Leica glass. Then switch later to either a digital M or a removable lens digi that is equivalent.
There's not going to be a clear path for you.
There's not going to be a clear path for you.
KM-25
Well-known
I just got done shooting a high end, high pressure, gotta be discreet corporate event tonight full of famous authors. I was in medium to low light, mixed sources, rainy going to partial sun light, then back to full shade. Tungsten, twilight, etc. I shot with my D700, X100 and M3 with Tri-X.
I shot jpeg in both digital rigs, nominal saturation for skin tones but darker in the shadows to mimic good slide scans. The D700 did as I have come to count on, great files, decent auto white balance. The X100 did phenomenal in terms of auto white balance and color tone, focus was great until about 1/40th at iso 3,200 when it started to miss a bit.
I had an M8 for about two years, while I liked it, read, not loved it at iso 640 and below, it was just not that great a file to hand over to a client above that setting, even using Capture One, Lightroom, etc. Add to that the nasty moire and effed up artifacts in high contrast scenes shot with aspheric glass and I had about had it with the camera when I happily sold it at two years in.
Enter the X100. This ain't your so called point and shoot, so get that out of your vocabulary right now. A Fuji GSW 690 is a fixed lens camera, not a point and shoot, get the picture?
I even pulled up some shots with the M8 of this very same every two years event and the X100 just freaking flattened it in every way. The camera is not perfect but for what I need it to do, allow me to work in close and personal as quietly as I can with these people, it just crushed the task, I made 80% of my images with it tonight.
So keep the X100, worry about making the value of it be the photographs you make, not the stupid resale.
I read the comments on this site and you would think that the X100 sucks, is a point and shoot, not any kind of match for any rangefinder. Then I look at the images I am making with it, attend an event like Look3 that is CHOCK full of immensely talented photographers, some very well known and the overall impression of what these people think is that this X100 is a Leica game changer.
If I needed something other than a 35 on a dead silent camera for these tasks, I would rent an M9 for the 6 weeks I would need it which would be pretty close to the purchase cost of a X100. Even Steve Huff wrote about it being a better option to an M9 than he was expecting, but some of you guys just don't want to hear that, it's unbelievable. Leica is brilliant stuff, especially the glass, and that mattered immensely in film's hey day, I have 35,000 recently shot Kodachromes that show it well. But now we are talking digital and what you can do in post in terms of tonal range, color gamut and overall impact to an image makes it harder to tell the difference in print and therefore, much harder to justify a $5,000 Leica 35 1.4 over a $1,700 Nikon 35 1.4, let alone a Fujinon 35/2 equivalent with a great silent leaf shutter built into it mounted to a very able tool for just $1,200.
All these cameras are really worth is how much talent you put into them, not the resale. But in the hype driven Internet age, gear seems to be why people get into photography and not photographs them selves...
I shot jpeg in both digital rigs, nominal saturation for skin tones but darker in the shadows to mimic good slide scans. The D700 did as I have come to count on, great files, decent auto white balance. The X100 did phenomenal in terms of auto white balance and color tone, focus was great until about 1/40th at iso 3,200 when it started to miss a bit.
I had an M8 for about two years, while I liked it, read, not loved it at iso 640 and below, it was just not that great a file to hand over to a client above that setting, even using Capture One, Lightroom, etc. Add to that the nasty moire and effed up artifacts in high contrast scenes shot with aspheric glass and I had about had it with the camera when I happily sold it at two years in.
Enter the X100. This ain't your so called point and shoot, so get that out of your vocabulary right now. A Fuji GSW 690 is a fixed lens camera, not a point and shoot, get the picture?
I even pulled up some shots with the M8 of this very same every two years event and the X100 just freaking flattened it in every way. The camera is not perfect but for what I need it to do, allow me to work in close and personal as quietly as I can with these people, it just crushed the task, I made 80% of my images with it tonight.
So keep the X100, worry about making the value of it be the photographs you make, not the stupid resale.
I read the comments on this site and you would think that the X100 sucks, is a point and shoot, not any kind of match for any rangefinder. Then I look at the images I am making with it, attend an event like Look3 that is CHOCK full of immensely talented photographers, some very well known and the overall impression of what these people think is that this X100 is a Leica game changer.
If I needed something other than a 35 on a dead silent camera for these tasks, I would rent an M9 for the 6 weeks I would need it which would be pretty close to the purchase cost of a X100. Even Steve Huff wrote about it being a better option to an M9 than he was expecting, but some of you guys just don't want to hear that, it's unbelievable. Leica is brilliant stuff, especially the glass, and that mattered immensely in film's hey day, I have 35,000 recently shot Kodachromes that show it well. But now we are talking digital and what you can do in post in terms of tonal range, color gamut and overall impact to an image makes it harder to tell the difference in print and therefore, much harder to justify a $5,000 Leica 35 1.4 over a $1,700 Nikon 35 1.4, let alone a Fujinon 35/2 equivalent with a great silent leaf shutter built into it mounted to a very able tool for just $1,200.
All these cameras are really worth is how much talent you put into them, not the resale. But in the hype driven Internet age, gear seems to be why people get into photography and not photographs them selves...
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I had an M8 for 3+ years and I've had my X100 for about three weeks so to say the Fuji is a better camera may be a little premature.
But ... I think I've had more enjoyment out of the Fuji in three weeks than the M8 gave me in three years ... and I like it's output a lot more.
You'll need to try an M8 for yourself I think ... but I wouldn't go back there personally!
But ... I think I've had more enjoyment out of the Fuji in three weeks than the M8 gave me in three years ... and I like it's output a lot more.
You'll need to try an M8 for yourself I think ... but I wouldn't go back there personally!