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...
