m9/35 asph vs x100

Thanks for the link. Nice effort on Steve Huff's part to provide a fairly balanced, and thus informative, look at the two cameras.
 
really nice and well balanced comparison. I love my M9 but the X100 seems to do a good job - specially considering size/price tag! Thanks for posting
 
Last edited:
Pretty impressive for a first effort from Fuji IMO.

Add the excellent high ISO capability of the X100 and the Leica starts to look a little fragile because it ain't as good.

I'd love to see some high ISO comparisons.
 
Keith said:
Add the excellent high ISO capability of the X100 and the Leica starts to look a little fragile because it ain't as good.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this? I understand the X100 has better high ISO (I own both), but fragile because the M9 isn't as good?
 
jsrockit said:
Can you explain this? I understand the X100 has better high ISO (I own both), but fragile because the M9 isn't as good?
Click to expand...


Fragility in it's high ISO performance is just part of the M9 but mainly because of what it gets measured against IMO. It's constantly being put up against the D700 and 5D mkll where it does seem fragile or inadequate.

Not really the camera's fault though because it does what it can with the sensor it has.
 
Keith said:
Fragility in it's high ISO performance is just part of the M9 but mainly because of what it gets measured against IMO. It's constantly being put up against the D700 and 5D mkll where it does seem fragile or inadequate.

Not really the camera's fault though because it does what it can with the sensor it has.
Click to expand...

Well, we all know high ISO isn't everything when it comes to photography. I'd prefer to have high ISO in the M9, but as a person who sold a M8 to buy a D700 and then sold the D700 to buy the M8 again, I guess ergonomics, a mechincal rangefinder, a bright optical VF, etc meant more to me. Don't get me wrong, the M9 is one of the worst values in photography. However, if you do not like DSLRs, it is pretty much the only real system that gets it right.

I think fragile is just the wrong word.
 
I could have said weakness but I thought that actually sounded worse! :D

Are you intending to get an M9?
 
Keith said:
Are you intending to get an M9?
Click to expand...

I use a M9 and a X100 these days and find that they work well for 99.9% of my photography. I love the M9, but probably wouldn't as much if I didn't the X100 for high ISO. I'm lucky enough to have two cameras that work great for my needs. I'm sure you feel the same way regarding the D700 and X100 (as well as your film cameras).
 
What about shutter lag? I had the X1 and sold it because of its poor performance in auto-focusing and its less than acceptable shutter response in some not so demanding situations. It doesn't seem that the X100 is any better in that respect than the X1.
For me, this alone makes the M8/8.2/9 a winner over both.
Any real world reports from Fuji users?
 
Double Negative said:
Interesting comparison, no doubt - but it seems clear to me (at least) that the M9 still has way more micro-detail. Different color, but that's between the sensors and lenses. Both seem pretty good.
Click to expand...

The value of that micro-detail cannot be overstated when one is looking at 100% crops on an uncalibrated laptop screen. And look! Aliasing! :rolleyes:
 
eskorpid said:
What about shutter lag? I had the X1 and sold it because of its poor performance in auto-focusing and its less than acceptable shutter response in some not so demanding situations. It doesn't seem that the X100 is any better in that respect than the X1.
Click to expand...

The X100 is a lot better in this regard than the X1. I've owned both. I'm not sure what led you to believe the X100 was on par with the X1.
 
I sold my Leica M6 when the Nikon 35Ti came out. Image quality was just about the same as the 35mm Summaron.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom