Mattikk
Well-known
Hello.
I haven't been posting for a couple of years, but now it seems like a good time to come ask for little advice and tips from the RFF as I might be getting the quite exciting X100.
I'm probably moving on from my GF-1 to the X100, which I just got my hands-on in a store. I spent almost an hour looking through everything it has to offer and I was really impressed.
The most what I care about and what was hard to test in the shop, is the dynamic range. Compared to the GF-1 or other similar censors, how do you feel about the X100's DR?
I'm sick of GF-1 burning up the images or making them much too dark when the sun is bright and I'm trying to adjust the exposure.
Oh and btw. is it just me or is the X100 actually producing finer looking images than the M9 in this video? To me it seems so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMLP_bJnfnw
Thanks!
I haven't been posting for a couple of years, but now it seems like a good time to come ask for little advice and tips from the RFF as I might be getting the quite exciting X100.
I'm probably moving on from my GF-1 to the X100, which I just got my hands-on in a store. I spent almost an hour looking through everything it has to offer and I was really impressed.
The most what I care about and what was hard to test in the shop, is the dynamic range. Compared to the GF-1 or other similar censors, how do you feel about the X100's DR?
I'm sick of GF-1 burning up the images or making them much too dark when the sun is bright and I'm trying to adjust the exposure.
Oh and btw. is it just me or is the X100 actually producing finer looking images than the M9 in this video? To me it seems so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMLP_bJnfnw
Thanks!
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I can't say much about an image comparison between the GF1 and M9, or the GF1 and the X100, but from what I have seen, the images from the X100 are indeed better than the GF1, and to top it off, it is far quieter (the GF1 is actually noisier than the M8).
About dynamic range and actual exposure algorithms of the GF1 vs. the X100, I have no clue.
About dynamic range and actual exposure algorithms of the GF1 vs. the X100, I have no clue.
The X100 has very good dynamic range... one of the best I've ever used and certainly better than micro 4/3. I cannot offer any scientific proof, but if you like micro 4/3, you will love the X100.
Perfect Imposter
Member
I had a GF1 in the past and currently own an X100. The X100 is in a different league for IQ and high iso performace. The GF1 focused faster and didn't ever miss entirely and give you the red box of death like the X100 does. With practice though the X100's focus problems become much less of an issue.
Mattikk
Well-known
Thank you. I just came home and the battery of my new baby is still loading.
The GF-1 was my favorite camera of all time and I kinda felt unsure about this since I had to abandon it to my father. But now I got the camera I've been dreaming of for years. Can't wait to take it out for a spin.
Gabriel, yes, GF-1 is really loud and I dislike it for that, I definitely caught some stares for it. And jsrockit if what you say is true, I'm even more excited to try it for the first time. GF-1's only bad things really were the loud noise and bad DR. This fixes both of the issues and adds a superb OVF.
And although the auto-focus is slower I don't mind, because I almost always pre-focus by aiming the ground and wait for my subject to walk in to the right spot.
The GF-1 was my favorite camera of all time and I kinda felt unsure about this since I had to abandon it to my father. But now I got the camera I've been dreaming of for years. Can't wait to take it out for a spin.
Gabriel, yes, GF-1 is really loud and I dislike it for that, I definitely caught some stares for it. And jsrockit if what you say is true, I'm even more excited to try it for the first time. GF-1's only bad things really were the loud noise and bad DR. This fixes both of the issues and adds a superb OVF.
And although the auto-focus is slower I don't mind, because I almost always pre-focus by aiming the ground and wait for my subject to walk in to the right spot.
willie_901
Veteran
Compared to the LUMIX G1 I used to own the X100 has superior dynamic range. The DxO tests show the same. I only record RAW files.
The LUMIX m 4/3 cameras are a good value and are convenient. But the sensor is just too small to comete with a well-designed APS-C sensor.
The LUMIX m 4/3 cameras are a good value and are convenient. But the sensor is just too small to comete with a well-designed APS-C sensor.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
GF1, M9, X100 oh my
GF1, M9, X100 oh my
I have and use all three cameras mentioned.
The M9 is the M9. It produces better images than the X100. I enjoy using it a lot, too. It's bigger but not by much (depending on the lens, of course). I'm not going to bother comparing the M9 to the GF1 or X100. I find there to be little comparison. The M9 is, frankly, capable of producing far better images than either camera.
That being said, I love both the GF1 and X100 and won't get rid of either.
The GF1 is like an interchangeable point-and-shoot. I have the viewfinder, which is mushy but practical—but not very much fun to use. The 20/1.7 lens is still firmly attached, and it makes really nice images, including JPGs.
The X100 can make great images. The lens is nice, the focus is fast and accurate, and I mostly have good things to say about the camera. It has its quirks, sure, but none of those have interrupted my shooting (ever, yet).
The viewfinder on the X100 is great, both the optical and the EVF. The X100 is about the same size as the GF1, and flash on the X100 is useful—not so much with the GF1. Raw files out of both cameras are good. The X100 produces slightly higher quality images, both raw and JPG. But if you're like me and most of what you do with your images is electronic (I only occasionally print), then the difference is negligible.
Negligible until you move past ISO 1600. From there, the X100 dominates. ISO 3200 is not just usable, it's good. I find ISO 1600 a bit messy with the GF1 and not terribly crisp or clean.
What I like about the GF1 is that whenever we're out, and we want someone to take a photo for us, I can never get good results handing my M9 to someone who isn't familiar with such a camera. Same goes for the X100. We were at a temple the other day, and someone wanted a photo of everyone. When I gave the fellow the X100, he looked over the camera for a while and, using the LCD, tried to compose an image. Which turned out so-so.
That's one reason I like to have the GF1 around. I find that I can hand that camera to anyone and they'll use it well. It's just like a big point-and-shoot.
So that's my non-answer.
GF1, M9, X100 oh my
I have and use all three cameras mentioned.
The M9 is the M9. It produces better images than the X100. I enjoy using it a lot, too. It's bigger but not by much (depending on the lens, of course). I'm not going to bother comparing the M9 to the GF1 or X100. I find there to be little comparison. The M9 is, frankly, capable of producing far better images than either camera.
That being said, I love both the GF1 and X100 and won't get rid of either.
The GF1 is like an interchangeable point-and-shoot. I have the viewfinder, which is mushy but practical—but not very much fun to use. The 20/1.7 lens is still firmly attached, and it makes really nice images, including JPGs.
The X100 can make great images. The lens is nice, the focus is fast and accurate, and I mostly have good things to say about the camera. It has its quirks, sure, but none of those have interrupted my shooting (ever, yet).
The viewfinder on the X100 is great, both the optical and the EVF. The X100 is about the same size as the GF1, and flash on the X100 is useful—not so much with the GF1. Raw files out of both cameras are good. The X100 produces slightly higher quality images, both raw and JPG. But if you're like me and most of what you do with your images is electronic (I only occasionally print), then the difference is negligible.
Negligible until you move past ISO 1600. From there, the X100 dominates. ISO 3200 is not just usable, it's good. I find ISO 1600 a bit messy with the GF1 and not terribly crisp or clean.
What I like about the GF1 is that whenever we're out, and we want someone to take a photo for us, I can never get good results handing my M9 to someone who isn't familiar with such a camera. Same goes for the X100. We were at a temple the other day, and someone wanted a photo of everyone. When I gave the fellow the X100, he looked over the camera for a while and, using the LCD, tried to compose an image. Which turned out so-so.
That's one reason I like to have the GF1 around. I find that I can hand that camera to anyone and they'll use it well. It's just like a big point-and-shoot.
So that's my non-answer.
Mattikk
Well-known
I agree with everything you said scott.
I gave my GF1 to my father. Hopefully he will have fun with it and not drop it to the sea, as he left to a sailing trip tonight with it.
First X100 memory card full, import done. Now lets take a look.
I gave my GF1 to my father. Hopefully he will have fun with it and not drop it to the sea, as he left to a sailing trip tonight with it.
First X100 memory card full, import done. Now lets take a look.
Last edited:
agoglanian
Reconnected.
I just made this same move. Sold my GF1 and lenses, and picked up an X100. Zero regrets so far!
Mattikk
Well-known
A month behind me and zero regrets.
If you think it's not the camera, but the photographer that makes the pictures.
Try X100 and think again.
If you think it's not the camera, but the photographer that makes the pictures.
Try X100 and think again.
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks for the update.
andrew00
Established
I love my X100 and use it a lot, I also plan on getting a NEX-7 when it comes out, double fisting each one for shooting and using the NEX-7 for video too.
I really enjoying shooting light and breezy, my 5dmk2 may produce 'better' pictures, but I enjoy myself more w/the X100 + feel the reaction I get from people is worlds apart - the X100 doesn't scare or intimidate, the opposite in fact I've found people get enthusiastic about it. Plus, it fits in my pocket hehe.
That being said, the GF1 is still a top camera. I mean just look at terrysdiary.com - Terry Richardson uses it now for his snapshots and they look great.
I really enjoying shooting light and breezy, my 5dmk2 may produce 'better' pictures, but I enjoy myself more w/the X100 + feel the reaction I get from people is worlds apart - the X100 doesn't scare or intimidate, the opposite in fact I've found people get enthusiastic about it. Plus, it fits in my pocket hehe.
That being said, the GF1 is still a top camera. I mean just look at terrysdiary.com - Terry Richardson uses it now for his snapshots and they look great.
That is one big-azz pocket.