Jeff S
Well-known
I would consider another M8; more money, but probably no loss on future sale. Plus, you'd be able to work seamlessly with both cameras and a lens on each, besides having a back-up if one failed.
I use 2 M8.2s and am very satisfied. In fact I bought the second one in lieu of the M9, and not because of cost.
Jeff
I use 2 M8.2s and am very satisfied. In fact I bought the second one in lieu of the M9, and not because of cost.
Jeff
ScottAlexander
Street Photographer
I work at a camera store, and if someone asked me this question, I would answer X10.
Simple reason. Its something your M isnt. A zoom capable camera. The X10 is something that would fill the void, where X100 would be just another camera to take the same 35mm images. I would have trouble shooting with both being so similar.
I shoot an M6, and I would consider going X100 to compliment that, for the simple reason it is almost a digital version of what I have. But I also have plans to invest in an M9 for the same reason.
I can still justify the X10 though, as I don't already have a compact digital camera. I't also fits nicely in a Black Rapid Snapr 20
Simple reason. Its something your M isnt. A zoom capable camera. The X10 is something that would fill the void, where X100 would be just another camera to take the same 35mm images. I would have trouble shooting with both being so similar.
I shoot an M6, and I would consider going X100 to compliment that, for the simple reason it is almost a digital version of what I have. But I also have plans to invest in an M9 for the same reason.
I can still justify the X10 though, as I don't already have a compact digital camera. I't also fits nicely in a Black Rapid Snapr 20
sepiareverb
genius and moron
X1. Why compromise on lens quality?
Turtle
Veteran
I am sure the X1 has a superb lens, but the one on the X100 is really good. I was amazed to see how hard it was to differentiate shots wide open from those stopped down. Its really a cracker
I've owned and used both. I'd say the lens in the X1 is slightly better with regard to distortion, but the X100 is just the better overall camera. I sold my X1 after getting the X100. The X1's AF is just way too slow.
willie_901
Veteran
Because the compromise is trivial as the difference in performance is trivial.
David_Manning
Well-known
I have no experience with digital M's. My Leica experience was simply with an M6 and a 35/2 "bolted" to the front.
That being said, I can say that my X100 would not only be a backup to the M6, it replaced the M6 by it's flexibility and high performance. I'm not truly looking for an argument, it's just my opinion.
Based upon tech specs alone, if you're only shooting 35mm FoV, an X100 will retire your M8 and be equivalent of your M9 (functionally speaking). If you're shooting RAW only, you'll only see differences to M9 and X100 files by how they're processed. The jpeg engine is astounding on the X100 though, if you ever shoot like that.
The X100 offers this flexibility: the ability to shoot macro, and a great fill-flash...neither digital M offers that.
All this being said, the X100 won't duplicate your "Leica rangefinder experience." The X100 is NOT a Leica. I find it's close-enough in actual operation, though, that I don't pine for my M6 personally. My favorite part of shooting an M was holding the damn thing in my hands, I'm embarrassed to say.
So...the point of my diatribe? The X100 will make an terrific backup, or a terrific primary shooter. If you shoot 35/2, it'll rival anything you can make with an M body, film or digital. Yeah, big words, I know.
Here's a thread I started with a few shots I made this past week in Hawaii with the X100...I'm perfectly satisfied by it's abilities as a modern camera, with a 70's-vintage feel...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112695
That being said, I can say that my X100 would not only be a backup to the M6, it replaced the M6 by it's flexibility and high performance. I'm not truly looking for an argument, it's just my opinion.
Based upon tech specs alone, if you're only shooting 35mm FoV, an X100 will retire your M8 and be equivalent of your M9 (functionally speaking). If you're shooting RAW only, you'll only see differences to M9 and X100 files by how they're processed. The jpeg engine is astounding on the X100 though, if you ever shoot like that.
The X100 offers this flexibility: the ability to shoot macro, and a great fill-flash...neither digital M offers that.
All this being said, the X100 won't duplicate your "Leica rangefinder experience." The X100 is NOT a Leica. I find it's close-enough in actual operation, though, that I don't pine for my M6 personally. My favorite part of shooting an M was holding the damn thing in my hands, I'm embarrassed to say.
So...the point of my diatribe? The X100 will make an terrific backup, or a terrific primary shooter. If you shoot 35/2, it'll rival anything you can make with an M body, film or digital. Yeah, big words, I know.
Here's a thread I started with a few shots I made this past week in Hawaii with the X100...I'm perfectly satisfied by it's abilities as a modern camera, with a 70's-vintage feel...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112695
LCT
ex-newbie
I have no experience with the M9 but comparing raw files from M8.2 & X100 it is quite obvious that the latter has an AA filter. Not to say that i don't like this little beast at all. Makes me think of my R-D1s on steroids at high isos w/o rangefinder and interchangeable lenses. Its lens is a bit soft at f/2 but Summicrons 35 v1 to v4 are not much sharper at full aperture to be honest.
David_Manning
Well-known
Perhaps...I'm not one to stare at a 100% screen view. However, sharpen to taste in post.
FWIW...I didn't do any sharpening in those pictures I posted on the linked thread. Yeah, I know...they're screen-resolution jpegs.
FWIW...I didn't do any sharpening in those pictures I posted on the linked thread. Yeah, I know...they're screen-resolution jpegs.
ramosa
B&W
Thanks for all of the input. Several of the comments really get at my needing to decide would this be a true back-up or a camera to use when not toting about my M. (My introductory comment sort of blended the two.) I really like David's images with the X100. Other comments are very helpful, too, though I don't want to add another M8 and don't want another interchangeable lens camera (e.g., a GRX) or a camera as expensive as the Leica X1. In trying to hone my need, it would be a camera that I could use without my M (if I didn't want to take a small bag with M body and a couple lenses) or one that I could use if my M body stopped working when I was on a trip or such. This first issue relates to size, but the X100 isn't that much bigger than the X10. For those with the X100, does it seem much more compact an an M body and lens?
David_Manning
Well-known
No, it doesn't seem much more compact than an M. There is not much practical weight difference either (Ms are "solid," not heavy, and the X100 is a tad lighter).
If you can deal with the menu differences vs. the "big boys," you'll be shooting very naturally with it in short order.
I really think a lot of the criticism of the X100 stemmed from the fact that it looks so much like a classic camera, but operates like a modern digital. There is a lot of ancestor worship among all of us, so if it doesn't do something the "same," then it sucks. Well, it's just a bit different. As a tool, I work to it's strengths and away from it's weaknesses.
It really is a fine camera. And...it's a Fujinon lens, so you won't be disappointed with that.
If you can deal with the menu differences vs. the "big boys," you'll be shooting very naturally with it in short order.
I really think a lot of the criticism of the X100 stemmed from the fact that it looks so much like a classic camera, but operates like a modern digital. There is a lot of ancestor worship among all of us, so if it doesn't do something the "same," then it sucks. Well, it's just a bit different. As a tool, I work to it's strengths and away from it's weaknesses.
It really is a fine camera. And...it's a Fujinon lens, so you won't be disappointed with that.
kittyphoto
Member
No way to use x10 as a backup for M. The quality is too much different.
X10 may be one of the best in compact camera.
X100 quality is much closer to M.
So if you plan just to have a backup camera just to have the picture not quality go with x10 it is small, zoom lens, faster focus. But if plan to get quality X100 is the answer.
X10 may be one of the best in compact camera.
X100 quality is much closer to M.
So if you plan just to have a backup camera just to have the picture not quality go with x10 it is small, zoom lens, faster focus. But if plan to get quality X100 is the answer.
quadtones
Established
M8 as backup to M9, often used together, with 35mm on M9 and 75mm on the M8, Thinking about an X10, not as backup, but as complement, or when I don't want to carry much gear.
The Meaness
Well-known
I found the difference in weight substantial compared to my M8+ZM 28. I rented the camera from Lensrentals.com, and hardly noticed it was there when on my shoulder. My observations are subjective, obviously, and dependent on the fact that I use the ZM as my 35mm equiv.
RFluhver
Well-known
I'm planning to buy an X10, not as a backup but as a general P&S for when I'm playing tourist. I also have a GF1 but after seeing the X10, I reckon I've finally found the right P&S digi for me!
My backup to my film M, btw, is another film M. Using either X100 or X10 as a 'backup' to a film M just doesn't make sense to me.
My backup to my film M, btw, is another film M. Using either X100 or X10 as a 'backup' to a film M just doesn't make sense to me.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I just sold my GF1 and ordered an X10. Same rationale.
Plus I think m43 is going to prove a dead end as a system.
Keeping my M6 until I see what Fuji come up with for the ILC camera they've flagged for early next year.