X100, X1 and GXR impressions

[Matus]

I am lusting after a compact APC-C camera for a while (a longer while) and today I managed to get my hands on Fuji X100, Leica X1 (black) and Ricoh GXR (with A12 28/2.5) and thought I would share a few impressions and asked a few questions at the end:

X100 - is largest and heaviest - though the difference is not that large. But the X100 felt larger than it is. X1 feels smaller than it is (missing grip and low weight I guess).

GXR sits best in hand, has grippy finish and feels very strong. X1 (black) has very good surface finish - I did not miss the grip, but feels quite light (well, it is). X100 has a slight grip, but is quite slippery - it did not feel secure in hand (and I was not sweating). I guess to change the leatherette for a custom one will be tough as there are many controls which seems to sit on top of it.

Display - great on X100 and GXR, X1 is perfectly usable, but not state of the art. X1 is the oldest in the group. But I do not expect X1 any soon as Leica is probably concentrating on the recently announced camera. But I would of course love to see updated X2.

Viewfinder on the X100: optical mode - very nice and clear. Size is just right - not particularly large and surely not too small. In digital mode I was not too impressed - the image was much less fluid than on external display and way too contrasty and a bit too bright. Please mind that I was not too impressed by the DVF for the GXR either. I probably expect too much.

I liked the F/stop ring on the X100 - feels and sounds better than expected. Camera response in general felt in general faster than with X1.

I liked the simplicity of X1 controls, though the dials could give a bit more resistance - X100 is better in this regard. GXR has very good layout.

Bottom line: all 3 cameras are very nice (we are happy to have the choice) and it is really a matter of personal preference rather that performance (given the countless reviews out there). My pick would be GXR if not for the focal lengths offered.


Questions:
- Is it possible to set the brightness of digital viewfinders of the X100 and GXR?

- How large is the chance to get 21 and 35 mm APS-C modules with the GXR in the future ? :angel: (if Ricoh did I would just forget about the X1 and X100) I personally do not really care for the M-module - I want it compact and AF.

- Just wondering - those of you who were selecting among these cameras - what were reasons for your particular choice?

 

[boffen]

I bought the X100 because of the optical viewfinder. I never even considered getting the X1, and although I find the Ricoh interesting, I didn't really like it. I never used anything but a 28mm for the past two years of owning the D300, so having the option to change lenses doesn't matter to me until I have a digital rangefinder with an M-mount.

 

[patrickhh]

- Just wondering - those of you who were selecting among these cameras - what were reasons for your particular choice?

I chose the X100 because it's the first non-DSLR-style digital camera with integrated viewfinder.
I can't stand holding the camera at arm's length while shooting, and I can't stand external viewfinders.
So the X100 was the first, and only, acceptable choice of mirrorless camera for me. I hope that there will be more compact cameras with integrated VF in the future.

 

[dallard]

Of the three the GXR is the only one that gives you any choice in focal lengths. I chose it because at the time the X100 wasn't out yet and even so I was really irritated by the hype for some reason. X1 didn't make sense to me because it's essentially the same sensor as the A12 modules but costs more than I paid for the GXR+50+28+EVF. What I liked about the GXR the most though was the build quality. It's really made well and intelligently thought out. I read somewhere they actually consult pro photographers about the design. I don't use the EVF that often though.

 

[dallard]

50 2.5 @f/6.3

 

[dreilly]

I chose the GXR. The X1 was not even in the competition for me. I like Leica cameras but their prices are just absurd. Maybe an M9 is worth the cost, but the X1? I love the concept of the X100 but do like a little choice in focal length, and I also didn't like that long list of bugs and poor interface choices they made. Just seemed like an immature product to me.

Now, I'm reading a lot of reports on the X100 that are very positive and most of them point out that the idiosyncrasies, especially for someone coming from simple film rangefinders, are easy to ignore. Still, I just didn't want to reward poor or hasty design.

The GXR is a brave (maybe foolish) concept but the thing works really well. The UI is great. The frame rate, at least with action moving across the film plane, is just fast enough. Manual focus is well enabled. I like the high ISO performance of the A12 sensor. I don't miss a 35mm in particular though I do miss a really fast lens. I'm intrigued to see the M-module and I'd probably slap a 35mm nokton on it and have my "fast fifty".

If there is one complaint with the GXR, it's the JPEG engine. I used Olympus digital cameras for a long time and their jpeg engine is the best I've ever seen. I find with the GXR I'm shooting raw--but the good news is that the profile in lightroom is really pretty good, so I'm not doing as much PP as I thought I might have to.

I'd like to know the answer to your question about the EVF brightness. I haven't seen anything like that.