Red Dot Fever Posted June 16, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fujifilm X100 vs Leica M9 In regards to the link just above. I was surprised that the X100 had only slightly better lower noise at high iso than the M9. Considering all the discussion on the web that seems to suggest the X100 being miles ahead in that department. Cheers, Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Hi Red Dot Fever, Take a look here M9 vs X100. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted June 16, 2011 Share #2 Posted June 16, 2011 Absolutely - anyone who is comparing an X100 with an M9 should buy the X100. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dot Fever Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted June 16, 2011 Absolutely - anyone who is comparing an X100 with an M9 should buy the X100. Why is that? I can see a case for owning both. Especially when high speed strobe is needed and times where you just don't want to have to worry about loosing your expensive Leica and you just want a high quality point & shoot. Those times you are not in photo mode, you just want to chill, but still want a "photographers" camera (by that I mean quality optics with manual control) handy just in case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 16, 2011 Share #4 Posted June 16, 2011 Ah, but you see, then you're not comparing them. You're using them in a complementary way. For me, the comparison is as valid as comparing my old FM2 with my Hasselblad - apples and oranges. So, my flippant comment is if a person is seriously thinking that you can compare an X100 with an M9, then they only need an X100. They'll be happy, and saved themselves a lot of coin. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawboneslf Posted June 16, 2011 Share #5 Posted June 16, 2011 I have both. Ilove my m9 in all respects. But, the x 100 has much less grain at ISO's > 800. Also, the fill in built in flash on the x100 at night is far superior to the SF 24D on my M9. Maybe my opinion would change my mind if I had a Noctilux. But with summilux 21,50,and 75 mm, the x 100 is superior in very dark situations. In brighter situations, the x100 tends to suffer from glare, lacks sharpness wide open, and lacks the sense of depth that a Leica lens provides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 16, 2011 Share #6 Posted June 16, 2011 Hi Some people bought the Contax G1 or G2 are are extatic with it lenses marvels better then Leica (!) others could not use it at all and thought the lenses suspect, I'm in latter camp only use mine for the manual focus Hologon wideangle, my 28mm unusable for street, flare and focus, the Hologon flares as well but is different from the CV ultra wides. You need to try a X100 before you buy, there should be 2nd hand ones about, Fuji also seems to have reliability problems many of my friends (with X100) are not on their first or 2nd camera and have interesting problems as well. I dont have a X100 or M9 no axe to sharpen... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted June 16, 2011 Share #7 Posted June 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm interested to see that the M9 is smaller by around 25%. Also "can take advantage of interchangeable lenses". There's a certain joy in that understatement when one considers just *what* lenses it can take advantage of! Not being a snob or Leica bore but the comparison is very superficial and, truly, not worth doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBatemanJ Posted June 16, 2011 Share #8 Posted June 16, 2011 I have both M9 and X100. X100 is good as P&S camera but no comparison with M8/9+M lens. Several people asked my personal opinion that X100 is worth to spend $1199 or not. I always tell them save your money and buy used M8+35mm if it will be your main camera. If you already have M8/9 or DSLR, then you need to consider about X100 that it is almost impossible to use manual focus, and AF is slow and can not use in certain situation. Some people may think to get X100 as backup for M9. I would recommend to get used M8 instead of X100. SATOKI Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted June 16, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 16, 2011 I imagine there is no way an x100 type of camera could possibly be a backup for the M9, unless you are seriously under utilizing your M9 to start with. I am not thinking specific instances, but rather the full range of useability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted June 16, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 16, 2011 I also have both. I wouldn't agree with the statement that the iso is only slightly better on the X100, maybe it is at around the 1000iso mark but when you get up to 3200iso there is no comparison. a. the leica doesn't go that far and b. the files from the X100 are extremely workable at that level with little shadow noise which certainly isn't the case with the M9. And yes I do use the M9 at 2500iso but you have to be very careful with exposure be careful to keep the histogram to the right and with little DR. obviously there is no comparison when it comes to leica optics as my 35 cron asph will beat the X100 in every way. I find the X100 is now my main pocketable camera and is fantastic for street work being totally silent etc etc. the M9 will always remain my main camera (and my Love) for all serious work. Would i suggest buying, yes. Can you compare the two, not really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark2 Posted June 16, 2011 Share #11 Posted June 16, 2011 The technology on the Fuji x100 is years ahead of LEICA. fuji is a fantastic camera. LEICA should consider selling the company to Fuji. If that happens we will all have the best of.both worlds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 16, 2011 Share #12 Posted June 16, 2011 Nurse, the screens! Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 16, 2011 Share #13 Posted June 16, 2011 Nurse, the screens! Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 16, 2011 Share #14 Posted June 16, 2011 They forgot the most striking Fuji advantage: it has "real" chrome:eek:. The rest is unimportant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted June 16, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 16, 2011 I imagine there is no way an x100 type of camera could possibly be a backup for the M9, unless you are seriously under utilizing your M9 to start with. I am not thinking specific instances, but rather the full range of useability. and vise-versa! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
57andrew Posted June 16, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 16, 2011 I have just bought an X100. For fun. Its an interesting piece of kit and the IQ is pretty good but I would describe the images as soulless.They look antiseptic to me. I can't see the character in them. Working out how to twiddle all the knobs I feel I need to go back to school to get an O'level in advanced twiddling. It has a lot going for it but it would never replace or compete with my M3 or M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark2 Posted June 16, 2011 Share #17 Posted June 16, 2011 I have just bought an X100. For fun. Its an interesting piece of kit and the IQ is pretty good but I would describe the images as soulless.They look antiseptic to me. I can't see the character in them. Working out how to twiddle all the knobs I feel I need to go back to school to get an O'level in advanced twiddling. It has a lot going for it but it would never replace or compete with my M3 or M9. Why do u say that. I have both cameras and the x100 beats the m9 hands down when taking photos at night. The white balance of m9 sucks, iso sucks. Do not know why LEICA engineers do not solve this problem. Fuji. Image quality during the day time is ok but lacks contrast as u mentioned. For a camera that cost 10 times lesser its a steal. Fuji should buy over LEICA one day Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 16, 2011 Share #18 Posted June 16, 2011 I fear you are comparing apples and elephants. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 16, 2011 Share #19 Posted June 16, 2011 Why do u say that. I have both cameras and the x100 beats the m9 hands down when taking photos at night. The white balance of m9 sucks, iso sucks. Do not know why LEICA engineers do not solve this problem. Fuji. Image quality during the day time is ok but lacks contrast as u mentioned. For a camera that cost 10 times lesser its a steal. Fuji should buy over LEICA one day My generous offer to you: I trade my X100 for your M9 and despite you getting the superior camera, I will not ask for cash on top for my Fuji. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted June 16, 2011 Share #20 Posted June 16, 2011 At first, the X100 was thought to be an X1 competitor. As the bishop said to the actress: "I told you it was big". In the flesh, rather than on screen (where few read the specs) it turned out to be bigger than the M9! Now that would have been worth an unboxing video: "OMG, look at the size of it!" The X1 is my companion to the M8 and 9 - snug in the outside pocket of a messenger bag. I've used it on shoots like this one. (sorry the images don't expand, we're getting someone in to fix that). Regards, Mark The US chef turned Russian farmer was great talker so I did the story as a video too (warning: no Leica content). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.