Puts compares M9 with the Fuji X100

[Jeff S]

In this article on his site.

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

This is an interesting review and agrees largely with my own impressions.

As I have stated elsewhere, I use the X100 much like an M: The focusing is always on Manual, and the 'out-of-doors default setting' is always f:8 and focus at 4 meters. This is a good zone focusing for street photography. When I encounter a subject outside the xone, a quick touch on the AFL-AEL button (which I keep programmed for AF) gives me fast point-focus. Indoors, I use this 'manual AF' exclusively, as I have to set a larger aperture there.

To my mind, the X100 does not challenge the M9, but it is a likeable 'walking about camera' and a competent backup for somebody like me who takes more than 50% of his pictures with a 35mm lens in any case. And I agree that the Gnomes of Solms should take a good look at this camera. They surely do.

And the difference between a captivating and a boring picture is very seldom in the file quality ...

The old man from the Age of Scale Focusing

[luigi bertolotti]

I was rather surprised by this statement :

"The interesting point to muse about is the fact that the APS-C sensor size can challenge the 135-sized sensor in many situations as far as image quality is concerned, the only advantage of the larger-sized sensor is the ability to use all lenses without a crop-factor."

[Dannybuoy]

I think the X100 is a good example of why Leica can't sit on their laurels and need to take industry developments seriously. But I'm a little bored of the X100/M9 comparisons. Done to death now. I'm not really sure they should even be compared, yes they are both cameras but are very different propositions. It's like comparing a top of the range Weber traditional BBQ to a mid range gas BBQ. They can cook the same food, the results are both the same (the food is cooked) but the flavour of the food is very different. Subtle but different. Some prefer the taste of one over the other and people will argue that their preference is best. Out of all the comparisons with the M9 this is one of the best I've read. If X100 owners want to believe their camera is as good as a Leica M9 then good for them. They are a little misguided ;-)

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes, the frequent concept of "M9 to X100 comparision" is a bit boring...(*) but let's admit that it proves that Fuij marketing has had a smart approach ... the "blink to Leica" concept has given X100 a definite status that adds value to the product; moreover, if marketing has made a fine job, engineers has done their part in making a camera which produces good files, so giving a solid backing to the marketing "blink"... compliments to them, have done fine their jobs; M photography is another thing, we know.

(*) and isn't only forums related... some days ago, a friend of mine, addicted to film, M3+M6 only for years, told me that his dealer told him "look at this X100 !! I can lend it to you 4-5 days...maybe it's the time you look to digital..."

[lars_bergquist]

Originally Posted by Dannybuoy

[ ... ] If X100 owners want to believe their camera is as good as a Leica M9 then good for them. They are a little misguided ;-)

The two cameras are 'good' for somewhat different things; I don't think I have never claimed that the X100 competes with the M9. But Fujifilm have created a nice little niche of their own, and their camera seems to be selling quite well. This means that there are still some people around who know what photography is, which is a heartening discovery.

The old man

[theendlesshouse]

The M9 is obviously in a different league and rightly so! Plus you get to use all the wonderful leica glass as they were intended to be used! The X100 looks to be an amazing camera but it's not a rangefinder the IQ is not as good and it has a fixed focal length.

[rosuna]

The Summarit 35mm lens seems to be much better than the Fujinon lens, in spite of Puts' claims to the contrary.

[jaapv]

I do not see the X100 as a competitor of the M9 but more as living proof that Leica dropped the ball in not persisting in continuing the concept of the Digilux2. Now they are faced with a benchmark for the X2. A good thing for the customer.
Anyway, we get these comparisons and raves each time Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon Sony or Olympus brings out an interesting camera. And they disappear silently in about half a year.

[viramati]

Puts has pretty much summed it up. I would also add another major feature that I love for street work is that it is totally silent to the the extent that when shooting from the hip you can't even tell if its taken the shot!!

[wattsy]

Originally Posted by jaapv

living proof that Leica dropped the ball in not persisting in continuing the concept of the Digilux2.

I don't think you can blame Leica for that. The Digilux2 was part of a line developed by Panasonic and it is presumably the Japanese company which decided not to continue the concept. Not a great deal Leica could do about it.

[jaapv]

Not quite. It was a codesign and probably the Panaleica that Solms ever had the most input into. In the production phase Leica ordered a specific number of units iirc 20.000 and when that batch was finished that was it. Sonehow Leica got on the 4/3rds bandwagon and the "successor" Digilux3 was not a succussor at all, but an Olympus DSLR type camera that was not a success to put it mildly.
Had Leica had the resources that went into the X1 to developthe Digilux3 it would have been a different story imo.

[M. Valdemar]

Most people have been brainwashed by a clever marketing campaign and the fact that the X100 looks like a classic film camera.

If the X100 was designed differently, and looked like a cheap point and shoot camera, nobody here would be caught dead with it, even if the image quality was superb and the camera retained all the same features.

It is almost laughable. It looks a little like an M9, so it becomes an M9.

There are hundreds of other extremely competent digital cameras that DON'T look like an M9, so they are completely ignored by the "enthusiast" press and users.

[viramati]

Originally Posted by M. Valdemar

Most people have been brainwashed by a clever marketing campaign and the fact that the X100 looks like a classic film camera.

If the X100 was designed differently, and looked like a cheap point and shoot camera, nobody here would be caught dead with it, even if the image quality was superb and the camera retained all the same features.

It is almost laughable. It looks a little like an M9, so it becomes an M9.

There are hundreds of other extremely competent digital cameras that DON'T look like an M9, so they are completely ignored by the "enthusiast" press and users.

Sorry but I disagree. Yes it maybe retro looking but I like it most because it has analogue/wheel controls of aperture and shutter speed which makes it unlike other compacts which make it so easy to change the settings without having to use the OVF or LCD screen. this maybe retro but it is what I need. Now if it had a proper manually linked focus mechanism it would be near on perfect. I have both and I can say in all honestly that it comes the nearest I know of in a fixed lens compact to the operational simplicity and ethos of the M9. Just because it isn't a leica doesn't mean it's no good and if it looked like a cheap point and shoot it wouldn't operate in the same way. Lastly I wasn't brainwashed into buying this camera I bought it as a tool and for what it can do, yes it has it's faults but you have to learn to use it unlike you average computerised DIY P&S

[jaques]

Most people have been brainwashed by a clever marketing campaign and the fact that the X100 looks like a classic film camera.

If the X100 was designed differently, and looked like a cheap point and shoot camera, nobody here would be caught dead with it, even if the image quality was superb and the camera retained all the same features.

It is almost laughable. It looks a little like an M9, so it becomes an M9.

There are hundreds of other extremely competent digital cameras that DON'T look like an M9, so they are completely ignored by the "enthusiast" press and users.

Viramati beat me to the same reply...I don't agree- and I don't agree with Puts points about how closely the camera resembles the M. It resembles a rangefinder from the 60's- it could be based on an M- but actually looks more like my Olympus 35 RD, SP and RC cameras- right down to the way the Fuji logo is handled on top, the fixed lens- etc... And people don't equate it to the M simply because it looks like one: it also has a revolutionary viewfinder that actually does handle much like a traditional RF camera. Using the camera is quite natural when you are familiar with rangefinders- the focusing is different but the view through the finder is all too familiar.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by rosuna

The Summarit 35mm lens seems to be much better than the Fujinon lens, in spite of Puts' claims to the contrary.

Much better might be a stretch... but the fact that Fuji can make a 23mm f/2 lens, that when paired with the X100, is cheaper than the summarit by $400...and even come close to the 35mm Summarit is a amazing achievement IMO.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by jaques

I don't agree with Puts points about how closely the camera resembles the M. It resembles a rangefinder from the 60's- it could be based on an M- but actually looks more like my Olympus 35 RD, SP and RC cameras- right down to the way the Fuji logo is handled on top, the fixed lens- etc...

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by M. Valdemar

Most people have been brainwashed by a clever marketing campaign and the fact that the X100 looks like a classic film camera.

If the X100 was designed differently, and looked like a cheap point and shoot camera, nobody here would be caught dead with it, even if the image quality was superb and the camera retained all the same features.

It is almost laughable. It looks a little like an M9, so it becomes an M9.

There are hundreds of other extremely competent digital cameras that DON'T look like an M9, so they are completely ignored by the "enthusiast" press and users.

Always hard to tell with copycat designs. Are they being sold to wannabes or on their own merit? Within this forum I would suggest the latter, as members here have no need to pose as Leica owners. In the outside world? It may well be as you say.

[jaques]

OK- I guess I overstated my case... the M3 is definately in the bones-but lets face it- cameras that look like an m have been around for the last 60 years. Were they all just leica posers? canon sold over 1 million of the Canonet QL17...

I don't think your theory is meritorious Jaap-in certain cases no doubt: but the X100 appeals to a lot of people who don't give a rats proverbial about Leica cameras. It also appeals to many Leica owners. It also appeals to lovers of 1960's Japanese Leica like cameras... Just the other day i was showing an X-100 to a photographer who was really interested in it due to its size, weight, decent IQ and high ISO quality- and the price- which was and is right for a lot more people than any m ever will be.

[Anasebi]

Perhaps its because I use pro grade IPS, but those pictures are not close at all to my eye. The X100 is an excellent camera and defines IQ under $1500, but at base ISO it isn't even a competition. The M9 is on a whole difference level in sensor cleanliness. Not that it would be hard to beat the M9, if the A900 had its AA filter take off its old 24mp CMOS fullframe would do it easily.