Thoughts about cameras

[pappde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First off I AM NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER!

Maybe a camera enthusiast, but I like all things mechanical that have some part of them made by a huma by his/her hand.

I have a few mechanical watches and a few older cameras, some of them Leicas. I am not even a collector, but I know by feedback that I have a decent taste when it comes to this kind of stuff.

One of my favorite Leicas is a CL. It is one of those cameras that represented a significant departure from the Staus Quo of the times. In its design it is straightforward and pleasing, just feels right in your hand. It is extremely well built, very capable and at the same time simple to use one. Most knowledgeable photography enthusiast agree on its value. It was a Leica built in Japan! It was so successful that according to rumours "it had to be killed by Leica" because it hurt their M sales.

On several forums people tend to compare the X100 to the Leica M9 or to the Leica X1. One is a full frame rangefinder costing about tem times of the Fuji camera. I do not own an M9, but used one several times and YES you can compare them! They BOTH have the same excellent build quality. You have to have the X100 in your hands to appreciate this, the numbers on the AppSpeed dial and the ExpComp dials are engraved NOT painted or stenciled on, as is the lens info engraved on, just like on a glass made by Leica. The vulcanite has a rich texture and a very pleasant feel to it and is applied impeccably. Every door and cover snaps to its place with a nice positive "snap" and flush and without a gap. Some felt that the rear control buttons felt a little "cheap". I am not sure about that, other than the rotary thing with the OK button ( this one IS really cheapo and the center button is VERY small), I am happy with. They have a nice, good click no wobble. The IQ of course should no be compared to a full frame sensor output with glasses that are at least twice as expensive than the X100.

I also own a Leica X1. It PALES to the X100 in build quality, every lettering is stenciled, the sial are without a strong positive click, battery door not flush, and the RUBBER covering not only is a bit cheap it is also peeling on some, but I am not here to bash the X1. The two cameras are comparable in the IQ department, what I hear and can see by the pictures. I know I will trumple on sensivities wit this, but I think Leica should have built the X100 instead of the X1.

And this brings me to the CL. The X100 and the CL are in the the same class, just look at the picture. They both used the best current technology and made the best with it, without being very expensive, but without skimping on quality and at the same time challenging some of the current prevailing design philosophies.

To me they even smell a little bit the same. Must be the vulcanite.

 

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc98/pappde/photo-1-1.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc98/pappde/photo-2.jpg

[Guest badbob]

I mostly agree that the aesthetics of the X1 could have been better. OTOH, when I first removed the X1 from the box it came in, I felt as if I were handling a nice piece of jewelry - something a cut above the common camera. I don't remember exactly why, but I suspect there's more to an overall aesthetic than a couple of specific details. As to the other camera, when Fuji makes an x100 the same size as the X1, I will consider that comparison. Not until then. People argue about the viewfinder - fine - let them. The X1 doesn't come with a viewfinder, making it smaller, and that's why I bought it.

 

Then there are the images. By now, X100 owners should be jumping up and down with joy at getting X1 quality in a camera half the price. ?????