Leica X1 vs Fujifilm X100 - Imaging Wars

[damnsharp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When speaking about IQ in my opinion the X1 (luckily) has nicer images. Yealous I am on the looks and all the possibilities with the Fuiji. The compare of Steve Huff I found nice to read and more to see.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Tomcollins]

I'm a little slow to understand how or why we compare these two X series cameras. If you have an X1 and you like your X1 and your a Leica person then you probably like your Leica and your not likely to sell it for the X100, I think. If you think you might want an X100 and your not really in to spending a thousand extra dollars then there's plenty of evidence to support the image quality of the X100. The back and forth of comparing image quality as rated by owners of the subject cameras wouldn't convince me to sell my X1 for an X100 nor, does it seem likely, that it would go the other way either.

 

In the end if you take your camera of choice, get out shoot some stuff and get an image you like would you say or think it just may have been better if only I had the other camera. And if you took the same shot with both cameras, printed, matted and framed it, would someone looking at it think, he should have used the X......

 

I love my X1 and from everything I've read the X100 seems like a really awesome camera too. If your in the market to buy one of these gems then your probably thinking you want a Leica, but for less money you can get something like it. If you want a Leica and buy a Fuji, you'll still want a Leica.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Guest malland]

Tom, your reasoning reminds of a post on a Leica forum some years ago in which a film user wrote that he would switch to digital if only Leica made a scanner. The flaw, if you will, in his reasoning obviously was that there was no reason, given Leica's core expertise (superb lenses), and the company's lack of extensive electronics experience, to think that Leica would make a much better scanner than, say Imacon. Similarly, you're positing that people buy the X1 because "it's a Leica". On the other hand, you can be sure that most people buy the X100 because they think it excels in some way. That leaves the fact that some people buy, or bought, the X1 only because it's a Leica. While there certainly are such people, it's not a market that Leica can really on if X100 is perceived in the future to be consistently better. But, since both cameras have a fixed 35mm EFOV lens and the same since sensor, the comparison is certainly valid — and sometimes interesting.

 

I have not shot with either camera, but from what I read and see on the web, the difference is image quality is probably not compelling either way, in that either camera is likely to be "good enough". That leaves handling qualities and the X100 hybrid viewfinder as the basis on which to chose.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Around Chiang Mai

[Tomcollins]

Thanks Mitch for your thoughts. I love Bangkok by the way and have been lucky enough to spend a few visits there.

 

Your point is well taken and I guess what I'm confused about isn't that one would buy a Leica just because it's a Leica, although I'm sure many would, what's hard for me to understand is how the opinion of each of these cameras owners can compare their images to the other for the benefit of a third party to be able to make a decision. So my point is if your interested in owning a Leica, then you may want to get the X1. If the Leica isn't what your after but rather the rangefinder "like" experience and you want to save a grand then the Fuji with it's comparable image quailty will work for you, without this long back and forth of comparing image quality. They're both superb cameras.

 

I'm probably missing the point altogether. The point likely is that this is the nature of the web and it's forums. After all I'm sitting here reading and writing and giving my useless two bits when I should be going to bed.

[Guest malland]

Tom, you have a point: taking the extreme, it was certainly impossible from the initial flow of pictures from early buyers to get any sense of what was the image quality of the X100. Most of these people shot JPGs either because that's what they wanted or because none of the popular RAW converter could at that time handle the Fuji file format. Eventually, there were some pictures from RAW files available, but even today people post pictures which they state show how good the X100 is without identifying whether they're shooting RAW or JPG.

 

Ultimately, if one is seriously considering buying the X100 or choosing between it and the X1, the best thing to do, if one cannot oneself try both cameras, is to read the best reviews available, such as the rigorous one on Sean Reid's pay site. There are also some free reviews, such as the one by Steve Huff, and that may be adequate if you trust his eye.

 

I guess many people read the threads here such as this one to see what some Leica users whose photography they may know think of these cameras. Others read these threads because they like the disputes and want to take one side or the other. So, at the end of the day, I have to agree that I know what you mean.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Beijing Rhythms

[Robmoores1]

I have now done a conclusion to the above and it can be found here:

 

Leica X1 vs Fuji X100 – The Imaging Wars – Final Thoughts | robmoores1.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

[wilfredo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Judging from the pictures I've seen, both cameras are comparable in IQ. I see real differences when compared to Digital M photos, and even the classic D2. Having said that, although the X1 has never appealed to me, I've seen some excellent photos produced by this camera in the right hands. BTW, I came down on the Leica side of the images in the comparison without knowing which was which. As far as looks, you gotta love the X100, they did a good job at imitating a classic Leica look.

[viramati]

The X100 images just look a little overexposed but apart from that I'll take the X100 ( in fact I have)

[phancj]

My elder brother just brought his X100 to my office, the build quality (apart from the lens cap without a catch and the aperture ring is a little difficult for bigger fingers) is simply superb and feels much better quality than the X1 and sturdier as well.

 

For image rendering my first thoughts are that the X1 has a more natural rendition but the X100 at default settings (both shot at f/2.8) has punchier colors. Sharpness the same, bokeh similar but the X1 images speaks a lot more to me. of course in raw things can be tweaked etc etc but to my eyes the X1 consistently delivers properly exposed pictures (under aperture priority) the X100 tends towards overexposure a tad. Color tones in the X1 is much more muted but "natural" whilst that of the X100 tends to be overexagerated and a tad "stark" from the files I shot.

 

I urge anyone on the fence to shoot both cameras at the same time to decide. The "drawing" is remarkably different so it depends on individual tastes.

 

I like to take "environmental" portraits and firmly believe the X1 is better for my needs by virtue of more natural tones but if I were doing landscapes and scenery I would go for the X100. Thats what I think. Both have their forte for different reasons and I havent yet toyed with the raf file yet (it says photoshop does not recognize the file format). Havent plug into LR yet.

 

If I was given a choice now as to which I'll buy I am sure I will still buy the X1. Size/IQ for me is the key. And I get more than useable jpegs out of the box with the X1. Dont get me wrong, the X100 is VERY attractive camera with bells and whistles and a fabulous build quality that should spur leica to wake up and up the ante in future lines. It is along the lines of the build quality of M8/9, just a tad less hefty and robust to my feeling as compared to the digital Ms. Shutter is superbly quiet like the X1.

 

What leica has in the X1 is probably due to the better image processing(again my personal taste for images), or maybe a slightly better lens. Not sure which. But they sure better make sturdier cameras and utilize better materials in the X2 if they intend to compete. The X100 build quality runs many circles around the X1.

 

 

CJ

[Guest Holy Moly]

Most people here judge the camera by the end result - the file. This is ok but only one side of the coin.

The process of making photographs starts with the cam in your hand and the optical and manual operations for framing, composing and targeting.

 

Compare to the P&S X1 the Fuji supports shooters with brilliant devices from viewfinders up to (sometimes) neccessary small gadgets like a filterthreads for pola filters etc.

 

My choice for landscape and other slow objects would be the X1 but for all other genres the X100. For the small portion of landscape photography which I would do with the Fuji I could stand the difference. But at the end of the day the printer, the screen and the drivers plus paper make the pic.............

[phancj]

Honestly I did not discern the X100 to be a lot speedier in operation, in fact (perhaps due to my larger fingers) I found the aperture ring annoying, not that I may not get used to it, but is is something to consider. The X1 has an easier aperture control on top. I personally see both of these cameras in the same class of non-interchangeable lens "P&S", but think in terms of rendering the X100 straight out of camera files may be to me better for something outside of facial tones.

 

Not everyone wants to tweak every single image, though some do.

 

CJ

[dickgrafixstop]

for the price of an x100 you could get the Ricoh GXR with a "normal" lens and the

M adapter and have money left over for a lens cap or two. The reviews I've seen

say the short fixed lens are good in themselves, the adapter appears to work,

aps chip so it may be an excellent solution - as well as a M series backup that

won't break the bank.

[phancj]

I totally agree. I would buy the interchangeable gxr over the x100 for sure.