jsrockit Posted June 16, 2011 Share #21 Posted June 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why do u say that. I have both cameras and the x100 beats the m9 hands down when taking photos at night. I have both as well...and I think you have to add handheld to your quote, because if you use the M9 on a tripod, you cannot say the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Hi jsrockit, Take a look here M9 vs X100. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erl Posted June 17, 2011 Share #22 Posted June 17, 2011 Why do u say that. I have both cameras and the x100 beats the m9 hands down when taking photos at night. Such a comparison necessitates determination of all the parameters that define 'shooting at night'. I will wager there are plenty where the M9 would easily beat the x100. Of course it is possible the reverse is also true. Moral: Choose the correct tool for your purpose, there is no 'best' camera! The white balance of m9 sucks, iso sucks. Do not know why LEICA engineers do not solve this problem. Have you tried controlling the WB in the menu? Don't use 'Auto', Select the appropriate item, or set it manually to your personal taste. That's what Leica is about - control, not auto! The ISO on the M9 is not brilliant, but the option (at your expense!) is very fast lenses that go a long way to addressing that situation. 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. Or maybe a giveaway? Fuji should buy over LEICA one day At least you do have a sense of humour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 17, 2011 Share #23 Posted June 17, 2011 Fuji have already bought all the Leicas they need for the time being. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Jayant Posted June 17, 2011 Share #24 Posted June 17, 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 .......end of the world..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
denoir Posted June 17, 2011 Share #25 Posted June 17, 2011 I have both as well...and I think you have to add handheld to your quote, because if you use the M9 on a tripod, you cannot say the same thing. Not only that, you have to add that the M9 must use a 35/2 lens. Use a 35 Summilux and you've added a stop to the M9. Use a 21 Summilux and you can reduce the shutter speed by another stop. I think generally comparing the X100 to the M9 is just pointless. It's like comparing a Golf to a Lamborghini and pointing out that the Golf has a more advanced GPS system and better speakers... We're talking about two different classes of entities here. The X100 can and should be compared to the X1 - and in that comparison I would not be surprised if it came ahead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
57andrew Posted June 17, 2011 Share #26 Posted June 17, 2011 I think generally comparing the X100 to the M9 is just pointless. It's like comparing a Golf to a Lamborghini and pointing out that the Golf has a more advanced GPS system and better speakers... If I were driving a Lamborghini I would hope I would know where I was and I probably couldn't hear the sound system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
voe Posted June 17, 2011 Share #27 Posted June 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fuji should buy over LEICA one day But there is danger that Fuji will plague it's advanced technologies with Leica inferior know-how. I reckon Fuji is great enough to take on Canon or Nikon, but Leica noo, who wants expensive, bad high ISO and manual focus cameras these days anyway. And as for the lenses Canon and Nikon USM/VR/IS zooms are better than the impossible to find Leica lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted June 17, 2011 Share #28 Posted June 17, 2011 Both are good in their own way Neither are perfect You can disappear up your own a**e endlessly contemplating the various pros and cons Time would be better spent taking some pictures and mastering the equipment you already have..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 17, 2011 Share #29 Posted June 17, 2011 I have both M9 and X100. X100 is good as P&S camera but no comparison with M8/9+M lens. ...Some people may think to get X100 as backup for M9. I would recommend to get used M8 instead of X100. SATOKI Or a Leica X1. Mine sits in a compartment alongside my M8/M9 with two spare lenses for a highly competent and versatile kit. In the evenings I can lock the main kit away and explore with just the X1 and have no trouble with noise or ostentation. It is unobtrusive and effective. The best of both worlds! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 17, 2011 Share #30 Posted June 17, 2011 Odd comparison. 18 meg FF CCD verses 12 meg APSC CMOS ... plus faster aperture interchangeable M lenses ... negates it immediately. If technology is the measure, the better comparison would be between the APSC X100 and a Sony NEX5, where the main difference is the lack of a traditional viewfinder, and traditional sort-of-rangefinder styling ... note the word "traditional" : -) Other than that, the NEX5 technologically smokes the X100, and does it for less money (2 lens NEX5 kit $750.@ Amazon). Current NEX5: Slightly higher resolution APSC sensor; as good or better high ISO performance (with faster lenses available to push low light use even farther); depending on lens used, small enough to actually put in a pocket; way better/more application of technology like low-light anti-motion blur in-camera blending, 3 shot HDR in-camera stacking, in-camera sweep panoramic stitching, etc., etc., etc., ... Plus: interchangeable lens mount ... allowing adapted use of fast Leica M lenses which smoke the Fuji lens; Use of any M mount optic like ZMs, or VC optics, even 12&15mm and 90 Lanthar APO ... (note: On June 20th, Sony will update the NEX3&5 firmware to add manual focus LCD "focus peaking" confirmation technology when using adapted manual lenses). Use of any ZA Ziess AF lens which smoke the Fuji lens. Plus: larger 3" 2X higher resolution LCD (920,000 verses 460,000); 7FPS verses 5FPS; and on and on ... The NEX 3C has been announced for Aug ... now even smaller/lighter, the resolution goes to 16.75 meg.! Fuji needs to keep up, technologically the X100 is already a bit obsolete and will be definitively behind in IQ as of Aug. ... and when Sony adds the EVF the X100 will be limited by a fixed lens and be totally obsolete. -Marc Attached: M lenses on the NEX5 ... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/154390-m9-vs-x100/?do=findComment&comment=1705056'>More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 17, 2011 Share #31 Posted June 17, 2011 Odd comparison. 18 meg FF CCD verses 12 meg APSC CMOS ... plus faster aperture interchangeable M lenses ... negates it immediately. If technology is the measure, the better comparison would be between the APSC X100 and a Sony NEX5, where the main difference is the lack of a traditional viewfinder, and traditional sort-of-rangefinder styling ... note the word "traditional" : -) Other than that, the NEX5 technologically smokes the X100, and does it for less money (2 lens NEX5 kit $750.@ Amazon). Current NEX5: Slightly higher resolution APSC sensor; as good or better high ISO performance (with faster lenses available to push low light use even farther); depending on lens used, small enough to actually put in a pocket; way better/more application of technology like low-light anti-motion blur in-camera blending, 3 shot HDR in-camera stacking, in-camera sweep panoramic stitching, etc., etc., etc., ... Plus: interchangeable lens mount ... allowing adapted use of fast Leica M lenses which smoke the Fuji lens; Use of any M mount optic like ZMs, or VC optics, even 12&15mm and 90 Lanthar APO ... (note: On June 20th, Sony will update the NEX3&5 firmware to add manual focus LCD "focus peaking" confirmation technology when using adapted manual lenses). Use of any ZA Ziess AF lens which smoke the Fuji lens. Plus: larger 3" 2X higher resolution LCD (920,000 verses 460,000); 7FPS verses 5FPS; and on and on ... The NEX 3C has been announced for Aug ... now even smaller/lighter, the resolution goes to 16.75 meg.! Fuji needs to keep up, technologically the X100 is already a bit obsolete and will be definitively behind in IQ as of Aug. ... and when Sony adds the EVF the X100 will be limited by a fixed lens and be totally obsolete. -Marc Attached: M lenses on the NEX5 ... The Sony sensor has more pixels. But the Fuji's resolution is impressive, thanks to no or a very weak AA filter. To use your language, It smokes the Nex 5 in the resolution department. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 17, 2011 Share #32 Posted June 17, 2011 The Sony sensor has more pixels. But the Fuji's resolution is impressive, thanks to no or a very weak AA filter. To use your language, It smokes the Nex 5 in the resolution department. Not based on any pics I've seen from the X100. But it's all in the eye of the beholder and which camera they own/use I suppose. Not that either one of the cameras is really more than a step up from a P&S. I don't like anything I've seen from the X100 and have openly said so on other forums where a ton of shots have been posted ... so I don't mind saying it here also. If the X100 had an interchangeable mount so you could mount M lenses on it, at least it could be a M back-up when traveling light. Even if the images would be a disappointing compromise compared to the M9, it'd be better than nothing. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark2 Posted June 19, 2011 Share #33 Posted June 19, 2011 I fear you are comparing apples and elephants. Regards, Bill It's not apple and oranges. Both are cameras, x100 can be a rangefinder. Just that their technology Is years ahead. You guys should try it before commenting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2011 Share #34 Posted June 19, 2011 Ummm...How can it be a rangefinder without a rangefinder mechanism??? That is indeed truly amazing technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted June 19, 2011 Share #35 Posted June 19, 2011 It's not apple and oranges. Both are cameras, x100 can be a rangefinder. Just that their technology Is years ahead. You guys should try it before commenting. So how does the technology improve your images? It is about images, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 19, 2011 Share #36 Posted June 19, 2011 It's a faux "rangefinder". Ersatz. Fake. Wannabe. It's like a tribute act rather than the original. A pastiche, in and of itself compromised by adopting styling cues that it can only mimic in the same way as a mirror reflects reality. I'm sure it is capable of some competent results in skilled hands, but I fear that in will burn bright and die young as early adopters dump it in droves for the next shiny thing. It's not a rangefinder, not even close, but it will be bought and enjoyed by many who know no better. A number of respected members here have bought one and shown their skill with it but, to be fair, they could for the most part coax exceptional results out of a Casio. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 19, 2011 Share #37 Posted June 19, 2011 Not based on any pics I've seen from the X100. But it's all in the eye of the beholder and which camera they own/use I suppose. Not that either one of the cameras is really more than a step up from a P&S. I don't like anything I've seen from the X100 and have openly said so on other forums where a ton of shots have been posted ... so I don't mind saying it here also. If the X100 had an interchangeable mount so you could mount M lenses on it, at least it could be a M back-up when traveling light. Even if the images would be a disappointing compromise compared to the M9, it'd be better than nothing. -Marc I actually own both, haven't touched the NEX 5 since last August, I believe. It's gadgetry appeal did not last long with me. One of my most expensive camera purchases, much more so than the M9 which is as exciting to use as ever. Some prefer to look at a camera (screen) and fiddle with it when shooting others want to look through a camera window (viewfinder) to focus on what's going on around them and have the camera literally disapear. The former choose a P&S, including NEX or X1, the latter a true RF and/or X100, which provides a RF like experience and freedom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 19, 2011 Share #38 Posted June 19, 2011 It's not apple and oranges. Both are cameras, x100 can be a rangefinder. Just that their technology Is years ahead. You guys should try it before commenting. I've tried both, as have probably many here, worked the files, etc... I'll stick with the M9 thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 19, 2011 Share #39 Posted June 19, 2011 I actually own both, haven't touched the NEX 5 since last August, I believe. It's gadgetry appeal did not last long with me. One of my most expensive camera purchases, much more so than the M9 which is as exciting to use as ever. Some prefer to look at a camera (screen) and fiddle with it when shooting others want to look through a camera window (viewfinder) to focus on what's going on around them and have the camera literally disapear. The former choose a P&S, including NEX or X1, the latter a true RF and/or X100, which provides a RF like experience and freedom. Read my post ... I use the NEX5 as a back-up to my M9 when traveling light. Try putting your M lenses on the X100 ... otherwise I agree with you RE: the X100 ... but would never buy the camera because I do no like the files. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted June 19, 2011 Share #40 Posted June 19, 2011 I like the X100, but it's no M9. The X100 is what I call my "briefcase" camera, namely that it is always ready when I need a quick snap, a macro shot at work to show some problem with a part, etc. I hate the autofocus, but the manual focus is ridiculously slow and I also feel the dual vision viewfinder, while novel, is more of a gimmick than a useful tool. IMHO, the X100 is more than capable, but it has no soul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.