X1 sold, X100 bought...

[nippa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The X100 is a fabulous camera but what pleases me most is that it and its images have such a different character to the X1 ; which means I'm keeping both.

 

Whereas the Fuji creates soft rich creamy images the Leica's images stay cool often with a depth that makes focused images almost pop out. Both lenses are first rate and it's impossible for me describe one as better than the other especially when the Fuji is stopped down to F2.8.

 

In terms of handling , the Fuji viewfinder is a delight compared to my slip in Leica version but Leica's 2 dials on top minimalism wins my vote.

Both are cracking cameras and I'm glad to use both.

However , if I had to chose a winner it would have to be the Fuji purely for value for money.

[Advertisement]

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

[mrware]

Nippa, I agree a lot with what you say about each camera, having owned both myself. I do wish the X1 line would get an evf. I do prefer the lens on the Leica, and the controls. Though, I was never too put off by Fuji's menus. Many complained, but I'm the type of person that can pick up any camera and have the menus learned well enough to do what I want. I do give Leica credit though for the simplicity.

 

Leica images are a bit cooler and I find the Fuji jpgs were usually good all the time, whereas with the Leica, I find I need the raw file more. I'm anxious to see what May 10 brings. I have some money saved up, but I've a feeling it won't be enough unless Leica does something with the X1 line or if the interchangeable lens camera comes out at a much lower price point that I'm expecting.

[Clive Murray-White]

Exciting thread, I stumbled on it when searching for X100 in LUF, my usual place is M8 forum, as people over there will know my last problem was learning how to get the best low light performance out of the M8 because we'd changed our gallery lighting to LEDs. Very god advice and helpful but it didn't stop me thinking that there could be a real easy and more flexible solution - a camera with ISO to burn, enter X100.

 

Thought about X1 but just like the M8 not fantastic in the dark. (or that's the impression I've got) my other digital camera is an Oly E-3 even worse past iso 640. So after thinking X100 then reading nightmare stories about focus etc the quest to identify a good IQ camera that will work well in low light commenced GXR,(can't really find enough info about this one)>>> X100>>>>NEX>>>>OMD etc etc my poor old brain has been blown to bits by it all, one thing I know is I'm keeping M8.

 

Even thought, forget all the small cameras a get rid of the Oly and get D7000 or 60D.............they seem like better value? but a little voice says GXR ( if good in the dark) or X100 nice size does exactly what I need - would even go X1 if some one could convince me that it was several times better than M8 in this situation.

[phancj]

Yes, the X1 is much better than the M8 in low light. I suggest you bring a SD card, go to a store and test the thing. Thats what I do with all camera purchases.

 

What I find excellent about the X1 is it is better in the shadow regions, meaning you can even NOT raise iso and shoot raw underexposed, then adjust in post, there's an amazing latitude and pliability in the files.

 

Hence I almost never needed to shoot beyond iso 1600 and still have very nice pics. YMMV.

 

CJ

[Ecaton]

Exciting thread, I stumbled on it when searching for X100 in LUF, my usual place is M8 forum, as people over there will know my last problem was learning how to get the best low light performance out of the M8 because we'd changed our gallery lighting to LEDs. Very god advice and helpful but it didn't stop me thinking that there could be a real easy and more flexible solution - a camera with ISO to burn, enter X100.

 

Thought about X1 but just like the M8 not fantastic in the dark. (or that's the impression I've got) my other digital camera is an Oly E-3 even worse past iso 640. So after thinking X100 then reading nightmare stories about focus etc the quest to identify a good IQ camera that will work well in low light commenced GXR,(can't really find enough info about this one)>>> X100>>>>NEX>>>>OMD etc etc my poor old brain has been blown to bits by it all, one thing I know is I'm keeping M8.

 

Even thought, forget all the small cameras a get rid of the Oly and get D7000 or 60D.............they seem like better value? but a little voice says GXR ( if good in the dark) or X100 nice size does exactly what I need - would even go X1 if some one could convince me that it was several times better than M8 in this situation.

 

High iso performance ranking is X100, X1, GXR m-mount. I have them all and the X1 at iso 1600 is very good and I don't hesitate using it at iso 3200. The X100 iso performance is probably almost one stop ahead of the X1 plus it has the faster lens. With the GXR iso 1600 is the highest I go but try to keep things at iso 800 and lower. Of course, with the GXR -M you can use much faster glass than the X1's Elmarit. I don't have an issue with the X100's AF and after the recent FW upgrade it is surprisingly fast and accurate in low light, much much faster than the X1's. If sensor high iso performance is critical, the X100 or Sony NEX 5N are the ones to consider.

[Clive Murray-White]

Thanks - but Nex doesn't appeal I don't really know why!

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Clive, I remember your other thread discussing the M8. I presume you have a fast lens in the 35mm region for the M8? That would be my first choice.Otherwise, the X1 has much to recommend it.

 

I occasionally use mine indoors/low-light and get fully usable results at ISO 1600. LR3or4 has good noise suppression which works without too much degradation. Live-view can also be useful and less threatening, at times at such events as you contemplate shooting. The bottom line is that natural ambient lighting is the most appealing and does help to conceal other minor technical shortcomings.

[Clive Murray-White]

Hi David,

 

Yes I do use my Nokton 35/1.2 in this situation but in a way its as much part of the problem as anything because shallow DoF at 1.2 can get me some very arty looking shots which, of course, hardly work as documentary snaps of the events - or put another way impose a very restricted style on our web presence.

 

At the moment the Fuji is looking like the best option in terms of giving me a bit of aperture flexibility.

 

Clive

[patrick parker]

it's good to read people giving up on the x1

i was bombarded with angry replies when i wrote this camera was an insult to leica's past.

the retro design for design's sake instead of function was a cheap shot.

[wda]

Hi David,

 

Yes I do use my Nokton 35/1.2 in this situation ...

Clive

But Clive, that equates to a 50mm lens on an M8. For a true comparison you need a 28mm lens, preferably a fast one.

[Clive Murray-White]

But Clive, that equates to a 50mm lens on an M8. For a true comparison you need a 28mm lens, preferably a fast one.

 

David that made me smile, of course you are right, but in a way it takes us straight back to the OP for this thread, a 28 Cron on M8 just to bring it into the 35mm ball park against X1/X100 and just to take pics of gallery openings - you could probably buy a complete Fuji X pro 1 kit for the same. Maybe the cheapest option would be Ultron. Or just stick with the 35, 50mm equiv!

 

Clive

[bluebear]

it's good to read people giving up on the x1

i was bombarded with angry replies when i wrote this camera was an insult to leica's past.

the retro design for design's sake instead of function was a cheap shot.

 

Apart from deriving a sense of self-satisfaction, I don't know why you think it's good that people are giving up on the X1. It is a fantastic camera - period. It's simplicity of design and user interface without all the fancy trimmings of video, sweep panorama, touch screen and the like make it a photographer's delight. Yes, in electronic terms it is now an old design, and cameras such as the X100 as well as MFT/CSC's from Sony et al have taken the market by storm. Despite their gimmicks, many take excellent photographs but there is an elegant simplicity and a certain serenity about using the X1 which none of the other cameras (and I have used lots of them) seem to have. And from what I've read, only the X100 comes close in terms of lens quality.

[sblitz]

the real test will be the x2 vs x100 not the x1 as the base. we will see what Leica has wrought!

[phancj]

I am so happy with the X1 it'll take a whole lot of improvements for me to even consider the X2.

 

 

CJ

[nippa]

I am so happy with the X1 it'll take a whole lot of improvements for me to even consider the X2.

 

 

CJ

 

I'm still in the market for a high quality flexible travel camera with a fixed lens.

All I need in a new Leica X2 would be a small tele or duo lens with a macro facility and then I'd be lining up to buy.

 

Loving the X100 with the latest firmware it's almost perfect but also bought a Canon G1X to see if that met my travel needs..it doesn't , even though the lens is fantastic with resolution comparable to the X1 at most focal lengths.

 

So come on Leica there's a gap to fill.

[phancj]

My personal liking for the X1 is really its simplicity, IQ & most importantly SIZE.

 

My take having tried the various cams is that there is some minor variations in IQ, handling,etc mostly subjective parameters for consideration but I have an entire DSLR kit that serves most of my needs what the X1 offers is a really discreet package. I think the X100 and the GXR has a lot going for them but to me honestly they are too big.

 

hence if leica goes towards zoom, f2, VF etc etc which compromises the new X's size then I am pretty certain I will NOT consider it. But maybe thats just me.

 

Have been toying with the Nikon D800 a lot and with the 35 and 85 1.4G the image quality is simply breathtaking, with stellar AF to boot. But the thing is still damn heavy.

 

CJ

[prk60091]

My personal liking for the X1 is really its simplicity, IQ & most importantly SIZE.

 

My take having tried the various cams is that there is some minor variations in IQ, handling,etc mostly subjective parameters for consideration but I have an entire DSLR kit that serves most of my needs what the X1 offers is a really discreet package. I think the X100 and the GXR has a lot going for them but to me honestly they are too big.

 

hence if leica goes towards zoom, f2, VF etc etc which compromises the new X's size then I am pretty certain I will NOT consider it. But maybe thats just me.

 

Have been toying with the Nikon D800 a lot and with the 35 and 85 1.4G the image quality is simply breathtaking, with stellar AF to boot. But the thing is still damn heavy.

 

CJ

it is not just you. the size, price and the IQ are the big features for me. an X2 will undoubtedly have a faster lens and possibly a VF- - both of which will probably increase the size and price of the camera. I for one like the prime lens of the x1 (just as i choose the prime lens of the minilux over the minilux zoom 15+ years ago)

 

i experimented with a OVF for a bit this spring and sold it on ebay- I don't need it (others do- but I don't) . I am not an engineer but a faster lens or a zoom I think will require a larger profile. and that would make an x2 a no go for me.

 

as always- this is my opinion only - feel free to disagree

[Ecaton]

it is not just you. the size, price and the IQ are the big features for me. an X2 will undoubtedly have a faster lens and possibly a VF- - both of which will probably increase the size and price of the camera. I for one like the prime lens of the x1 (just as i choose the prime lens of the minilux over the minilux zoom 15+ years ago)

 

i experimented with a OVF for a bit this spring and sold it on ebay- I don't need it (others do- but I don't) . I am not an engineer but a faster lens or a zoom I think will require a larger profile. and that would make an x2 a no go for me.

 

as always- this is my opinion only - feel free to disagree

 

I had all the accessories, external VF, grip, ever-ready case. All gone. I use the X1 the way it left the factory with a wrist strap and carry it in a jacket pocket or small belt pouch. Its simplicity, size, weight and IQ are a package no competitor offers. That's why it will become a classic.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[phancj]

I never had the vf, any leica case, grip,etc,etc. IMHO it defeats the purpose of such a camera.

 

I am pretty certain if the X2 is ANY bigger I will certainly not look at it...on the other hand if they go in the opposite direction and squeeze the size even smaller then I'd be very very interested.

 

Thats also one of the reason why I never went with m4/3 coz I feel against the sensor size the cameras are pretty large.

 

An M9 with an AF system would in my eyes be the almost perfect camera in terms of size/IQ/simplicity. If they can even squeeze that into a smaller body....haha....leica can have my money any day!

 

My two cents.

 

CJ