salim Posted October 31, 2012 Share #1  Posted October 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Finally I got the Leica X2 and all my doubts I had comparing it to my one year old X100 has vanished. I wrote an article about it, click link below and let me know what you think and whether you agree with my assessment  Leica X2 The X100 Killer (Review) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Hi salim, Take a look here Leica X2 the X100 Killer. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dan States Posted October 31, 2012 Share #2  Posted October 31, 2012 Finally I got the Leica X2 and all my doubts I had comparing it to my one year old X100 has vanished. I wrote an article about it, click link below and let me know what you think and whether you agree with my assessment Leica X2 The X100 Killer (Review)  Much of what you say also applies to the X1. I had both the X100 and X1 for over a year and sold the X100. It's a great camera but it's not a compact. The focus was not reliable and was actually slower in daylight than the X1.  Best wishes Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 31, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted October 31, 2012 Salim, some fine and interesting pictures in your Gallery. I also enjoyed your enthusiastic, if subjective, assessment of the Leica X2. Â I still have my X1 bought when first launched and still find it a vary fine camera. Had the X2 been a radically better camera, I would have been tempted to upgrade. What we do share, is Leica heritage and a superb Elmarit lens, common to both versions of your camera. Continue to enjoy your photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share #4 Â Posted October 31, 2012 Thanks you both. And thanks WDA for your kind words, glad you enjoyed my photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted November 2, 2012 Share #5 Â Posted November 2, 2012 One with EVF & OVF, the other without. Put that wart of an EVF on the X2 and compare sizes. Compare the two at f2.0, or at iso 6400, or have a look at the lcd screen. Funny enough, when Steve Huff did some blind tests between the X100 and the X1, most could not tell a difference as far as IQ was concerned. Except, of course at f2.0 or iso 6400:p. This biased review reminds me of the wishful thinking of the leica fanboys that there Dlux5's IQ would beat a Pana LX 5. And they believe it until this day. For the record: I own a X1 and x100 and the Fuji is the better camera, irrespective of price. And the X1 IQ beats the X2 anyday:eek:. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
s38 Posted November 2, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted November 2, 2012 One with EVF & OVF, the other without. Put that wart of an EVF on the X2 and compare sizes. Compare the two at f2.0, or at iso 6400, or have a look at the lcd screen. Funny enough, when Steve Huff did some blind tests between the X100 and the X1, most could not tell a difference as far as IQ was concerned. Except, of course at f2.0 or iso 6400:p. This biased review reminds me of the wishful thinking of the leica fanboys that there Dlux5's IQ would beat a Pana LX 5. And they believe it until this day. For the record: I own a X1 and x100 and the Fuji is the better camera, irrespective of price. And the X1 IQ beats the X2 anyday:eek:. Â Thanks so much! I am off to sell my X2 and buy the X1 and Fuji X100. I am positive this is going to make me a lot better photographer! ( I only take pictures to review them at 100% in LR and make sure they are razor sharp) Â Thanks again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share #7 Â Posted November 3, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Of course I totally disagree with both of you. X2 is razor sharp, you need to update to the latest firmware. And as for x100 well it depends on one personal choice, and not this was not biased review. I have both camera and been using x100 for one year now, so trust me, I been honest as much as I can Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share #8  Posted November 3, 2012 And this one was taken HANDHELD at ISO 1600 with aperature 2.8. I think its decent and beautiful enough dont you think, for a night shot without a tripod wth shutter of 1/30 handheld  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/191273-leica-x2-the-x100-killer/?do=findComment&comment=2157286'>More sharing options...
Digitom Posted November 3, 2012 Share #9  Posted November 3, 2012 And this one was taken HANDHELD at ISO 1600 with aperature 2.8. I think its decent and beautiful enough dont you think, for a night shot without a tripod wth shutter of 1/30 handheld [ATTACH]344716[/ATTACH]  Hello Salim,  such a great photo! The different light from the lamps outside and from inside in the middle, and the sky, and one can also see some stars. Amazing shot! Any post processing?  By the way, I saw your photos at your website. Really nice and very interesting. Greetings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted November 3, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted November 3, 2012 One with EVF & OVF, the other without. Put that wart of an EVF on the X2 and compare sizes. Compare the two at f2.0, or at iso 6400, or have a look at the lcd screen. Funny enough, when Steve Huff did some blind tests between the X100 and the X1, most could not tell a difference as far as IQ was concerned. Except, of course at f2.0 or iso 6400:p. This biased review reminds me of the wishful thinking of the leica fanboys that there Dlux5's IQ would beat a Pana LX 5. And they believe it until this day. For the record: I own a X1 and x100 and the Fuji is the better camera, irrespective of price. And the X1 IQ beats the X2 anyday:eek:. Â Its just a camera. No need to be a jerk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted November 6, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted November 6, 2012 Thanks Salim, nice write up, good pictures I would point out that the X2 is almost 3x the cost of the x100 in the UK Rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted November 10, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted November 10, 2012 the title of this post is sort of absurd...considering the X100 costs MUCH less than the X2. Â generally when devices are described as 'killer' as compared to something else, it 'kills' something more expensive then it. Like a $300 Canon lens being called "Summilux killer" for example...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted November 10, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted November 10, 2012 Its just a camera. No need to be a jerk. Â Learn manners. If you want to make this personal, be my guest. Just slowly read the title of the thread again. And then read my post, try it slowly. Unlike in your inappropriate post, no personal cheap shots in there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 10, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted November 10, 2012 May I remind all here that this is meant to be a friendly exchange on the relative merits and demerits of two cameras, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippa Posted November 13, 2012 Share #15 Â Posted November 13, 2012 One with EVF & OVF, the other without. Put that wart of an EVF on the X2 and compare sizes. Compare the two at f2.0, or at iso 6400, or have a look at the lcd screen. Funny enough, when Steve Huff did some blind tests between the X100 and the X1, most could not tell a difference as far as IQ was concerned. Except, of course at f2.0 or iso 6400:p. This biased review reminds me of the wishful thinking of the leica fanboys that there Dlux5's IQ would beat a Pana LX 5. And they believe it until this day. For the record: I own a X1 and x100 and the Fuji is the better camera, irrespective of price. And the X1 IQ beats the X2 anyday:eek:. Â I have the X1 and X100 and would agree that the X100 is at least the Leica's equal if not better ; I enjoy both for the difference in colour. Both are capable of equal IQ but the Fuji needs f4 or f5.6 to get the sharpest results whereas the Leica is good wide open. Just wish the Leica did macro ..although in macro mode that strange Fuji lens needs f8 to keep things sharp. Ultimately it's the Fuji's handling ( updated by firmware) and viewfinder that means it gets used more than the Leica. That Fuji lens has a different character to the razor sharp Elmarit and is better suited to soft subjects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted November 13, 2012 Share #16 Â Posted November 13, 2012 I have the X1 and X100 and would agree that the X100 is at least the Leica's equal if not better ; I enjoy both for the difference in colour.Both are capable of equal IQ but the Fuji needs f4 or f5.6 to get the sharpest results whereas the Leica is good wide open. Just wish the Leica did macro ..although in macro mode that strange Fuji lens needs f8 to keep things sharp. Ultimately it's the Fuji's handling ( updated by firmware) and viewfinder that means it gets used more than the Leica. That Fuji lens has a different character to the razor sharp Elmarit and is better suited to soft subjects. Â I have a difference view from yours, although your view is completely valid for you. Â I have not used the X1 (except for testing), but if one reads sean reid's review, or other competent one, it will be seen that the sharpness and detail of the X2 exceeds the X100. To me quite noticeably. The X2 is smaller. The X2 focus is definitely a fair bit faster (the X2 is just over the threshold that can be used for some moving objects, the X100 cannot be, IMHO) I know its not PC to mention it, but 16mp over 12mp does make some difference, not just for cropping, but for absorbing PP well. Â In my view, after having owned and used both extensively, the X2 is the better camera. I could never quite get on with the X100 IQ, although the colours were lovely. Also it is worth noting that the Olympus VF-2 is better then the X100 EVF! Â Ultimately the X2 is an expensive camera. It is unique in being the world's smallest APS-C camera. Â The quality of the X2 has seriously made me think about selling my M9 and buying an S2, on the basis that I can use the X2 for travel and the S2 for more serious planned photography. although in reality I probably won't as I need to buy a new car now ...... Â One is no doubt paying something for the Leica brand (and the two year guarantee in the UK!). The X100 is half the price, better value and has video. Many people I would, and have, advised to get the X100 because of these facts. Its not worth buying the X2 if its a real money stretch (although the 2nd hand value is pretty good at the moment). The picture quality of the X100 is lovely and the handling is great, Â Everyone has to make their own mind up. Camera buying is not religious. Whatever works for you. Its the picture that counts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippa Posted November 13, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted November 13, 2012 I if one reads sean reid's review, or other competent one, it will be seen that the sharpness and detail of the X2 exceeds the X100.. Â I also saw this when I first got the X100 and was disappointed by it. Â Then by carefully reading the comments of the lens designers ( who were determined not to use a dust sucking barrel design ) and the thorough review of the lens characteristics on dpreview , I realised that optimum resolution is only achieved by stopping down to the designed apertures of f4 and 5.6. The Elmarit is a different beast and is razor sharp wide open. Â I wouldn't expect Reid to have understood the strange characteristics of the Fuji lens where the optimum aperture actually varies with the focus point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcas Posted November 14, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted November 14, 2012 I have had the X2 for a couple of weeks now, and have not picked up the X100 since . Â Having small hands the X2 just feels so comfy, and i find i get keepers most of the time with the X2 but not so the X100, probably more due to user error but i just felt at home with the X2 a lot quicker than with the X100. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted November 16, 2012 Share #19 Â Posted November 16, 2012 You guys are sounding a bit like the "wow razor sharp.... alas no content" type of photographers . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted November 16, 2012 Share #20  Posted November 16, 2012 You guys are sounding a bit like the "wow razor sharp.... alas no content" type of photographers .  I wouldn't say the X2 is razor sharp at the pixel level out of the camera, due to a design decision by Leica However its sharpening latitude before artifacts is pretty impressive, and as we know every digital camera from RAW needs sharpening Its a combination of how the manufacturer implements the sensor firmware and the lens. Luckily the lens on the X2 is a 24mm Elmarit  Its not possible to show here due to the picture size limitation, but you get the idea:  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.