vcs700s Posted January 11, 2014 Share #41 Posted January 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I own both cameras although mine is the X100s. If I was forced to make a choice I would keep the X100s and sell the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Hi vcs700s, Take a look here Should I replace Fuji X100 with Leica M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Julian H Posted January 12, 2014 Share #42 Posted January 12, 2014 I really wanted to get an M8 but could not justify the cost for one for quite some time. Then, when I could I went for a demo at a dealer. It just did not feel right. Clunky was the word I think I used. I bought an X100. To this day I still love the X100, even though certain aspects of that camera frustrate me too. So, I decided to re-check out the M8 and i came to the same conclusion. I have also played with several M9's too. I didnt find that was much different to the M8 either. The M240 will probably be the game changer for me but that is a serious investment. I am now getting excited about the XPRO2 rumours. Whether that will get my money I dont know. Obviously, IQ I have not mentioned. I am sure the Leica would be better because the "look" of the older / simpler lenses appeals to me. But, the user interface has to work for me otherwise I might not get the shot in the first place! And the X100 aint to shabby in IQ either! So, in summary, play with an M8 and see if it feels right TO YOU. No one else can make the right decsion for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted January 12, 2014 Share #43 Posted January 12, 2014 I sort of went in the opposite direction. In 2011, I had already been shooting with the M9 for a year or more, and bought a black limited edition X100 to complement it. The differences in MF vs AF, CCD with no AA filter vs CMOS with AA filter, full frame vs aps-c etc were huge. But I still really enjoyed the X100 because of those differences. - X100 colour is more reliable than the M9. Note that I do not say accurate - I say 'reliable'. The M9, and M8 before it, is prone to quirky colour and WB changes that can be attractive if you like the look, but annoying if you want something consistent across multiple images. Nothing that a bit of PP won't fix, but it's also more time that you may not want to use. - X100 close focus can be a real boon, especially if your M lenses don't focus closer than 90cm. Being able to shoot food in macro with an aps-c sensor rangefinder style camera can be very refreshing. My M9 food shots were good, but I often had to lean right away from the table. - X100 AF and live view will give you shooting angle and opportunites that a M will miss, or make difficult. Talk all you want about going hyperfocal and shooting from the hip, but it robs you of the ability to deliberately compose your images or pick out a subject with shallow depth of field. Having said this, the M9 is still my favourite camera for its versatile use of small, high quality lenses; the feel of a Leica M that no other camera can give without serious copyright infringement; and the luscious image quality. I used a M8.2 for a week while my M9 was being fixed, and it was almost everything that the M9 was, operationally, and still had that luscious look to its images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jevidon Posted January 18, 2014 Share #44 Posted January 18, 2014 I own an M8 and I love the camera, but I also own a FujiX Pro-1 as well. The X Pro-1 is a lot cheaper than the Leica which while a finely made camera is not that much better in quality that my X Pro-1 and is much lighter due to the magnesium construction. It has AF in addition to accurate MF, a more advance and IMO a better sensor that is essentially noiseless up to ISO 3200 and little noise above that. It has an OVF that is at least as accurate if not more accurate than the M8. The optics are first rate although not in the league with Leica glass, but superior to most other glass on the market in the under $2000 per lens market. And unlike Leica or any other camera maker for that matter, they frequently issue firmware upgrades that constantly improve the performance. I have owned mine for not quite a year and they have issued three upgrades to improve performance so far; most in response to customer suggestions. It just keeps getting better and better. The Fuji also takes the excellent Zeiss Touit lenses just on the market as well as all M mount Leica lenses using the Fuji M mount adapter. I know this is a Leica forum and as I said, I would not part with my M8 as I use it now for B&W which is less sensitive to sensor noise issues than with color. But my FujiX Pro-1 which also has the Fuji M lens adapter can use all my Leica glass in MF mode as well as the excellent Fuji glass in AF mode when i am feeling lazy. So, you should ask yourself if you want a used M8 with older technology for bragging rights or buy yourself a Fuji X-Pro-1 with the wonderful hybrid OVF/EVF finder with up to date technology and a superior sensor and firmware. Of course, you can always consider the new Leica M or M9 Mono. Now that is a real step up that Fuji can only aspire to but for $7000 to $8000, which I cannot afford, it should be. Check out the Fuji X Pro-1. I don't think you will be disappointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2014 Share #45 Posted January 18, 2014 Ummm-the Leica frame is magnesium as well. The weight of the camera comes from the brass top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jevidon Posted January 18, 2014 Share #46 Posted January 18, 2014 Hm. I thought it was Aluminum. Nice to know. But whatever the reason, and I suspect that it is more than the brass top such as the cast bottom plate and the internal gearing, etc. It is heavy for it's size. Subjectively, it adds to the solid feeling and I am not complaining. My entire point is that as a new shopper he has a better option than a used M8 as much as I like the camera personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 25, 2014 Share #47 Posted January 25, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I own a M8.2, an X100 (which I'm selling to a friend) and an X100s. I love the Leica, as it's like the cameras I grew up with, but I'm far from pleased with the terrible 'jpg' images it creates (nee to shoot in raw, if I want good images), and while ISO 400 is all I used to want when I was a kid, ISO 3200 makes for a nicer range of capabilities. I don't see that big a difference between lenses. My impression is that the Fuji X100s shots are superior to what I get from the M8.2, when I do my best with both. One thing that amazes me --- unlike every other company, Fuji came out with an update for the discontinued X100 long after having introduced the new X100s! Most "sales people" would say this was a terrible move, as owners of the old model might update the firmware, instead of buying a new model -- but I think Fuji earned a wonderful reputation for having done so. I don't want to sell my M8.2, nor do I want to change it for an M9. To me, the X100s is everything I ever wanted in a Leica.... starting with Contax II, moving up through the Nikon RF cameras, then the film Leica cameras... I trusted all of them completely. I don't have that kind of trust in the new electronics that are built into a Leica. If I had my dream world, I would have a Leica body, with Fuji sensor and electronics...... Anyway, I can't really answer your question. ....but try an X100s before you make any decisions. Fuji made some huge improvements to the "s" camera, and while some of them were included in the firmware update, the "s" is still a nicer camera than the X100. ......and despite all of what I just wrote, I love going out and USING the M8.2. It's more of a challenge, but I enjoy it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted January 25, 2014 Share #48 Posted January 25, 2014 I own a M8.2, an X100 (which I'm selling to a friend) and an X100s. I love the Leica, as it's like the cameras I grew up with, but I'm far from pleased with the terrible 'jpg' images it creates (nee to shoot in raw, if I want good images), and while ISO 400 is all I used to want when I was a kid, ISO 3200 makes for a nicer range of capabilities. I don't see that big a difference between lenses. My impression is that the Fuji X100s shots are superior to what I get from the M8.2, when I do my best with both. One thing that amazes me --- unlike every other company, Fuji came out with an update for the discontinued X100 long after having introduced the new X100s! Most "sales people" would say this was a terrible move, as owners of the old model might update the firmware, instead of buying a new model -- but I think Fuji earned a wonderful reputation for having done so. I don't want to sell my M8.2, nor do I want to change it for an M9. To me, the X100s is everything I ever wanted in a Leica.... starting with Contax II, moving up through the Nikon RF cameras, then the film Leica cameras... I trusted all of them completely. I don't have that kind of trust in the new electronics that are built into a Leica. If I had my dream world, I would have a Leica body, with Fuji sensor and electronics...... Anyway, I can't really answer your question. ....but try an X100s before you make any decisions. Fuji made some huge improvements to the "s" camera, and while some of them were included in the firmware update, the "s" is still a nicer camera than the X100. ......and despite all of what I just wrote, I love going out and USING the M8.2. It's more of a challenge, but I enjoy it! I have a Leica M Type 240 and just got the Fuji X100s (had the X100 previously). I agree with you on some points, but I don't feel the X100s, as excellent and cost-effective as it is, represents everything I need or "ever wanted in a Leica". I do feel the auto white balance and the way the X100s renders color is vastly superior to what I generally see from my M. Fuji must have great software/firmware engineers who understand light, color and photography in general. And Fuji's sensor is outstanding too. I do find the X100s's autofocus a bit spastic at times, and overall user interface--the menus and controls--could be easier to maneuver when you are out shooting in the field--but you adapt to it. My M, which I've been using for 7 months, is in NJ to check: rangefinder accuracy, intermittent power outages, and most importantly, the Italian Flag Syndrome which Leica improved with it's FW upgrade. IFS varies from body to body--some bodies exhibit lots of it, some none, so I certainly hope mine can be adjusted and the problem cured. If not, I am going to seriously consider moving away from Leica. I know Leica is small and has fewer resources than larger companies like Fuji, but for what Leica equipment costs, Fuji is feeling like a better and better long-term solution for my needs. I commend Fuji for pushing the envelope and pursuing new designs and technologies. They developed the amazing Fuji/Hasselblad XPan film camera--in some ways my favorite camera--and I wish they'd develop a digital rangefinder version of it. I'd order one today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbr Posted February 4, 2014 Share #49 Posted February 4, 2014 Both cameras have their moments, both are capable of producing excellent images, so I guess it is more about the personal taste than the feature/function battle. I am strongly biased towards M8 , though. I have had X100 for more than 2 years, but looking back I have done most of my shooting with M2 on B/W film. The main differentiators were the true rangefinder experience and the selection of great lenses. Then I came across M8 for a very tempting price, I could not resist and took the plunge. I was really surprised by the M8 image IQ in spite of the moderate technical parameters of the chip. Once you are aware of its limitations, it is very rewarding shooting experience. I can make use of decent selection of lenses, and I am back to the color photography as well - M8 colors are special to say the least. X100 images felt simply too digital for me, it always took me a great deal of PP until I was satisfied. M8 is a different story - I shoot DNG, tweak a little in LR and I am done. Even the relatively poor high ISO performance can be dealt with when shooting true RAW and converting with m8raw2dng. Conclusion: X100 stays on the shelf, I occasionally pull out M2, and I carry M8 with me all the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalink Posted February 4, 2014 Share #50 Posted February 4, 2014 I started with a Fuji X-E1 and after much thought and contemplation (almost for a year!), I bit the bullet and gotten myself a M8. Loving it despite it quirks. Everything feels just right with the M8 and the files are just personally, right to me. Probably not the right time for me to write this as my M8 is heading to Leica, Singapore to get it fixed (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/319533-sticky-rf-coupling-arm.html#post2621663) but despite all that, I just love it. Personally, I would suggest you to keep your X100 to go along with M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCY Posted June 26, 2014 Author Share #51 Posted June 26, 2014 I bought a used Leica M8 and love it. I decided to keep my Fuji X100 as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatning Posted June 26, 2014 Share #52 Posted June 26, 2014 In a similar situation as well. Started off with X-E1 over a year ago. Sold the X-E1 and replaced it with X-Pro1 6 months later. Bought X100s 3 months after that. Now, I just sold my X-Pro1 and some of the related gears and bought an used M8. I'm keeping my X100s though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted June 27, 2014 Share #53 Posted June 27, 2014 I have an X100, and was going to replace it with an M8, but wound up just spending the extra and getting a shiny new M240 instead. I did enjoy the X100 (i still have and use it occasionally) but it had some little niggles that irritated the heck out of me (although they did get better with FW2.0) things like the slow AF, ridiculously slow focus by wire MF (which did get a lot better after FW2.0) not a huge 35mm guy either, much prefer 50mm I love the M, it really is my favourite camera i have ever used, but i did keep my X100 as there is a few really cool things it does - like really high flash sync speeds with the leaf shutter, and the built in ND filter is cool too (f2.0 pics with flash during full sun FTW !) its also really really light, and minimum focus distance is much closer than the M really its your choice, but i would buy the M8, and keep the X100 too and use them side by side - if you really love the M8, sell the X100 and buy more lenses, or sell them both and upgrade to an M9, if you hate it, at least you still have the X100, and can probably get rid of the M8 for around the price you paid for it (maybe a bit less, consider the difference a "rental fee") Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbr Posted July 17, 2014 Share #54 Posted July 17, 2014 ...X100 stays on the shelf ... No more holds true. I am actually about to sell X100, having no reason to keep them both. IMHO, the only 3 advanteges of X100 are - silent shutter - close up photography: you can still use Visoflex with non Visoflex lens on M8, but it gets you a bit too close - high quality video If any of these matter to you, X100 does pretty good job. Then there is a low-light performance, but it is a sort of myth regarding both cameras. X100 is not all that great and M8 is not bad at all. Sure, M8's high ISO is nothing to write home about, but there is a way how to deal with that. Stay on lowest ISO (160 or 320 only) and underexpose up to 3 stops in low light. The Kodak chip (three thumbs up) is a small marvel which gives you a long way to go in shadows. It eliminates chromatic noise with almost film-like grain, if you tweak it a litte in Lightroom. With the right selection of lens wou would be in the range of X100 on 3200 ISO, but with a lot more character - for want of a better word, as quality does not seem appropriate to me here, it is all about feeling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted July 17, 2014 Share #55 Posted July 17, 2014 No more holds true. I am actually about to sell X100, having no reason to keep them both. IMHO, the only 3 advanteges of X100 are - silent shutter - close up photography: you can still use Visoflex with non Visoflex lens on M8, but it gets you a bit too close - high quality video If any of these matter to you, X100 does pretty good job. Then there is a low-light performance, but it is a sort of myth regarding both cameras. X100 is not all that great and M8 is not bad at all. Sure, M8's high ISO is nothing to write home about, but there is a way how to deal with that. Stay on lowest ISO (160 or 320 only) and underexpose up to 3 stops in low light. The Kodak chip (three thumbs up) is a small marvel which gives you a long way to go in shadows. It eliminates chromatic noise with almost film-like grain, if you tweak it a litte in Lightroom. With the right selection of lens wou would be in the range of X100 on 3200 ISO, but with a lot more character - for want of a better word, as quality does not seem appropriate to me here, it is all about feeling. If you use Arvid's program and put the M8 into the secret RAW mode you can get raw files with 14-bits per color channel dynamic range instead of the factory default of 8-bits per color channels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted July 17, 2014 Share #56 Posted July 17, 2014 Uhhhh, what is Arvid's programme? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 17, 2014 Share #57 Posted July 17, 2014 Uhhhh, what is Arvid's programme? I think this refers to this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted July 18, 2014 Share #58 Posted July 18, 2014 I think this refers to this thread. That's it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbr Posted July 18, 2014 Share #59 Posted July 18, 2014 If you use Arvid's program and put the M8 into the secret RAW mode you can get raw files with 14-bits per color channel dynamic range instead of the factory default of 8-bits per color channels. Yes, I know Arvid's program and I actually did quite a few shots using this technique. However, underexposure IMHO yields much nicer colors and much less noise than 14-bit raw. I would argue that human eye is barely capable to distinguish 14 vs. 8 bits anyway. Just try it out and see for yourself. Of course, it very much depends on the subject and particular lighting conditions, but I ended up setting exposure compensation rather than ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted July 18, 2014 Share #60 Posted July 18, 2014 Yes, I know Arvid's program and I actually did quite a few shots using this technique. However, underexposure IMHO yields much nicer colors and much less noise than 14-bit raw. I would argue that human eye is barely capable to distinguish 14 vs. 8 bits anyway. Just try it out and see for yourself. Of course, it very much depends on the subject and particular lighting conditions, but I ended up setting exposure compensation rather than ISO. I think the human eye system (this include the brain) has a dynamic range of about 20 stops. That is huge compared to cameras. 14-bit raw is 2^14 power or 16,384 levels of gray shade. 20 stops is 2^20 or 1,048,576 levels of gray shade. The human eye can detect a single photon, if it strikes a receptor cite in the retina. How does the eye manage 20 stops? Unlike a camera, the eye and brain adjust to record a scene and that information is pieced together to form an image of the scene. Your eye moves slightly to take in the whole scene. Cameras like the M8 only have 8 bits to play with over the whole scene and even 14-bits is limited because it does not dynamically adjust its sensitivity over different parts of the scene. I can't fault you if you like the results of underexposing your M8. That's your artistic license to do what you see fit. However, when working with 8-bits of information you get 256 levels of gray shade. When you underexpose and then push the exposure in post processing you end up compressing some portions of the spectrum and expanding others. You lose information. The expansion is where things start to fall apart and that means the gradient steps between each bit represent a larger jump in brightness. I have never tried underexposing the M8. I was always taught to ETTR (Expose to the Right). As a general rule ETTR minimizes noise (I cut my teeth with the Nikon D2H) and preserves more data. I do know with my Nikon D800, which is 14-bits raw, I can push exposure a whole lot more than the M8 (in 8-bit mode) if I need to pull anything out of the shadows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.