The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

M9 user take on the X100

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
My bias is always toward the Leica M bodies and for street shooting they still set the standard. But the X100 on paper has a few things that the M9 doesn t and since you can t really lose on buying the camera ..I bought one . Took it to NYC for some comparison shooting with the M9s.

Of course I base everything on the M9 s as a starting point because its a real life relevant standard . I feel I could use either camera in most every situation on the street (which I can t say even for small DSLR like a Nikon D7000).

The one big negative is the awful user interface ..probably missed a dozen shots do to things like displaying the play back in the viewfinder . The software team should be abandoned at sea . But this will get better as I become more familiar with the options.

The positives are much better than expected . The viewfinder options put the X1 to shame . With optical I use manual focus with the rear button set for AF ...this is perfect . I can prefocus on a spot and let the scene develop. (You don t really use continuous focus on a moving subject and expect to have anything but a centered image? ). The EVF is brighter than real life and allows for an enlarged view . Manual focus is easy to fine tune and no recomposition required . The rear LCD allows for viewing on shots from your knee level or putting the camera overhead (for crowd views) .

The high ISO is superb almost like a D3 file(up to 1600) . ISO 1600 only suffers a loss in DR ...noise isn t an issue . It appears to be a full EV better than the M9 where ISO 1600 requires a “never underexpose “ mentality. It also doesn t hurt that metering and auto WB seemed dead on even under mixed lighting. Of course I can use the M9 with a 1.4 or even the Noctilux to even things up on light gathering. But consider that a APS-C size sensor has more DOF and the chances of getting a sharp image at night are better with the X100.

SILENT...can t get much better than this for shooting inside and this comes from a guy that shot his daughters wedding from the front row with his iPhone and never got caught .

IQ is excellent ... not an M9 level but closer to the D3 and processing makes a huge difference. I am sure others can comment but an M9 file in LR is near perfect with the standard presets and profiles. I normally work curves bit ,add maybe 20 clarity and use mild sharpening . The X100 files are more like .NEF files . Will accept and benefit from stronger presets ... about the same curve settings but clarity can go above 50,vibrancy 17,saturation 15 and stronger sharpening . For my use comparing the best presets I can come up with is the only relevant comparison. Frankly I am surprised at how good the x100 files look at ISO1600. At this is shooting at F2 .

So for Street Shooting the X100 seems to bring some real advances and in certain situations may even be preferable to the M9 .
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Roger,
This is an excellent analysis.
One thing that stands out to me when I compare X100 to M9 is the size. I could never carry around the M9 with a fast lens in my purse because of weight and size. The X100 fits in a little A+A Rena bag. I keep it in my purse and it goes everywhere with me.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Roger,
This is an excellent analysis.
Quite agree - thanks Roger - good assesment, it makes me consider a similar comparison for Nature shooting!

One thing that stands out to me when I compare X100 to M9 is the size. I could never carry around the M9 with a fast lens in my purse because of weight and size. The X100 fits in a little A+A Rena bag. I keep it in my purse and it goes everywhere with me.
Interesting point about size Cindy - and it brings up something which Terry pointed out to me - which is that boys and girls have different size references.

Basically, for you, the crucial issue is whether it'll fit in your purse/handbag comfortably, because you always have it with you. For men it's whether it'll fit in you pocket - and neither will fit in a summer pocket, but the X100 would fit in a coat pocket okay.

My X100 arrived last night - what fun it is, and less of a fiddle than I'd expected, but I need more time to really get to grips with it.

all the best
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
You can t argue with having a camera with you always. But its the ISO1600 performance that makes the difference for me and also its a $1200 camera verse a $12,000 camera (M9+35lux )which makes taking it anywhere a little less of a concern.
 

jonoslack

Active member
You can t argue with having a camera with you always. But its the ISO1600 performance that makes the difference for me and also its a $1200 camera verse a $12,000 camera (M9+35lux )which makes taking it anywhere a little less of a concern.
Hi Roger
I agree that the high ISO is better . . . . but I'm not so certain that it would be if you reduced the M9 files to 12mp (always dangerous comparing cameras with different resolutions at 100%).

Much as I really like shooting with the camera, for me, I'm pretty sure that the lack off AA filter and the better resolution means I'll be back with the M9 pretty sharpish. Still, it's great fun.
 
How does cropping affect signal-to-noise ratio or dynamic range?

Did you mean a hypothetical M9 sensor with less, but larger pixels? This could make a difference.

The inherent resolution of the M9 does not decrease as the ISO increases. The uncertainty (noise) in the RAW data increases, and uncertainty adversely affects all aspects of image quality.

Anyway I am certain at ISO 1600 the X100 sensor has a better signal-to-noise ratio in it's RAW files than the M9. So what? Cameras have advantages and disadvantages. The M9 has more advantages than disadvantages. So does the X100. They are just different advantages and disadvantages.

I own a X100. I will never own a M9 under any circumstances. The M9 must have higher resolution.. period. As far as inherent resolution goes, it is certainly a better camera than the X100.
 

jonoslack

Active member
How does cropping affect signal-to-noise ratio or dynamic range?

Did you mean a hypothetical M9 sensor with less, but larger pixels? This could make a difference.
.
Of course, Cropping doesn't affect signal to noise ratio or dynamic range - but I wasn't talking about cropping, I was talking about downsizing the image.

All the best
 
T

terryc

Guest
Enjoyed reading the original post...thank you for that.

I have an X100 and an M9. My (overly simple) take is...

Leica M9 = Simplicity

Fujifilm X100 = Complexity

The X100 is fun to shoot with no doubt about that but then so is the M9 with a 35mm lens of most any vintage. In my humble opinion two different experiences - two very different cameras.

Best regards, Terry C.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Roger,
This is an excellent analysis.
One thing that stands out to me when I compare X100 to M9 is the size. I could never carry around the M9 with a fast lens in my purse because of weight and size. The X100 fits in a little A+A Rena bag. I keep it in my purse and it goes everywhere with me.
Good personal review, I agree.

The X100 (and the GXR as they are almost identical in size/weight) are cameras I most normally will wear on the neckstrap.. They are light and don't get in the way sitting on my chest, and are always handy there. When nit around my neck, they drop into my smallest bags without a thought (for this trip, the Terraclime 100 has been my constant companion, filled with iPad, notebooks, wallet, camera and phone)..
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Jono

Am I missing something . I evaluate the IQ with both images at the same size(not 100% pixel view) on my MacBook so the M9 file gets full credit for the 18 verse 12 mps. I also look just as much as how the higher ISO affects DR and color saturation . I think its easy to see where the M9 starts to loose it ...around 800 . After 800 any underexposed area starts to fall apart . The color saturation and tone separation starts to weaken.

Doesn t mean that you can t squeeze the image into a tighter DR its just more difficult . I find for example at night I set the exposure at + 0.7 just to be sure I don t underexpose .

X100 doesn t seem to have much of a AA filter and generates moire (my poor focusing skills normally take care of it). But I find that pulling up the clarity slider makes the most difference. One of the LR gurus told me this winter that up to 50% clarity works like the unsharp mask but after 50% some of the deconvolution logic kicks in . (Have no idea if this is right but I know this is what he said ). I never use more than 20 on an M9 file.

The x100 will never replace my M9 s but night shooting is a real challenge . The difficulty with street shooting at night is that you still need 1/125 really 1/250 to stop subject movement and great eyes to focus quickly and accurately at f1.4 .


Hi Roger
I agree that the high ISO is better . . . . but I'm not so certain that it would be if you reduced the M9 files to 12mp (always dangerous comparing cameras with different resolutions at 100%).

Much as I really like shooting with the camera, for me, I'm pretty sure that the lack off AA filter and the better resolution means I'll be back with the M9 pretty sharpish. Still, it's great fun.
 

Armanius

New member
Great thread! As a M9 owner and future X100 owner (tomorrow hopefully), I really enjoyed reading the discussion!
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono

Am I missing something . I evaluate the IQ with both images at the same size(not 100% pixel view) on my MacBook so the M9 file gets full credit for the 18 verse 12 mps. I also look just as much as how the higher ISO affects DR and color saturation . I think its easy to see where the M9 starts to loose it ...around 800 . After 800 any underexposed area starts to fall apart . The color saturation and tone separation starts to weaken.
Well I've only had the X100 for 24 hours, and haven't shot at night, but I agree that's a weakness with the m9. Which I always shoot for black and White at night.
 

MPK2010

New member
This is an interesting thread. I am reserving judgment on IQ comparisons as I have only had the X100 for about a week so it is not fair.

I did want to say, though, that I have had a different experience on night shooting with the M9. I find the M9 to be the only camera that I have ever had that I can reliably shoot at night.

The main issue with the other cameras I've used (a lot of the popular full-frame, APS or m43 CMOS cameras of the last 2-3 years) is that night pictures taken with them are sometimes (or often) affected by halos or other distortions around the streetlights or other light sources. This has never happened with my M9. Even when I take the M lenses off and mount on other bodies and shoot the exact same scene, I get halos sometimes. Maybe this just bothers me more than most people.

Second, although there is less latitude for correcting mis-exposed shots, when you get the exposure right things actually look phenomenal at night at 640 and still excellent at 1250. Part of it I think is that the sharpness and "pop" at f2 is so different than many other camera/lens combos at anything approaching f2, and it shows. Of course, I'd rather the M9 be 2-3 stops better and I hope they improve.

Finally, I find manual focusing the M9 at night so much faster and more reliable than dealing with autofocus. Of course, I understand some people prefer autofocus.

Anyway, I'm having fun with the X100. I agree with Roger's points about how nice the silent shutter is, and how much the files benefit from post-processing. And I agree that for all the fuss, the viewfinder's actually great and a major benefit over, e.g., the X1. But the main selling point for me so far is the fact that despite the good IQ the camera feels a bit like a toy (in the best sense--i.e. fun, not shoddy) so you don't expect too much or put any pressure on yourself--which is often when you take your best shots.
 
Last edited:

woodyspedden

New member
Enjoyed reading the original post...thank you for that.

I have an X100 and an M9. My (overly simple) take is...

Leica M9 = Simplicity

Fujifilm X100 = Complexity

The X100 is fun to shoot with no doubt about that but then so is the M9 with a 35mm lens of most any vintage. In my humble opinion two different experiences - two very different cameras.

Best regards, Terry C.
Hi Terry

I think there is another major point to consider.

At $1200 the X100 is truly a camera to have with you always. Although not cheap it is many thousands less than an M9 +35 (lux or Cron). So basically a $1K vs $10K rig. My point is that if the X100 were "lifted" you are out $1200 which while not insignificant is not heart stopping either. If the M9 and 35 were similarly lifted it is a game changer. Of course you would have insurance but my experience is that when dealing with expensive gear, it sometimes gets left home unless there is a specific reason to bring it along.

With my K-5, for example, I have a small A&A bag which sits on the floor of the passenger seat. I am thus never without a camera. With the X100, same rule applies but now you are able to put it in the glove compartment and forget it.

Just my thoughts on the matter

Woody
 

barjohn

New member
I know that when I had the M8 and several lenses in the bag, it was a conscious decision whether to bring it or not. If it wasn't an outing for photography but instead a more social event, I had to think about whether I wanted to leave $9 or $10K sitting around while we got up and danced or had a fun conversation where the camera bag was left sitting on the table or floor. Of course on the floor I worried about a waiter or friend accidentally stepping on it. My other half kept saying; "do you have to bring that?" Even with insurance it got left at home. With the X100 and its dead silent shutter, no complaints and I bring it along.
 

monza

Active member
I too could carry the X100 all day and not feel it. An M9 with a 35/2 or lux is another matter. And yes, I'd be 10x as concerned about its safety. :)

If you haven't seen the dpreview comparison of ISOs, check this out:

 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Street Shooting is a good test of a cameras “available light “ suitability. If people are involved then ..good luck if you shoot slower than 1/125 . DOF is always a challenge because of the need for absolute precise focus ..but also sometimes you need the DOF to get enough of the subjects sharp. So this places a high demand on better ISO performance . My tests show that its often about ISO 1600 where the ambient light seems to match the evening illumination . Once all ambient light is gone ...good luck getting any percentage of images that meet the standard .

Here are three examples of where I shot over the weekend in NYC. Brooklyn Bridge at Sunset 7-8PM. Times Square 7-8PM . Grand Central Station 8-9AM. All three real tests for available light street shooting.

As the above tests(MONZA s post) show many of the current DSLR bodies have excellent higher ISO capabilities ..but none of the small bodies seem to compete . No need to be more precise ...I ve looked at enough M9 files to know my limits and above ISO800 ..I have no exposure latitude and shooting wide open on anything that can move is iffy . So as much as I prefer the M9 for anything on the street ...it falls short in higher ISO performance ....800 is reliable and 1600 I have to assume that more images will have technical issues . And at 3200 why bother ?

The X100 looks very good at 1600 and considering its other attributes ..it appears we finally have a small high quality pocket size camera with excellent IQ at higher ISO levels . Not sure I see D3 or even D7000 performance but then I haven t used it that much (and the DSLR just can t go everywhere and be effective) .

As I noted my observations are completely slanted toward street shooting with an M9 as a point of reference .
 

Paratom

Well-known member
This is an interesting thread.

Owning the M9 and x1 I have tried to resist the x100 so far.
My argument allways has been that the M9 will have better IQ and that the x1 is smaller while achieve comparable IQ. By the way I am also one of those who has allways seen the x1 as a great camera, for me its a digital ROllei 35 without OVF but with AF. I particuallary like the spot AF of the x1 which allows to focus where Iwant to focus (on an eye for example) - and while slow it focuses pretty damn accurate (I wish my K5 could do that).

Now what makes me interested in the x100 is the hybrid/OVF, and the f2 lens.

I am a little concerned if people report the x100 to have a complex user interface. Because simple user interface is important to me and I allready find the EP2 and other m4/3 cameras too complex with all the menues and functions.

What I wondered and here comes my question: Anybody here have compared the gxr to the x100?
How would they compare regarding IQ, AF speed, user interface? (Besides the GXR not having an OVF)?
While 35mm lens/FOV of the x100 is great 28 + 50 might fit my needs even better.

And would people here agree that there is quite an IQ difference in DR and color between those dx cameras and m4/3 or would you say theopposite?
 
Top