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!

x100 - why I'm selling mine

jonoslack

Active member
Good subject for another topic. While the character of the lenses is often in the eye of the beholder.....it is clear that as the Leica glass gets faster and newer designs ...the contrast (both macro and micro ) and the color saturation pick up . You will notice a little more snap in the images .

That isn t always a benefit ..it depends on the subject and the light . If you have soft overcast skies or reflected available light ....the new glass can add some richness to the IQ . On a raining day I almost always start with my 35 /14 apsh . On a bright sun shiny day or in say the slanting harsh light of a summer evening (without cloud) its the 28/2 summicron everytime. This of course pushes the images toward the middle which then lets me adjust in post processing.

Obviously both of these lenses are superb and you could build a kit starting with either of them.

However the most important decision should be FOV and unless you work with 2 bodies . the 35 requires significantly less changing of lenses . With 2 bodies its the 28/50 for my body caps.
I must say, I always work on a FOV basis, but the weather angle is certainly food for thought.

The focal length that doesn t work well is 75 ...because you would expect the summilux to be edgy and contrasty . Its such an old design that its closer to the pre asph 50 and has much lower contrast wide open than the 75 summicron .
For overcast,winter,softer light .....its the 24/35 summiluxes and the 75 summicron. For say Florida in the winter ..its the 21/2.8,28/2,50/2 and the 75/1.4 . Doesn t seem right does it .
Hi Roger - doesn't seem right that you have all those lenses - I think you should immediately send me all the ones I'm missing!:ROTFL:

It is a good topic for conversation - but probably elsewhere.

all the best
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Ashwin, greetings
I agree with you from what I have seen the X100 looks great and I am sure that if i didn't already have an X1 I would for sure have ordered the X100.
I got a really good deal on my X1, I paid 1800 for mine but it included the X1 grip and Leica optical finder so I'm happy and my wife can easily put it in her purse and its very easy for her to use :):)
I'm happy, though I may take a look at in the future the X200 if it has a 18mp sensor.

Steven

Steve, greetings....I find the X100 more pocketable than the M9, similar to the X1....IQ is different. You aren't wrong to stick with the X1....but the x100 is lovely....
 

woodyspedden

New member
I have, like Jono, decided to return my X100. I love the possibilities of this camera but in its present form there are just too many issues. For me the biggest one is the abominable manual focus. The "fly by wire" approach, requiring many turns to get the focus right, is just poorly implemented.

My bet is that there will be an X200 that will have a larger sensor, better firmware, and the ability to use the buttons (like RAW) for additional Fn use so that more often used functions can be at the button instead of buried in the menus.

I love what I was able to do with the camera but in the end, for me the K-5 proved to be a much better choice for a carry everywhere camera. A great deal of this decision was based on the K-5's ability to change lenses I must admit.

Woody
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I have, like Jono, decided to return my X100. I love the possibilities of this camera but in its present form there are just too many issues. For me the biggest one is the abominable manual focus. The "fly by wire" approach, requiring many turns to get the focus right, is just poorly implemented.

My bet is that there will be an X200 that will have a larger sensor, better firmware, and the ability to use the buttons (like RAW) for additional Fn use so that more often used functions can be at the button instead of buried in the menus.

I love what I was able to do with the camera but in the end, for me the K-5 proved to be a much better choice for a carry everywhere camera. A great deal of this decision was based on the K-5's ability to change lenses I must admit.

Woody
Woody

I am sure I will eventually come to the same conclusion but for different reasons .

On focusing..I am very happy setting the camera on Manual and using the rear AF button ..same as I would a Nikon DSLR . The APS sensor with a 23mm lens gives you plenty of DOF . I just tested it at about 7-8 I was getting 18-24 inches in good focus at F2 . Thats plenty ..but I think about Street shooting where the target range is generally 6ft-30ft with a 35mm lens.

More importantly is the std FOV is set up for 35mm .....which is too wide for the wide open landscape in Colorado (or Florida) . Its just a great set up for a urban environment ..could shoot for days in paris or nyc with a 35mm FOV .
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hmmmmm
well, following an excellent and honest response from Fuji UK about the shortcomings I'm rather reconsidering my decision . . . . . . :eek::deadhorse::loco::ROTFL:
 
Appreciate everyone's input on the M9.
Always fun to dream.

Jono, can you comment on your discussion with Fuji UK?
Or did you sign a non-disclosure clause?
 
C

cosinaphile

Guest
having read thru all the comments , i would have to agree that even though the leica m9 gives better iq at low isos , i must say that at 3200 iso and above which street shooters must use at dusk or night , the x 100 shines and the m9 files approach ,unuseable
the m9 is a fin ecamera , but its cost with even a modest lens , is astronomical and it simply isnt an option for most of the citizens of the world... sadly.

thare seems to be a strange disconnect in the world today where those folks , a tiny fraction of us can buy and use 10s of thousands of dollars without a second thought
forget the reality of the world today , its very charming to use a m9 to photograph peasant children in a third world country , but easy to forget that an m 9 kit represents
an amount of money that could change the destiny of an entire village and provide life saving medicines and food for thousand of victims of the economic disparity that is primiarily the result of rich nations victimizing the unempowered people of the world

so it is that people that sit atop oil fields in Nigeria live at the edge of survival
and those atop fields of diamonds see their children hungry or die of curable ailments

i will shoot with my x 100 my x 10 and micro 43 equipment , theres thousands invested here too ....forget every thing i just wrote ,

i feel no guilt about wearing my leather shoes , but would never ever own a fur i guess that what i mean about the price of a camera... there is a vague line ,here lies excess....
 

fotografz

Well-known member
having read thru all the comments , i would have to agree that even though the leica m9 gives better iq at low isos , i must say that at 3200 iso and above which street shooters must use at dusk or night , the x 100 shines and the m9 files approach ,unuseable
the m9 is a fin ecamera , but its cost with even a modest lens , is astronomical and it simply isnt an option for most of the citizens of the world... sadly.

thare seems to be a strange disconnect in the world today where those folks , a tiny fraction of us can buy and use 10s of thousands of dollars without a second thought
forget the reality of the world today , its very charming to use a m9 to photograph peasant children in a third world country , but easy to forget that an m 9 kit represents
an amount of money that could change the destiny of an entire village and provide life saving medicines and food for thousand of victims of the economic disparity that is primiarily the result of rich nations victimizing the unempowered people of the world

so it is that people that sit atop oil fields in Nigeria live at the edge of survival
and those atop fields of diamonds see their children hungry or die of curable ailments

i will shoot with my x 100 my x 10 and micro 43 equipment , theres thousands invested here too ....forget every thing i just wrote ,

i feel no guilt about wearing my leather shoes , but would never ever own a fur i guess that what i mean about the price of a camera... there is a vague line ,here lies excess....
No problem shooting "street" at dusk or night with a M9 ... ISO 1,000 and my $10,500. Leica Noctilux 0.95 :rolleyes:

Don't assume that because someone works hard and enjoys the fruits of their labors, that they do nothing to help those less fortunate.

When those underprivileged nations throw out the dictator eating lavish meals off solid gold plates while his people starve ... or oil kings that sit on top of those oil fields start living with less so others may live ... then maybe I'll reassess my own indulgences and any sense of guilt.
 

jonoslack

Active member
i will shoot with my x 100 my x 10 and micro 43 equipment , theres thousands invested here too ....forget every thing i just wrote ,

i feel no guilt about wearing my leather shoes , but would never ever own a fur i guess that what i mean about the price of a camera... there is a vague line ,here lies excess....
Yes indeed - but everyone's vague line is somewhere different, and as Marc says, the fact that one uses an expensive camera doesn't really indicate how one runs one's life.

Still, the X100's pretty expensive as well!

Just to step out of the quagmire of guilt and world politics, . . and back into cameras:
My problem with the X100 was that I thought it was fiddly, I found it hard to see what was in focus and when, it had 80000 options I didn't need, didn't want, and couldn't readily switch off.

Assuming that I didn't (couldn't) have an M9, but that i could afford an X100, then I'd unquestionably get a NEX 5n with a viewfinder, an M adapter and a nice CV lense - better high ISO, nicer to use, more flexible (not as sexy to look at though, and not as quiet).

But that's just me
 

lowep

Member
Why compare a $1K+ x100 with a $6K+ M9?

Instead would like to know how the IQ of the X100 compares with a used M8 that is only double the price? :toocool:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
having read thru all the comments , i would have to agree that even though the leica m9 gives better iq at low isos , i must say that at 3200 iso and above which street shooters must use at dusk or night , the x 100 shines and the m9 files approach ,unuseable
the m9 is a fin ecamera , but its cost with even a modest lens , is astronomical and it simply isnt an option for most of the citizens of the world... sadly.

thare seems to be a strange disconnect in the world today where those folks , a tiny fraction of us can buy and use 10s of thousands of dollars without a second thought
forget the reality of the world today , its very charming to use a m9 to photograph peasant children in a third world country , but easy to forget that an m 9 kit represents
an amount of money that could change the destiny of an entire village and provide life saving medicines and food for thousand of victims of the economic disparity that is primiarily the result of rich nations victimizing the unempowered people of the world

so it is that people that sit atop oil fields in Nigeria live at the edge of survival
and those atop fields of diamonds see their children hungry or die of curable ailments

i will shoot with my x 100 my x 10 and micro 43 equipment , theres thousands invested here too ....forget every thing i just wrote ,

i feel no guilt about wearing my leather shoes , but would never ever own a fur i guess that what i mean about the price of a camera... there is a vague line ,here lies excess....
So where is the "moral border"? Do you suggest to give up every bit of "luxury" and donate it? What is luxury? Is paying 100$ for shoes luxury if you can get 10 pairs for 10$ each, use one pair and donate 9 pairs?

I dont understand your opinion, so do you say its is morally bad to spend much money for a camera, and then you include yourself being morally bad because you are one of those folks who spend a lot of money for a camera? (even if the x100 is less than an M9 it is still a lot as you write)
 

lowep

Member
I dont understand your opinion, so do you say its is morally bad to spend much money for a camera, and then you include yourself being morally bad because you are one of those folks who spend a lot of money for a camera?

maybe human just like most of the rest of us :cry::LOL:
 
C

cosinaphile

Guest
Yes indeed - but everyone's vague line is somewhere different, and as Marc says, the fact that one uses an expensive camera doesn't really indicate how one runs one's life.

Still, the X100's pretty expensive as well!

Just to step out of the quagmire of guilt and world politics, . . and back into cameras:
My problem with the X100 was that I thought it was fiddly, I found it hard to see what was in focus and when, it had 80000 options I didn't need, didn't want, and couldn't readily switch off.

Assuming that I didn't (couldn't) have an M9, but that i could afford an X100, then I'd unquestionably get a NEX 5n with a viewfinder, an M adapter and a nice CV lense - better high ISO, nicer to use, more flexible (not as sexy to look at though, and not as quiet).

But that's just me
i think the x 100 is currently the best camera bargain on planet earth
1200 dollars for a real camera with a fantastic"35mm" f2 lens psam that emerges naturally thru the interaction of a real shutter speed dial and real f stop ring , its construction and iq are beyond reproach
and it hasnt lost a file or eaten an sd card for breakfast yet i dont find it fiddily but its certainly not as intuitive as my gxr with m lenses is ....
if you keep it basic use manual for focus [aka autofocus with the afl button on back:) ]and manual exposure or A priority the x 100 can be a very satisfying camera to use... better color balance in challenging light better exposure better fill flash and accurate highly detailed files that look better to my eye than my d 7000 , or any apsc camera i know of in my limited experience
i was not trying to lay a guilt trip on anyone , simply muse on economic disparity as it relates to things human and camera... yes thats an excellent point.... that vague line could lie anywhere , most shooters ive met who use m 8s and m 9s are sensitive intelligent people who are well aware and not indifferent to the suffering in the world and i didnt suggest otherwise

and i included myself and my equipment cost in my musing , and said to forget everything ive said . something dome people got here , but others didnt

sorry you didnt love the x 100 past its weak point s , and theirs a few....
my x 10 is a much more finished product imho .
i hope the upcoming lx is also fully realized when it ships
 

emr

Member
Assuming that I didn't (couldn't) have an M9, but that i could afford an X100, then I'd unquestionably get a NEX 5n with a viewfinder, an M adapter and a nice CV lense - better high ISO, nicer to use, more flexible (not as sexy to look at though, and not as quiet).
Sorry Jono, but to me that sounds like the infamous (misattributed) quote of Marie Antoinette: Let them eat cake!

I mean, you're talking about which cheaper or more expensive camera to use with some M mount lenses. M mount lenses, which tend to cost $$$$ and not exactly everybody has around.

:eek:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Sorry Jono, but to me that sounds like the infamous (misattributed) quote of Marie Antoinette: Let them eat cake!

I mean, you're talking about which cheaper or more expensive camera to use with some M mount lenses. M mount lenses, which tend to cost $$$$ and not exactly everybody has around.

:eek:
Off with his head!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I dont understand your opinion, so do you say its is morally bad to spend much money for a camera, and then you include yourself being morally bad because you are one of those folks who spend a lot of money for a camera?

maybe human just like most of the rest of us :cry::LOL:
:OT:

Why this forum? Take a gander at the Medium Format Digital area where a Leica M9 would be a poor man's camera ... :ROTFL:

Perhaps all this guilt trip business belongs in the Sunset Cafe part of the forum?

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sorry Jono, but to me that sounds like the infamous (misattributed) quote of Marie Antoinette: Let them eat cake!

I mean, you're talking about which cheaper or more expensive camera to use with some M mount lenses. M mount lenses, which tend to cost $$$$ and not exactly everybody has around.

:eek:
Off with his head!
:bugeyes::eek: THUD

It does sound rather like that doesn't it? - Not really what I meant, but I stand convicted!
 
Top