X100 v M9

[weinschela]

Thank you Roger. You saved me from running out tomorrow to sell all my Leica M gear because some tester says the X100 is "better".

A more meaningful comparison to me would be X1 vs X100. Those cameras are supposed to address the same need. Since I am not thrilled with my X1 (too slow, even after the firmware revision) I was interested in the X100. The dpReview analyis was quite comprehensive and included aspects that impressed them and some that were disappointing, including speed of use. This led me to decide to do nothing for the time being. But that is the X1 issue, not the M9 issue.

 

[lambert]

In all fairness to those that think the DxO tests are insightful ......how can you compare an image taken in what looks like a nice blue sky day with a mild overcast day? (affects color saturation and image contrast ).

In my quick comparison, I was simply looking at image sharpness across the frame. Granted, they're shot in slightly different conditions but the clear, blue sky benefits the X100, not the M9. Even so, the M9 achieves stunning clarity/sharpness right across the frame relative to the X100.

The only reason I responded to the OP was that I was somewhat bemused by the statement "Do not use this link if you own a Leica M9!!" which links to a report stating that the X100 has "around 10% better image quality" than an M9 simply because 73 is a bigger number than 69.

 

[nugat]

A camera is made up of more than just a sensor. And, once again, where are the comparison images demonstrating that one may be better than the other.

Define "better images".

 

[lambert]

Define "better images".

That's my point. The site referred to in the OP stated that the X100 achieved better image quality than the M9 solely because 73 > 69 (DXO scores).

 

[glenerrolrd]

Sorry if I missed something . I was responding to the POV that the DxO testing is irrelevant and that it often is at odds with visual inspection of images . Completely agree that using the summary information from DxO is often more misleading than insightful. Its in the details that they provide many insights into system performance .

The images presented as small jpegs taken under different lighting seem to provide limited evidence one way or the other ..yet they are somehow a better indicator of comparative performance ?

A test well done has been completed by diglloyd on his DAP site. (its a paid review site ). He compares the x100 to the M9 and the new 35/1.4 asph fle and the Nikon D3s/ 35/1.4 . He is careful to point out that judging color performance can be difficult as lighting changes even between exposures (on a cloudy day). (and its implied that this could affect your visual inspection of his images).

No one was taking the original post as serious ..it was an example of a poorly done camera test . At least thats how I read the OP .

 

[dhsimmonds]

...........A more meaningful comparison to me would be X1 vs X100. Those cameras are supposed to address the same need. Since I am not thrilled with my X1 (too slow, even after the firmware revision) I was interested in the X100...................................................

No sooner said than done, be careful though of what you wish for!!!:ROTFL:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm_FinePix_X100-vs-Leica_X1

 

[drxcm]

Sold my M9 on the weekend (purely because of finances) and picked up an X100.

I spent around 18months with my M9 and a 35 cron / 50 lux combo. I've kept my M lenses for my m43 setup and my M6.

I love the X100, but it's no M9. The M9 output has a certain colour rendition which is unique and beautiful, and superb resolution. Not so great with higher ISO though.

High ISO is great on the X100. It is very light in comparison to carting an M9 / lens combo around.

I'm very happy, but already miss my M9. It's raw output pictures were better, to my eye.

 

[Lensless]

I had an M9 for about a year, sold it last Fall because I had sent it in twice for repair work that took 3-5 weeks each time. As much as I loved using it along with my other M and digital gear for discreet people work on high profile corporate events, it was the most unreliable tool I have ever used. Also, the higher ISO range was just not what I could work with in these events and ad work. Sure, those 18 MP files at base ISO were really nice, but my clients never saw the difference in print due to post processing in raw easily taking the color range and tonal ramping of my D3 files right up there with the M9.

But the X100, what a killer camera in concept and partly in execution, dead silent, small, great lens and much better at 1,600 and above. To top it off, darn near as good as the D3 files on the printed page too.

Pretty effing frustrating operation though, it's like they gave it to amateurs and camera collectors and did not give it to actual photographers who work with tools at a level that the operation of the tool becomes a subconscious act, pretty easy to do with a Leica M.

But thus far, getting the relatively cheap X100 has been such a good move for my corporate work, quirks included. $1,200 for a quirky but quiet little X100 I can take, $7,000 for an unreliable piece of bling that comes with an attitude from the manufacturer, well to heck with that.

Now if Fuji can make this camera better to get around and operate, they are going to cost Leica a crap load of money, because my clients pay for great photography, not some elitist pixel level resolution that makes very little difference at the end of the day.

 

[paparazzi666]

I had an M9 for about a year, sold it last Fall because I had sent it in twice for repair work that took 3-5 weeks each time. As much as I loved using it along with my other M and digital gear for discreet people work on high profile corporate events, it was the most unreliable tool I have ever used. Also, the higher ISO range was just not what I could work with in these events and ad work. Sure, those 18 MP files at base ISO were really nice, but my clients never saw the difference in print due to post processing in raw easily taking the color range and tonal ramping of my D3 files right up there with the M9.

But the X100, what a killer camera in concept and partly in execution, dead silent, small, great lens and much better at 1,600 and above. To top it off, darn near as good as the D3 files on the printed page too.

Pretty effing frustrating operation though, it's like they gave it to amateurs and camera collectors and did not give it to actual photographers who work with tools at a level that the operation of the tool becomes a subconscious act, pretty easy to do with a Leica M.

But thus far, getting the relatively cheap X100 has been such a good move for my corporate work, quirks included. $1,200 for a quirky but quiet little X100 I can take, $7,000 for an unreliable piece of bling that comes with an attitude from the manufacturer, well to heck with that.

Now if Fuji can make this camera better to get around and operate, they are going to cost Leica a crap load of money, because my clients pay for great photography, not some elitist pixel level resolution that makes very little difference at the end of the day.

Oh wow, I never used an m9 that broke down like that. But yes, the Fuji x100 is cheaper than a used 35mm summicron lens and you get the body for Free..haha. The viewfinder of the fuji is TO DIE FOR.

Lots of pics and captions on Fuji x100 in my stream.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paparazzi666/

 

[Bob]

Do not use this link if you own a Leica M9!!

http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm_FinePix_X100-vs-Leica_M9

Data for both cameras provided by DXO.

Which camera would you rather have:
a) If given to you?
b) If you had to save for and buy either camera?

Silly.
Personally I HATE DxO comparisons.
They give you a bunch of irrelevant data and boil it down to a number. Now if we had such a simple device for the comparison of politicians folks would immediately, at least whoever scored badly, be screaming bias.
If someone were to somehow have inventory of a full kit of Leica gear and if cost were no object I of course would fill my bag with the stuff. If I were constrained somehow to pick one lens it might be a 50 lux, or maybe a 35 lux, (oh crap I can't make up my mind, I will take both).
If I saved my money I would buy, actually I did buy, a Phase One IQ180. That is because it suites me better for the kind of work I do.
I do own an X100, not because of the files or whatever but because it is modestly priced and for me a nice to use carry-cam and a bit of an upgrade in camera features to my iPhone.
The ONLY reason I don't own a bunch of Leica gear is that I just lost the ability to focus with a range finder patch. That might go away some day after cataract surgery or it may not. It was a sad day when I figured that out, but life goes on.
So I happily carry my x100 with me and let comments about the superiority of an M9 roll off my back while shedding a bitter tear.
Yeah, the X100, for me and for now, is better.
-bob

 

[thrice]

I also laughed where it says max exposure on the M9 is 4s? What's the 8s on the dial for then? Also, in bulb and timer mode it can go up to 4min (240s).

 

[barjohn]

The thing that surprised me is the color shift through the image on the M9, even after this latest firmware. The thread on LUF would turn me off to an M9 for color work as even a 35mm lens was showing the shift from reds to cyans across the frame.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Silly.
Personally I HATE DxO comparisons.

I do own an X100, not because of the files or whatever but because it is modestly priced and for me a nice to use carry-cam and a bit of an upgrade in camera features to my iPhone.
The ONLY reason I don't own a bunch of Leica gear is that I just lost the ability to focus with a range finder patch. That might go away some day after cataract surgery or it may not. It was a sad day when I figured that out, but life goes on.
So I happily carry my x100 with me and let comments about the superiority of an M9 roll off my back while shedding a bitter tear.
Yeah, the X100, for me and for now, is better.
-bob

I know exactly what you mean Bob, except that in my case it's not a cataract but just the time it takes for my old brain to interpret what my eyes see and for my focusing fingers to re-act! :

 

[lambert]

The thing that surprised me is the color shift through the image on the M9, even after this latest firmware. The thread on LUF would turn me off to an M9 for color work as even a 35mm lens was showing the shift from reds to cyans across the frame.

The new firmware has resolved color shift to the the extent that the M9 is now better than many FF DSLR's in this regard. The 35 you refer to is 80's vintage glass. The 35/2 ASPH is virtually perfect:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/186830-new-firmware-1-162-m9-online-11.html

The X100 is a great little camera and will be more than good enough for many, providing you're happy shooting with just a 23mm lens and don't require high resolution across the frame.

The M9 is not a fixed lens camera. It allows you to shoot a vast array of glass, some, the most amazing on the planet. The fact that Leica continues to work to make this possible, makes the M9 unique in this day and age.