Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: X100 v M9

  1. #1
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    X100 v M9

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

    http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm...00-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?
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Best "comparison" ever made
    My Flickr

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Do not use this link if you own a Leica M9!!

    http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm...00-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?
    HI Dave
    interesting that the advantages of the M9 are that it's:

    More than 20% smaller
    More than 30% thinner


    Hmmm

    The advantages of the X1 are all fine except the image quality one - even DxO will say that you can't compare scores from different sensor sizes . . . but if you do, then the K5/D7000 knocks both into a cocked hat.

    It also doesn't mention that you can't do manual focus with the X100 in OVF mode. . .

    Hey - why am I doing this! - we all know that it's a ludicrous comparison. It's like doing a comparison between a VW Tuareg and an Alpha Guilietta - they're just different.

    Just this guy you know

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    This comparison is totally useless IMO.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    This comparison is totally useless IMO.
    Quite funny though!

    Just this guy you know

  6. #6
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Since I was shooting both a few minutes ago to check the calibration of my M9 s ...and I just looked at the images ...it is clear that the x100 has some nice advantages in its design and price.

    Too bad their comparison test didn t mention most of them . There were plenty of competent small format and 4/3 versions before the x100. What sets it apart are the full APS-C sized sensor, the optical viewfinder and the overall high quality of the camera and its lens.

    If you have developed a shooting rhythm based on Leica M s , the x100 is very nice .

    Other than high ISO performance (which they said was close?) it doesn t best the M in anyway . Its just that not everyone needs a Leica M system and the X100 is a very decent camera if your main system is say MF .

  7. #7
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: X100 v M9

    Now Jono and Roger, I did warn you not to click the link!!!

    Imagine the posts if this was posted at LUF!
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Now Jono and Roger, I did warn you not to click the link!!!

    Imagine the posts if this was posted at LUF!
    Oh! I thought we behaved rather well

    . . . .did he say the X100 only had a 1.4 stop high ISO advantage over the M9

    I enjoyed it, but anyone who is using a site like that to decide whether to buy an X100 or an M9 . . . shouldn't buy either of them!

    Go on . . . post it at LUF . . . I dare you

    Just this guy you know

  9. #9
    Member Arjuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    It has a couple of interesting points that were new to me:

    - CMOS-family sensors often produce better quality images?
    - 22.9 bits vs 22.5 bits somehow translates to Distinguishes more than 30% more colors?
    - the Fuji has a Pentamirror! no-one else, including Fuji, seems to have noticed that.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna View Post
    It has a couple of interesting points that were new to me:

    - CMOS-family sensors often produce better quality images?
    - 22.9 bits vs 22.5 bits somehow translates to Distinguishes more than 30% more colors?
    - the Fuji has a Pentamirror! no-one else, including Fuji, seems to have noticed that.
    Just shows what an innovative and exciting website we've been directed to.

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Do not use this link if you own a Leica M9!!
    ....

    Which camera would you rather have:
    a) If given to you?
    b) If you had to save for and buy either camera?
    For a): the M9. Then I could sell it, buy a X100 and take an extended trip to make photographs and enjoy life.

    For b): The X100


    I own a X100. I will never own a M9. The M9 is a much better camera than the X100.

  12. #12
    a_summarita
    Guest

    Re: X100 v M9

    have used both and i have to say this is a great tongue in cheek comparison with some valid points

    although Leica M series will always +1 for me for that one reason - the ability to use Leica M lenses.

    The bokeh, sharpness, 3D pop - mamameia!

  13. #13
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    I enjoyed it, but anyone who is using a site like that to decide whether to buy an X100 or an M9 . . . shouldn't buy either of them!

    Go on . . . post it at LUF . . . I dare you
    I couldn't be the cause of WW3, all that death and destruction....whatever are you asking of me!

    Anyone visiting a website with ".......rumours" as it's name should know what to expect! Now one with ........."leaks" might be a bit different!

    Now where's the one comparing x100 v X1...............!
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna View Post
    It has a couple of interesting points that were new to me:

    - CMOS-family sensors often produce better quality images?
    ...
    There is a good article in May American Cinematographer:

    Quote


    "Zarnowski expands, “The initial
    promise of CMOS imagers was
    hindered by the fact that they were
    noisy [compared] to CCDs. This was
    due to both Fixed Pattern Noise and
    Temporal Noise, and as a result CMOS
    imagers had objectionable patterns
    that could be seen by the viewer and
    didn’t quite have the same sensitivity
    as CCDs. With the recent architecture
    changes made to eliminate
    FPN and the creation of overall lowernoise
    pixels — through the addition of
    pinned photodiodes — CMOS imagers
    are now living up to their potential.”
    “CCD technology was the superior
    technology in the ’80s and probably
    through the ’90s, but CMOS was on a
    real growth curve because it’s a technology
    that is used in all of the other semiconductor
    manufacturing operations,”
    agrees Glenn Kennel, president and
    CEO of Arri, Inc. “Unfortunately, all of
    the Moore’s Law’s improvements no
    longer apply to CCD because there just
    aren’t enough products being developed
    for them. CCD is still a viable technology,
    but it’s more expensive to make,
    and it isn’t improving at the same rate.
    In fact, it has reached a kind of plateau.
    CMOS imagers continue to improve
    and have now passed CCDs in sensitivity,
    dynamic range and frame-rate capabilities.”

  15. #15
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: X100 v M9

    Just one note about the sites comparison of camera sizes. The M9 dimensions are without a lens and the X100's with a lens. remove the lens protrusion from the cubic area calculation and the X100 is by far the smaller camera.
    V/r John

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Very theoretical but still without any hard facts. I rather believe in what I see.


    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    There is a good article in May American Cinematographer:

    Quote


    "Zarnowski expands, “The initial
    promise of CMOS imagers was
    hindered by the fact that they were
    noisy [compared] to CCDs. This was
    due to both Fixed Pattern Noise and
    Temporal Noise, and as a result CMOS
    imagers had objectionable patterns
    that could be seen by the viewer and
    didn’t quite have the same sensitivity
    as CCDs. With the recent architecture
    changes made to eliminate
    FPN and the creation of overall lowernoise
    pixels — through the addition of
    pinned photodiodes — CMOS imagers
    are now living up to their potential.”
    “CCD technology was the superior
    technology in the ’80s and probably
    through the ’90s, but CMOS was on a
    real growth curve because it’s a technology
    that is used in all of the other semiconductor
    manufacturing operations,”
    agrees Glenn Kennel, president and
    CEO of Arri, Inc. “Unfortunately, all of
    the Moore’s Law’s improvements no
    longer apply to CCD because there just
    aren’t enough products being developed
    for them. CCD is still a viable technology,
    but it’s more expensive to make,
    and it isn’t improving at the same rate.
    In fact, it has reached a kind of plateau.
    CMOS imagers continue to improve
    and have now passed CCDs in sensitivity,
    dynamic range and frame-rate capabilities.”

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Do not use this link if you own a Leica M9!!
    How can they compare cameras without posting a single image?

    Here's a quick comparison between my X100 and M9 + 35/2 ASPH.

    (notes: same scene but captured on different days, both shot RAW and processed in LR3, both shot at f8).

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Very theoretical but still without any hard facts. I rather believe in what I see.
    Here's facts, just facts and only facts. M9 CCD, X100 CMOS, D5100 CMOS.
    Last edited by nugat; 9th February 2014 at 07:38.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    Here's facts, just facts and only facts. M9 CCD, X100 CMOS, D5100 CMOS.
    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.

  20. #20
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by lambert View Post
    How can they compare cameras without posting a single image?

    Here's a quick comparison between my X100 and M9 + 35/2 ASPH.

    (notes: same scene but captured on different days, both shot RAW and processed in LR3, both shot at f8).
    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 ).

    The problems with amateur testing (we do it for the love of the sport ?) is that it incorporates too many variables. For example ..how sure are you that the M9 focuses perfectly at infinity ? My M9 s are calibrated about every 6 months and I test them about every three months. Its hard to keep that infinity focus point accurate ...which throws off everything. I use a test just like this to see if the M9 RF is on at infinity.

    I find that the DxO tests have to be looked at in detail ..not in the summary as they are presented . For example on DR ...you need to look at the graphs ...I generally don t have any issues with DR at base ISO where its almost always over 11 its looking at ISO 400 and 800 to see how fast the DR is lost that matters because now you can be down below 9 . The CCD cameras are all plenty good at base ISO but when they lose DR they really lose it . The CMOS sensors hold out longer . (just an example)

    I don t agree that everything presented by DxO mirrors my experience but that most likely because I don t understand something .

    No question that shooting something you are familiar with using both cameras is the relevant testing method .....DxO provides some insights to what to look for.

    I have an M9/35summicron,X100 and a Nikon D7000 so I know what the files look like. All three have superb resolution ...not a factor..I lose more to weak technique . DR differences are insignificant at base ISO ..but become relevant at ISO 800 and the spread gets bigger as ISO goes up . Color saturation and tone separation is what makes the Leica files (much of this comes from the lens but the sensor and in camera processing also affects the result).

    The good thing is that the X100 is clearly in the top class of anything with a 12MP sensor .

    Sorry for the long winded reply but I think the DxO tests are not used correctly (they ask for it by providing the comparisons) rather than the more common view that the tests are fundamentally flawed .

  21. #21
    Subscriber Member weinschela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York suburb
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    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.
    Alan

    Selection of work: http://weinschela.zenfolio.com

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by lambert View Post
    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".

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    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).

  25. #25
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    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 .

  26. #26
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by weinschela View Post
    ...........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!!!

    http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm...00-vs-Leica_X1
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  27. #27
    drxcm
    Guest

    Re: X100 v M9

    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.

  28. #28
    Lensless
    Guest

    Re: X100 v M9

    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.

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by Lensless View Post
    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/

  30. #30
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Do not use this link if you own a Leica M9!!

    http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm...00-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

  31. #31
    Senior Member thrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,266
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    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).

  32. #32
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: X100 v M9

    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.
    V/r John

  33. #33
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    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! :
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: X100 v M9

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    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-...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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •