X1 first impressions / vs E-P2

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a E-P2 and have the chance to compare it with an X1.

Here are my first impressions:

 

X1 plus:

+menue structure of x1 is much more intuitive for me than E-P2; E-P2 IMO is just overloaded with menues and functions

+size/weight: x1 is slightly smaller and lighter - on the other side the E-P2 sits more solid in the hand; E-P2 better for one handed photography

+x1 has the flash and it seems to work fine (not to harsh)

+higher ISO: I have not yet tried but the X1 for sure has great noise behaviour for a compact

+: quiet shutter: this I really like-you nearly dont here it - take images and nobody will notice-great IMO

 

x1 minus:

--: AF is really slow; there is a huge difference compared to the E-P2; no problem for landscape, still and people not moving; but this makes it more difficult to catch the moment and not great for kids and action

-: speed of power on, display etc. - also slow but I could live with that

-: expensive - buying it is one thing - the other thing is you might ofen be afraif to use it in rough conditions because it is so expensive (on the beach, in rainy weather, on a rock concert, etc) the E-P2 is not cheap either but the Leica is extraordinary expensive.

- more room to play with thin DOF vs smaller sensors

 

other E-P2 plus:

+ E-P2 display seems better to see in bright light

+ video is a nice to have

+ in camera IS

+ flexibility (exchangable lenses)

+ you can use the EVF (I dont use it much)

 

Some other thoughts:

- the low noise of x1 is great (for lower light) but than the cameras AF sucks in lower light! this is a little contradiction IMO

-The silent shutter of the x1 is great but than there is the orange focus assist lamp which indicates everybody that you take an image

-packing box of x1: make it more simple and therefore reduce camera price 50 Euro

 

IQ:

I only took some first images with both cameras (E-P2 with 17/2.8) at ISO 100 and have to say at this low ISO the difference in IQ seems (only first impression) really minor. The E-P2 does quite well.

 

Conclusion so far:

In my case its a little love / hate relation for the x1 and in the end I would think today that the main advantage of x1 over E-P2 should be taking images in lower light.

But if you take image in lower light of stills you could use the E-P2 at 2-3 steps lower iSO than the x1 due to the in body IS.

And if things do move in lower light the x1 AF is limited.

So is the x1 advantage for things slowly moving without changing distance? people on the table shaking their head or laughing?

What I really do like is the user interface of the x1.

Dont know yet if I shall keep it or not. I think I need to use it and take some more images.

[wda]

An interesting and informative comparison. Thank you.

 

What you seem to be saying is that it depends on your style of photography which is the better camera. What you don't say, possibly because you haven't reached that stage so far, is how images compare at their maximum theoretical sizes. For example, compare two A3 or A2 prints of identical still life or reasonably static subjects taken under identical lighting conditions. OK; quite theoretical for many who are unlikely to want anything bigger than A4 print equivalents. But critically important for those wishing to use the camera for potential stock photography, where ultimate quality is vitally important. Shooting with care, my X1 certainly passes the latter test.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tom0511]

An interesting and informative comparison. Thank you.

 

What you seem to be saying is that it depends on your style of photography which is the better camera. What you don't say, possibly because you haven't reached that stage so far, is how images compare at their maximum theoretical sizes. For example, compare two A3 or A2 prints of identical still life or reasonably static subjects taken under identical lighting conditions. OK; quite theoretical for many who are unlikely to want anything bigger than A4 print equivalents. But critically important for those wishing to use the camera for potential stock photography, where ultimate quality is vitally important. Shooting with care, my X1 certainly passes the latter test.

 

David,

I am interested in larger prints (and do use a Epson 7900).

However often what I see at 50% on screen mirrors closely what I get in print.

Detail etc. at 100% and ISO 100 as well as DR dont look very different. But again this is only a first impression and your experience seems to indicate my first impression could be wrong.

[jorismichielsen]

...

x1 minus:

...

- more room to play with thin DOF vs smaller sensors

 

Would you call this a disadvantage?

[tom0511]

Would you call this a disadvantage?

 

no, my fault- I see it as a plus.

[h00ligan]

I'm actually just stepping out the door to do one final comparison with the x1 - to the gf1 and epl1. Interesting to read your thoughts as they mirror mine, so far. The dynamic range seems to be considerably better with the x1 than mft cams... that's pretty important in Arizona.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm actually just stepping out the door to do one final comparison with the x1 - to the gf1 and epl1. Interesting to read your thoughts as they mirror mine, so far. The dynamic range seems to be considerably better with the x1 than mft cams... that's pretty important in Arizona.

 

Keep us posted about your results.

tonight I tried to take some images from kids on a trampolin with the x1. Even though I had prefocused I didnt manage to press the shutter in the right moment. I havent given up yet but right now I am not really imressed from the x1.

[Guest badbob]

I'm actually just stepping out the door to do one final comparison with the x1 - to the gf1 and epl1. Interesting to read your thoughts as they mirror mine, so far. The dynamic range seems to be considerably better with the x1 than mft cams... that's pretty important in Arizona.

 

I have some relatives in Dennehotso, and some photos taken in the winter in Monument valley (I think that's the name), and they are the most extreme in contrast of anything I have in my collection. I'd be interested to see what you can do to produce reasonable contrast in bright sunlight in the desert there. I've never seen anything quite like that in the L.A. area, or South Carolina.

[h00ligan]

I'll be doing a test in the better hours.. but the one I did at noon (i'm testing all kinds of scenarios) showed a better iq and more true colors in raw from the x1.. but it wasn't a landslide.. the color was way more noticeable than the resolution and clarity differences, but it was high noon and iso 100 - so very bright. Both cams overexposed with their default settings.. seems nearly every cam has to be turned to -2/3 here.

 

The iq is definitely better on the x1 - it's hard to quantify... and with the shortcomings of the x1 it's really hard to say... hey put up with slow everything and pay twice + as much for 15% better iq.

 

Badbob - I had some things setup wrong when i was testing that canon 15-85.. i would say sharpness wise, it's very close to the x1, maybe a touch sharper... it's held back by the fact it is on a rebel xt. - 8mp, old processor. Still look how compact the x1 is.. to acheive dslr with top end glass (15-85 is constantly referred to as the L lens that get's no L cuz it's ef-s) is really remarkable.. i just wish the camera was faster.. not just af, everything.

 

The color on the x1 is really remarkable, it pops like an olympus jpg, in raw - but somehow remains more true to life tones.. it's hard to say how they do it.. and I think that MAY be the leica look.. the ability to saturate well but not overrun.

 

I definitely agree with many others that say, if you want the absolute best iq out of a compact the x1 has it, but that certainly doesn't make it the best compact camera... it's all subjective but if it is half as fast to write, half as fast to focus, 5% more difficult to hold and has 15% better iq - with a pricetag nearly 2.5x mft cams... it's a toss up. certainly I would never recommend it to anyone with kids, probably i wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't into photography... probably just how Leica likes it

 

I'll probably post a couple of results on flickr from the testing - but it's not scientific style.. i'm hand holding, not accounting for fov changes.. more real world comparison than studio shooting charts.. the difference with some other real world comparisons is that i'm at least shooting the same scene one after the other. Certainly my comparisons are for me, and won't hold up to scrutiny from/for others I'm sure.

[h00ligan]

Keep us posted about your results.

tonight I tried to take some images from kids on a trampolin with the x1. Even though I had prefocused I didnt manage to press the shutter in the right moment. I havent given up yet but right now I am not really imressed from the x1.

 

Why not zone focus for that? based on the fov, i'd think you'd have to be relatively close.. at which point the scale seems ok to me. Perhaps this won't work well for some reason?

[Guest badbob]

.... doesn't make it the best compact camera... it's all subjective but if it is half as fast to write, half as fast to focus, 5% more difficult to hold and has 15% better iq - with a pricetag nearly 2.5x mft cams... it's a toss up. certainly I would never recommend it to anyone with kids, probably i wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't into photography... probably just how Leica likes it

 

Yeah, if you leave the house at 8am and come back at 8pm, you might have 500-600 usable images with some cameras, but you'll probably have a third as many with the X1. Question is, of the ones that survive into your permanent collection, what would be the differences? Probably a different look, different compositions in many cases, just a whole different ballgame I'd guess. It makes me think it would be best to shoot with the X1 for a few months, then switch to something else for a few months. Then evaluate those differences. And I'll bet the differences would be dramatic, with overall image quality *not* the main factor.

[h00ligan]

It's sort of funny, because one thing the x1 would be ideally suited for is landscapes.. but I don't think for many it's worth paying so much over mft with the panny 20 for that particular task unless printing gallery images. Certainly not for someone like me. But then - it's probably a wash if you're printing 8x10 or less from iso 100-200 with a dlux 4... pretty much what I expected of landscape shots in good light.

 

The x1 has at least a 1 stop advantage in iso, maybe 1.5 over mft. Iso 400 noise (indoors at least) on mft I'd say is on par with 800 for the x1, but 800 on the mft looks worse than 1600 on the x1.

 

Portraits I've taken so far seem noticeably sharper with the x1. Detail when focusing on the eye compared to mft is very different (lash clarity, etc). I think the x1 spot focus works better than the shrunken boxes focus of the gf1 and epl1

 

I can't even seem to get the IS working even when I try (according to the manual), which I guess is fine because a 2 shot merge certainly doesn't sound that beneficial.

 

At 100% crops (again, unreasonable unless printing big) and stopped down to 5.6 I'd say that 15-85 on the really old rebel xt is VERY close to the x1 - maybe a touch sharper but with a touch worse iso performance. That rebel burst is slightly slower shot to shot than the x1, but recovers from a full buffer faster. Again, it's amazing they got that sharpness and whatnot into the size they did! The GF1 and EPL1 have the same result.. slower shot to shot slightly, faster buffer recovery.

 

Landscape results are what I expected, too close to bother picking nits in good light. Now I have to find more challenging situations for the x1 to get it shining.. it seems though that those situations may involve low light with static subjects, not a ton of which I shoot, or portraits - which due to distortion and minimum focus distance seem to require a crop.

 

I have taken a couple of images with the X1 I don't think I could have taken with mft offerings which is the image of the baby I posted on the photography/people forum (and with some great guidance it turned out very nicely - Thanks again!) and the bottles in the bar. I'll add the former at the end here for those who haven't seen it.

 

BTW, the EPL1 IS sharper than the gf1 - people said the sensor is too close to call, I can see the effects of the reduced AA, without doubt. the 1/2000 on the epl1 is limiting when having a 1.7 lens attached and in bright light.. especially if you follow their guidelines and set iso to 200 for max dynamic range. I was unable to observe any situations that caused discernible shadow problems as I have noticed before on mft today.. probably needs to get about an hour later from now and I'll go test a few other things.. the sun sets late here.

 

Happy to have others chime in and correct me if you think I'm off somewhere. Sorry for the rambles, I think this was a good thread - especially for those considering x1 and mft as outside of this forum not too many people seem to have access to both.

 

If you made it this far - thanks for reading my unstructured ramblings.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest badbob]

The Canon Rebels were a heckuva good deal for people I know who were graduating from P&S digicams 6 or 7 years ago. Low-end DSLR's are a rapid breeding ground for all kinds of new technology, but Canon sure got the jump on Nikon with those Rebels.

[RichardM8]

In his review of the X1, Steve Huff has done quite some comparing with the E-P2.

 

The differences are very clear and more than a little in favor of the X1 the way I see it.

 

A bit before halfway down the article start the X1 vs. E-P2 images.

 

The Leica X1 - Hands on Review, Image Samples, and Comparisons | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[toff]

h00ligan,

 

The X1 Image stabilization only works when in JPEG mode only, not in DNG+JPEG. Then the camera takes 2 pictures to analyze for motion artifacts. I was puzzled initially as well. Having said that I don't find any real use for the IS on the X1.

[h00ligan]

Thankks for the info toff!

[Guest badbob]

h00ligan,

 

The X1 Image stabilization only works when in JPEG mode only, not in DNG+JPEG. Then the camera takes 2 pictures to analyze for motion artifacts. I was puzzled initially as well. Having said that I don't find any real use for the IS on the X1.

 

There's a good subtext on X1 IS on Wikipedia.

[tom0511]

The point I have to figur out is the following:

Is the x1 only good for landscape and people who sit still? Or does it wok as a kind of flexible small camera (as long as 35mm FOV suits)

The best IQ doesnt help me if I can not get the shot of the moment.

Again-I need to use it a little more to make my final conclusion.

[Guest badbob]

Is the x1 only good for landscape and people who sit still?

 

My thinking would be, if you're walking down the street, and there's a car crash close by, and you have the X1 in hand and ready to go, and the person next to you has a decent DSLR, also ready to go, they may get several images of the cars bouncing off of each other and parts flying around - you'll be lucky to get one or two good shots of the cars where they end up. Then if you extend that logic to people shots, if the people you're trying to photograph make sudden or unpredictable movements, you're much more likely to capture the perfect moment with a good DSLR. But that doesn't mean that people who aren't making rapid or unpredictable movements aren't doing very interesting things that make great photos.

 

So you wouldn't ever want to take a job as a sports photographer with an X1. With the X1 you'll have to work harder and settle for fewer images than you'd get with a good DSLR. It depends on your requirements. Due to the large sensor and small size of the X1, it can't have the power to be as quick and responsive as the DSLR.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest badbob]

Is the x1 only good for landscape and people who sit still?

 

My thinking would be, if you're walking down the street, and there's a car crash close by, and you have the X1 in hand and ready to go, and the person next to you has a decent DSLR, also ready to go, they may get several images of the cars bouncing off of each other and parts flying around - you'll be lucky to get one or two good shots of the cars where they end up. Then if you extend that logic to people shots, if the people you're trying to photograph make sudden or unpredictable movements, you're much more likely to capture the perfect moment with a good DSLR. But that doesn't mean that people who aren't making rapid or unpredictable movements aren't doing very interesting things that make great photos.

 

So you wouldn't ever want to take a job as a sports photographer with an X1. With the X1 you'll have to work harder and settle for fewer images than you'd get with a good DSLR. It depends on your requirements. Due to the large sensor and small size of the X1, it can't have the power to be as quick and responsive as the DSLR.

 

People who are looking for a camera closer to the size of the X1, but closer to the performance of a DSLR, usually take a long look at (for example) the Panasonic GF1 with a pancake lens.