Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo
- - - - -

Pansonic 20 mmm 1.7 Lens reviewed by Steve (and X1 comparison)


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 DrVorzet

DrVorzet

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 00:30

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
Hi !

What do you think about these pictures...

The Pansonic Lumix G 20 1.7 Lens Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

...compared with these others?

The Leica X1 Digital Camera Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

I'm trying to make a decision and is hard.:confused:

In any case, I love Steve's reviews.

Thanks.

#2 h00ligan

h00ligan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • City / Ort:Anytown USA.

Posted 19 January 2010 - 01:08

I think they're so close that I'm not sure one can justify twice the price + for the X1 - honestly. This is why I am thinking about canceling my pre-order (per the other thread). I bought the gf1 and pancake for $800 (with 500 clicks through it in brand new condition)... does spending another $1200 get you 2x+ the image quality? Is it worth losing the ability to change lenses, much slower af, etc..

It's a tough call but without being on a disposable income - it's REAAAALLLLY hard to justify the Leica - I believe it is superior for IQ, but probably not 2x+ the money + willing to lose the benefits the gf1 has.

Note - I haven't canceled and am still thinking about it - but today i'm leaning towards keeping the gf-1, I could change my mind tomorrow!

Edited by h00ligan, 19 January 2010 - 01:11.

- Edward

#3 Dan States

Dan States

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 785 posts
  • City / Ort:Pleasant Prairie Wisconsin USA

Posted 19 January 2010 - 01:23

I've got a Gf1 and 20mm and it's not in the same league as APS-C or larger sensor cameras. Lots of noise and the lens is good, but not outstanding. I'll use it happily until my X1 lands.

By the way, the GF1's focal plane shutter makes quite the racket indoors so I can't see sticking with it for candid photography.

#4 h00ligan

h00ligan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • City / Ort:Anytown USA.

Posted 19 January 2010 - 02:10

The shutter sound is my number one complaint. I don't find image noise to be a big issue on the gf1 but I usually shoot 800 or less with the pancake. You say the 20 is good but not great, but it's rated better than the x1 in every technical test I've seen... what leads you to say the x1 will be better?

bearing also in mind that, whatever high iso advantage the x1 has in sensor (and i don't think the 1.6 vs 2.0 crop factor is that much of a difference) it loses on the open end of aperture from what I am seeing, so it seems to be a pretty dead heat. The lens review of the x1 at dpreview was not particularly flattering for Leica (again, on the technical charts).

tbh, I really don't think most could pick a comparable print in an abx test between the two cams at least based on the preliminary info available.

What's sad is that if the x1 had shipped when it was meant to - people wouldn't have had the chance to decide not to spend the extra cash for the x1 after picking up a mft cam.

Edited by h00ligan, 19 January 2010 - 02:11.
clarifying noise vs sound.

- Edward

#5 jsrockit

jsrockit

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • City / Ort:NYC

Posted 19 January 2010 - 02:34

I really think the X-1 vs. GF-1 argument comes down to two different states of mind regarding what a camera should be... i.e. should it be simple digital camera with a perfectly matched lens / sensor with a foot in the past design wise which caters to classic Leica lovers or should it be a modern camera with a modern design with all of the gimmicks, effects, modes, etc. that people have come to expect from a consumer camera these days.

Edited by jsrockit, 19 January 2010 - 02:43.

M9 / 35mm C-Biogon 2.8 ZM, 50mm Summarit 2.5, 50mm Nokton 1.1

#6 Dan States

Dan States

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 785 posts
  • City / Ort:Pleasant Prairie Wisconsin USA

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:16

The shutter sound is my number one complaint. I don't find image noise to be a big issue on the gf1 but I usually shoot 800 or less with the pancake. You say the 20 is good but not great, but it's rated better than the x1 in every technical test I've seen... what leads you to say the x1 will be better?

bearing also in mind that, whatever high iso advantage the x1 has in sensor (and i don't think the 1.6 vs 2.0 crop factor is that much of a difference) it loses on the open end of aperture from what I am seeing, so it seems to be a pretty dead heat. The lens review of the x1 at dpreview was not particularly flattering for Leica (again, on the technical charts).

tbh, I really don't think most could pick a comparable print in an abx test between the two cams at least based on the preliminary info available.

What's sad is that if the x1 had shipped when it was meant to - people wouldn't have had the chance to decide not to spend the extra cash for the x1 after picking up a mft cam.


Based on the X1 files available to play with so far yes, the X1 has higher image quality. As to dpreviews lens tests...they are fine but in the end the ultimate image output is what matters and in this case 4/3 is at a big disadvantage because of sensor noise.

I've also noticed that there is more to the electronic image correction in the GF1 than just distortion correction. It can create some "interesting" sharpening effects even in raw. In particular it can render objects with straight lines with an artificial crispness and then leave more complex stuff around it alone. It can make for a strange combination of sharpness and blur. Funny that no tests yet have mentioned this...

This is a conversion from raw via C1 using no sharpening at all. Note the "enhanced" sharpness of the green sign and the wacky variance in the sharpness of the larger red lettering?

This appears at times in photography of people as very sharp buildings and blurry faced people in front of them...

In the shot of the girls the background and foreground are sharper than they are!

I'm not saying the GF1 is a bad camera but it is sure as hell no x1 in image quality and frankly it's not that much better than my Dlux4 other than about 1.5 stops of extra noise supression.

Every review of the x1 has agreed that it's the first truly compact camera to offer pro-level DSLR image quality (handling issues aside).

Attached Files



#7 h00ligan

h00ligan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • City / Ort:Anytown USA.

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:25

Thanks for the detailed response Dan. Again I free that the x1 has superior quality. Interesting not about the sharpening. I wonder if in camera adjustments then also adjust for raw. The one place I'll disagree. I think the gf1/20 is a lot closer in iq to the x1 than the dl4 is to the gf1 iq.

Anyway thanks again. More interesting food for thought while leica gets these things rolled out. One big plus is. The leica X1 definitely has the leica glow as I can see it. Particularly based on steves shots. Even desaturated.
- Edward

#8 h00ligan

h00ligan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • City / Ort:Anytown USA.

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:27

Oh and I'll grab some more raw files and poke around. Thanks for the valuable input. Sorry for the double post. iPhone.
- Edward

#9 lct

lct

    Ex-Newbie

  • Members
  • 12,032 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 11:53

...In any case, I love Steve's reviews...

I stopped to read when i saw some so-called "100% crops" the same size from a Nikon D3s and this little FT camera. Also the soft results from the Nikon are a joke. I don't like much the Nikkor 50/1.8 for its bokeh but its sharpness is second to none.

#10 Ecaton

Ecaton

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 19 January 2010 - 13:36

Based on the X1 files available to play with so far yes, the X1 has higher image quality. As to dpreviews lens tests...they are fine but in the end the ultimate image output is what matters and in this case 4/3 is at a big disadvantage because of sensor noise.

I've also noticed that there is more to the electronic image correction in the GF1 than just distortion correction. It can create some "interesting" sharpening effects even in raw. In particular it can render objects with straight lines with an artificial crispness and then leave more complex stuff around it alone. It can make for a strange combination of sharpness and blur. Funny that no tests yet have mentioned this...

This is a conversion from raw via C1 using no sharpening at all. Note the "enhanced" sharpness of the green sign and the wacky variance in the sharpness of the larger red lettering?

This appears at times in photography of people as very sharp buildings and blurry faced people in front of them...

In the shot of the girls the background and foreground are sharper than they are!

I'm not saying the GF1 is a bad camera but it is sure as hell no x1 in image quality and frankly it's not that much better than my Dlux4 other than about 1.5 stops of extra noise supression.

Every review of the x1 has agreed that it's the first truly compact camera to offer pro-level DSLR image quality (handling issues aside).


The first ones were Sigma's DPs, the second Ricoh's GXR. All of which are available in the market. The GXR and X1, allegedly, use the same sensor. Am still on a waiting list for the X1, but bought the GXR with A12 module meanwhile. IQ is stellar, some warts need firmware update. If Ricoh brings a wide fast lens module (28mm equiv, f2.0 ) as well, the GXR is the better choice than the X1 as far as I'm concerned, not only because of price advantage.

#11 tategoi

tategoi

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 13:57

In his review, Steve says,"Throw in the Leica X1 and I would have to take the X1 as I feel the IQ of the X1 beats all of the mentioned DSLR’s and the E-P2/20 combo,..." So if you regard IQ as the highest priority and the flexibility of changing lens as the least, then the Leica X1 is for you.

#12 jpmac55

jpmac55

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 136 posts
  • City / Ort:Averill Park, NY

Posted 19 January 2010 - 14:13

Like many of us, I am waiting on the X1 but continue to read up on the various 4/3 combo's available now. All good but at times I think we've crossed into the age of information overload. Tempting but will still wait for the arrival of my X1.

For me, in the long run having the capability to change lenses would likely mean costing more than the X1. Add one or more lenses to my kit and suddenly I am close to two grand. Of course the Leica package includes Lightroom which I was planning on buying anyway. So that knocks it down to $1,800.

That said, I am impressed with the early reviews of the Ricoh offerings like their GRD. My hesitation is not sure how comfortable I am with lifespan of such a proprietary camera/lens combo.
John

#13 jsrockit

jsrockit

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • City / Ort:NYC

Posted 19 January 2010 - 14:34

Of course the Leica package includes Lightroom which I was planning on buying anyway.


Does anyone know if this version of lightroom is the full version that will allow us to upgrade (at a lower price than buying 3 outright) to version 3 once that is released?
M9 / 35mm C-Biogon 2.8 ZM, 50mm Summarit 2.5, 50mm Nokton 1.1

#14 Enrique Santa

Enrique Santa

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 107 posts
  • City / Ort:Madrid

Posted 19 January 2010 - 14:49

Thanks for the reviews Dr.Vorcet. Very interesting. Impresed by the output quality of the sexy X1. I´m still dreaming with future versions of the X1 with interchangeable m lenses, or pehaps a versatile zoom :D. Meanwhile it arrives, I'm happy playing with my ep1. I´m saving to buy on next month the 20mm 1.7 Pana.:)
Best wishes.

#15 jsrockit

jsrockit

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • City / Ort:NYC

Posted 19 January 2010 - 15:23

This is a conversion from raw via C1 using no sharpening at all. Note the "enhanced" sharpness of the green sign and the wacky variance in the sharpness of the larger red lettering?

This appears at times in photography of people as very sharp buildings and blurry faced people in front of them...

In the shot of the girls the background and foreground are sharper than they are!


Something seems very off here... why no other complaints around the interwebs about this issue?
M9 / 35mm C-Biogon 2.8 ZM, 50mm Summarit 2.5, 50mm Nokton 1.1

#16 Dan States

Dan States

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 785 posts
  • City / Ort:Pleasant Prairie Wisconsin USA

Posted 19 January 2010 - 15:47

Great question because it happens on a friends GF1 also. I suspect it has to do with internal lens correction software working on sections that are clearly defined with contrasting lines. In areas of more complex texture like the human face it's less active.

Panasonic indicates that the performance of the lenses for 4/3 are highly dependent on electronic correction. Otherwise the cost and size of the lenses would be much higher. (Think about leica making a 20/40mm auto focus 1.7...it would cost a fortune)

I still enjoy the GF1 for what it is but it's definitely not a substitution for a high end camera.

Best wishes
Dan

#17 LuxBob

LuxBob

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,165 posts
  • City / Ort:Luxembourg

Posted 19 January 2010 - 16:34

Different cameras for different market segments mainly.
But why are people complaining about the apparent price difference on a Leica of about $900 or so, or, double the price, when no-one questions the fact that you are paying $6-$7000 for some Leica lenses which creates a far bigger difference.

#18 h00ligan

h00ligan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • City / Ort:Anytown USA.

Posted 19 January 2010 - 17:04

Looking more closely at the photos posted - I'm not sure I see the strange oversharpening - what it looks like to me is slight blur in the shot... and for the second, it looks like the girls were moving.

What speed were those shot? Assuming you used the 20mm lens for them?

I ask because the gf1 does have a strange tendency to lower shutter speed always first - when shot in a mode at least. well not lower - it seems GLUED to 1/30 at the fastest side.

Edited by h00ligan, 19 January 2010 - 17:10.

- Edward

#19 barjohn

barjohn

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,069 posts
  • City / Ort:San Clemente

Posted 19 January 2010 - 17:23

Maybe you should read Tashley's comments on the X1 he took on vacation with him in the S2 posts. http://www.l-camera-...ot-gallery.html

The issues I have mentioned clearly bothered him in real world usage, such as an LCD that was unusable. Maybe because I live in a bright sunshine area this type of issue is more relevant to me.

#20 h00ligan

h00ligan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • City / Ort:Anytown USA.

Posted 19 January 2010 - 17:47

Thanks for linking that John. I wonder how much was done in post to his x1 shots. I much prefer seeing untouched jpgs or raw files (excepting a basic conversion to jpg) when checking out the results. It shows the actual camera potential rather than the professional developer's.

Edited by h00ligan, 19 January 2010 - 17:51.

- Edward




0 user(s) are reading this topic