X1 squares up to M9 for a comparison...

[Julian Thompson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Received my X1 yesterday - bought as a more compact but still high quality camera to shoot along side my M9 and MP.

 

Initial reaction was disappointment at the build quality - I mean it's very nice and is well made but compared to an 'M' it does feel a bit like a (nice) toy!

 

So I shrugged my shoulders and shot off a few frames and brought the DNG's into the computer, and do you know what? I stared and stared in disbelief at what I was seeing. You see, I've read on here that some people are underwhelmed with X1 IQ - I've read comparisons against Japanese point and shoot camera's and all the rest.

 

But I was convinced that what I was seeing was amazing. (And in the back of my mind was something that I'd read on Sean Reid's site about his opinion that the X1 was one of a very few cameras whose images literally make your jaw drop.)

 

So - to put my money where my mouth is here is a quick test.

 

My M9, with 35 Summicron ASPH vs the X1.

 

Both shots iso 200, same shutter speed, F2.8 on both cameras. Both are jpegs exported from Aperture from the raw DNG's. White balance has been adjusted as both camera's got it wrong on AWB. My vision through the viewfinder (with the M9 resting on a worktop) was very difficult so the M9 shot is fractionally backfocussed) The X1 saw the focus fine :-)

 

First shot M9

Second shot X1

 

then

 

M9 equivilent to X1 100% (ie about 80%)

X1 100%

 

I've done them quite small so if you're viewing on a big res monitor if you squeeze the browser down width ways it will put them in order.

 

I'm not going to talk about these results much because I'm no Sean Read or Erwin Puts but I'm bloody impressed. For my usage this level of IQ from the X1 makes me call into question the need for the M9 if I am honest, except, clearly, for the ability to use my lens collection!

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!

Edited May 8, 2010 by Julian Thompson
additional info

[richfx]

Fascinating. Thanks, Julian. Can you compare the X-1 to the Digilux 2?

Rich

[Advertisement]

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

[Julian Thompson]

Here is another one - 100% crop from X1 and equivilent from M9. Again WB has been set on both in the software. No other changes. Focus point was something out of the frame but on a similar plane to this scene.

 

M9 first,

X1 second.

 

I continue to be amazed...

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!

Edited May 8, 2010 by Julian Thompson
correction

[Julian Thompson]

No Rich, I don't have a DL2 to play with

[Ecaton]

No surprise here. I'm considering selling my Cron 35 asph and have the X1 covering the 35mm focal length.

The travel bag would include M9 with 28cron, asph 50lux, 90ME and X1 as the 35mm equivalent and M9 backup at the same time.

[vicaf]

Here is another one - 100% crop from X1 and equivilent from M9. Again WB has been set on both in the software. No other changes. Focus point was something out of the frame but on a similar plane to this scene.

 

M9 first,

X1 second.

 

I continue to be amazed...

 

Julian -

 

Which one got the the color more correct, especially with the blue in the picture?

And, I agree with you, the X1 quality is top shelf -

 

Vic

[Julian Thompson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Vic - actually - the X1 colour is more accurate on the toy on my monitor. But then to be fair with the the standard M9 colour profile I have had some issues so would normally use a custom profile which would negate this difference. Still, kudos to the X1 colour profile out of the box - it seems very good.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Julian Thompson

[stephen.w]

Julian, thanks for sharing. Very fascinating to see these images side-by-side. For someone who would want to keep a 35 mm lens on an M9 (or 28 mm on an M8) ) 80% or more of the time, I'm really happy with the X1. And the results speak for themselves.

[wda]

Julian, a good comparison. My X1 is certainly optically equivalent to my M8 equipped with a 28mm lens and rather better at higher ISOs.

 

Regarding your comment on build quality, which I fully understand, I think it is difficult to scale down the material content of the M9/M8 to the X1 and yet preserve the metallic solidity of the classic M camera body. If the X1 had milled brass top and base plates it would certainly be heavier and feel more solid; at the same time it would lose some of its compactness. The two bodies are not strictly comparable in so many ways. They are different cameras, although the design pedigree does bleed through to the X1.

[jaapv]

Something strange in these comparisons - different sensor size, different pixel count - 100 % crop exactly the same image magnification ?

[Julian Thompson]

Sorry Jaap I edited the first one to say it's about 80% crop from the X1 and 100% from the M9 to make the shots the same size.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Julian Thompson

[Guest Chris M]

Well it seems like the X1 is proving too be on the lines of the costly M8 and M9's, I personally think that in another year from now, you will be able to get too get even better images from much cheaper brands. There is two sides of the court in play here. One is high end glass that needs very little processing straight out of the camera and then there is the camera's that use average or much cheaper lens that then processes the hell out of the image (as shot) inside the camera to make all the correction in camera, and lastly everybody has a choice of third party software too choose from, so it is more about ?? glass? or image processors that can make and take care of all the distortions and ca that cheaper lens can produce. where is technology going too take us in the next 2-3 years from now, and do you really think image quality is going to get much better on the extreme high end camera? I think that quality we are seeing now will be available to us at consumer price points in 3 years from now. S2 quality for 1/100 of the price in a mini zoom cam? what do you think?

 

chris m.

[andybarton]

Dream on Chris M, unless you're happy with all shots looking like they were made by George Lucas and ILM.

 

I'm not.

[h00ligan]

I think that's too dismissive and Chris makes a point. The advancement of technology will allow further enhancement. How long is it before we see advice from the cam re: too much blank space, zoom...or... many people moving, faster shutter. It will happen. Now whether that will be automated or simply advice, who knows.. but technology will account for bad glass or iq in certain ways.. mft has started already.

 

It doesn't have to be massively cgi or anything the like, technology is bridging the gap already. Not necessarily to great result yet, but tech will advance faster than glass engineering - as such lens design will be surpassed - at least in my lifetime - by smart computers.

[harryliem]

Well it seems like the X1 is proving too be on the lines of the costly M8 and M9's, I personally think that in another year from now, you will be able to get too get even better images from much cheaper brands. There is two sides of the court in play here. One is high end glass that needs very little processing straight out of the camera and then there is the camera's that use average or much cheaper lens that then processes the hell out of the image (as shot) inside the camera to make all the correction in camera, and lastly everybody has a choice of third party software too choose from, so it is more about ?? glass? or image processors that can make and take care of all the distortions and ca that cheaper lens can produce. where is technology going too take us in the next 2-3 years from now, and do you really think image quality is going to get much better on the extreme high end camera? I think that quality we are seeing now will be available to us at consumer price points in 3 years from now. S2 quality for 1/100 of the price in a mini zoom cam? what do you think?

 

chris m.

 

To You All (my friends),

 

Well, we are not talking about 2 to 3 years from now. In 2 to 3 years, we don't know what could be happen... if you watched movie 2012... We just want to talk about now... I am happy with my X1, I spend less money to buy X1 than M9, but, I get IQ about the same... ( I don't say the same).

"the Reality IQ talk"

 

Thanks,

Harry

Edited May 31, 2010 by harryliem

[jaapv]

Sorry Jaap I edited the first one to say it's about 80% crop from the X1 and 100% from the M9 to make the shots the same size.

But, Julian, then you are resizing and thantmakes the comparison impossible. We have seen these same problems when testers tried to compare results form differenly sized sensors before, specifically on FM forums.Which does not diminish the fact that the X1 files are very good. It is just that you cannot compare this way. Edited May 31, 2010 by jaapv

[Dan States]

But, Julian, then you are resizing and thantmakes the comparison impossible. We have seen these same problems when testers tried to compare results form differenly sized sensors before, specifically on FM forums.Which does not diminish the fact that the X1 files are very good. It is just that you cannot compare this way.

 

 

Since the native file size of the M9 is larger wouldn't it be the other way round? 80% of the M9 max size vs 100% of the X1? In that case the M9 would have an even greater advantage.

[jaapv]

No - it is uncertain - just think of the way downsizing destroys your images when you make them smaller for the web. Upressing, you are right, does not do them any good either. As soon as you start equalizing files that are not equal, comparison gets impossible.

[Julian Thompson]

I know what you mean but the comparison stands - I looked at them in DNG at all levels of magnification in Aperture and trust me, what I have posted accurately represents what I saw!

 

I can't repost them now at different sizes because I deleted the images from my library.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[h00ligan]

No - it is uncertain - just think of the way downsizing destroys your images when you make them smaller for the web. Upressing, you are right, does not do them any good either. As soon as you start equalizing files that are not equal, comparison gets impossible.

 

Size reduction would destroy, but doesn't taking a larger image and downscaling the res actually make flaws less obvious and images appear superficially sharper?