andalus Posted March 25, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wonder if anyone's compared the ISO performance of the M9 vs the X1. I know the iso on X1 goes higher. Barring the issue of changeable lenses on the M9, one -- a neophyte to digital anyway - has to wonder that if one had an M9 with a 35 Summicron and an X1, and nothing else, which camera would outperform the other in terms if IQ at high (or even low), iso speeds? Just curious if anyone has insight on this...and I admit, it might be a dumb question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Hi andalus, Take a look here M9 VS X1 ANYONE, RE ISO and IQ PERFORMANCE?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jpattison Posted March 25, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 25, 2010 Will you please forget about high ISO, it really doesn't matter. We shoot film from 25 to 320: Leica make their lenses to be used at full aperture. This gives 2 to 3 stops on other systems. Sits back, and waits for flames! Actually, I heard the "35" equivalent 24mm lens isn't up to the regular M 24 anyway... John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 26, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 26, 2010 I just did two shots of same scene (boards on a wooden deck), one M9 35mm Summicron @ f/8 and ISO 1600, the other an X1 @ f/8 ISO 1600. I don't see much difference, though the camera exposed the scene differently (X1 looks a bit over). I am happy to send the dngs or jpgs to someone who is interested in a more scientific analysis. I tend to shoot at the lower end of the ISO scale, so it is not that important to me; I also don't much believe in tests as opposed to real photos. I don't think posting low res jpgs of of much use anyhow for such a test, so I will email if anyone wants the files to have a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 27, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 27, 2010 It's not that important, and if you want to compare, you need to compare the same scene, otherwise you are recording/comparing different S/N ratios. Besides, if you do want to get a good night scene, you will eventually need a tripod. And with a tripod you can use all ISO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 27, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 27, 2010 Will you please forget about high ISO, it really doesn't matter. We shoot film from 25 to 320: Leica make their lenses to be used at full aperture. This gives 2 to 3 stops on other systems. Sits back, and waits for flames! Actually, I heard the "35" equivalent 24mm lens isn't up to the regular M 24 anyway... John Just because your happy living in the past doesnt mean we all are. Its 2010, and the days of shooting slow film stocks are over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted March 29, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 29, 2010 You can try Steve Huff Photos - Real World Digital Camera And Lens Reviews. He did a real user point of view analysis of X1 and M9.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 29, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 29, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well . .. Having used both, I think that there probably isn't that much difference. However, if you downscale the M9 file to the size of the X1 file then you'll see quite a benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 29, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 29, 2010 My real world completely subjective test is that the X1 is very good and I will use it happily as a backup and for times I want the convenience of autofocus (and sometimes a little light from the flash). I know there will be sneers about autofocus but my eyes are such that I sometimes struggle (and am slow) with a RF, so any autofocus is a plus for me. I know there has been criticism of the X1's speed in focusing but for me it has not been an issue as almost any autofocus will be better than my manual focus especially wide open. I am not so bad that I would abandon my M9 (see below) but as a second choice the X1 is pretty good. The X1 renders pretty well, but the M9 files have better dynamic range. I frankly did not notice a huge difference in IQ on my test at ISO 1600, but I tend to work more frequently in the lower ISO ranges so others would be better judges. The files did need sharpening more than M9 files (which rarely need anything at all at native sizes) and I guess that is a function of an AA filter. Color rendition is slightly but not dramatically different, and the X1 tended to slightly more exposure than the M9 at aperture priority "A". Other issues: A viewfinder is on its way as I have never cared for composing on a screen at arms length (shows my age). The X1 is also significantly smaller than a M9 but in no way can be considered a pocket camera. The "transport case" is also pretty large, though it has a belt loop and for some walking around may be tempting. This is an interim view as I've had it 5 days; will need more time to get used to it. I do know my G10 will be put up for sale as it will no longer be used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 29, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 29, 2010 Actually, I heard the "35" equivalent 24mm lens isn't up to the regular M 24 anyway... Did you expect it to be? The X1 is $2000 for the whole camera, the 24mm for the M is $3,995 for the lens alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.