X1 vs the M9 for low light only

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, it's true (albeit over simplified, my quick posts come back to haunt me so I'll be more clear).

 

I prefer the x1 because I like shooting lower light stuff. But technologically speaking it is behind on many counts (but sensor).

 

I want to love it, I like it.

 

Gf1/20: accepts filters, higher shutter speed (bright here), faster lens. Costs < 1/3 the x1, much faster af, much faster io speed, interchangeable lenses(m mount), closer min focusing distance, better screen, more rugged build

 

X1 handles low light better, has better color, better ergonomics for control, much quieter, weighs less.

 

If you put these two cameras together I'd be a very happy guy, it's why I've kept both despite the similar form factor. I use the x1 more..but for what I'd get out of selling the gf1 at this point..makes more sense to keep it. If it mft handled lower light better leica would have a much smaller user base for the x1 I think.

 

We will see if that's true when zeiss releases real lenses for nex too.

 

Ps, stnami - I don't mind that you pulled that from another forum and posted it here, while it wasn't very descriptive, I stand by it.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest stnami]

No one asked you to own up to it and you could have let it go to the keeper with none the wiser.

 

I have both at home at he moment, the x1 isn't mine but I still wouldn't buy one, the gf1 a very cheap acquisition with a dp1s....... both are keepers and eventually join the RD1 and D2 as a sometimes use cameras along with the small film brigade. Each is great to use in certain situations.

If someone wanted a all round camera it would be hard to go past the new Panasonic GH2, superb articulated screen, great EVF, small lightweight and Pana have learnt its lessons well from leica in the production of lenses. For that odd movie ideal............

 

...... shooting raw and willingness to process changes the game and levels out the camera type field

[h00ligan]

Agreed. This post made me curious.. i did some anecdotal testing the other day between gf1 and x1... on a golf course in good light, I felt the gf1 was sharper. The tests I just did in lower light show the same results.

 

Eventually I'll have to get a tripod out to confirm it, but from what I am seeing the panasonic lens is better than the x1 lens - at least as far as sharpness.

 

Certainly begs the question for anyone wanting static low light subjects.. why not get a pen with ibis and the panasonic lens, for a lot less money than the x1.

 

On camera screen I thought maybe the x1 image would be superior - but to be honest, and this sucks, that's not what I'm seeing. The only downside I can find with MFT right now - and the camera you mentioned starts to negate it - is iso performance.

 

Panasonic and olympus (I believe the former to be the larger factor) have a really great system if they can somehow deliver better low light results.

 

To be completely frank, every day that goes by causes me to consider selling the x1 more and more, I'd be hard pushed to recommend it to anyone I know at the price vs the competition.

 

Again, the sky must be falling - we agree.

 

BTW, I have no issue owning up to what I say, I just wanted to be a bit more robust in my answer. I don't think it's a problem. I've never confessed to being a blind brand fan. I just want what works the best for me.. I couldn't care if it was a cardboard box with a pin hole - providing I didn't have to fight it (another issue with the x1)

[ChiILX1]

i did some anecdotal testing the other day between gf1 and x1... on a golf course in good light, I felt the gf1 was sharper. The tests I just did in lower light show the same results.

 

Eventually I'll have to get a tripod out to confirm it, but from what I am seeing the panasonic lens is better than the x1 lens - at least as far as sharpness.

 

On camera screen I thought maybe the x1 image would be superior - but to be honest, and this sucks, that's not what I'm seeing. The only downside I can find with MFT right now - and the camera you mentioned starts to negate it - is iso performance.

 

Indeed this is disturbing. It would be great if you could post some of your examples for comparison.

[ChiILX1]

...and I did find this comparison:

Test Leica X1 : gestion du bruit lectronique - Focus Numrique

[Guest stnami]

up to 400 most entry level cameras are pretty good ................ no GF1 images available for download .........this makes it all a bit of a dud come dog's breakfast in comparing the 4/3 format against other cameras

[phancj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agreed. This post made me curious.. i did some anecdotal testing the other day between gf1 and x1... on a golf course in good light, I felt the gf1 was sharper. The tests I just did in lower light show the same results.

 

Eventually I'll have to get a tripod out to confirm it, but from what I am seeing the panasonic lens is better than the x1 lens - at least as far as sharpness.

 

Certainly begs the question for anyone wanting static low light subjects.. why not get a pen with ibis and the panasonic lens, for a lot less money than the x1.

 

On camera screen I thought maybe the x1 image would be superior - but to be honest, and this sucks, that's not what I'm seeing. The only downside I can find with MFT right now - and the camera you mentioned starts to negate it - is iso performance.

 

Panasonic and olympus (I believe the former to be the larger factor) have a really great system if they can somehow deliver better low light results.

 

To be completely frank, every day that goes by causes me to consider selling the x1 more and more, I'd be hard pushed to recommend it to anyone I know at the price vs the competition.

 

Again, the sky must be falling - we agree.

 

BTW, I have no issue owning up to what I say, I just wanted to be a bit more robust in my answer. I don't think it's a problem. I've never confessed to being a blind brand fan. I just want what works the best for me.. I couldn't care if it was a cardboard box with a pin hole - providing I didn't have to fight it (another issue with the x1)

 

All things being equal, a larger sensor ALWAYS produces sharper images, no question about it.

 

The X1 is one little quirky animal, so I think it is really a love/hate affair with it. it is a closed system without any expansion possibilities but if the 35mm is the focal length you can use I do not think there is any competing camera that comes close to its IQ and simplicity of controls, not to mention its stellar high iso performance.

 

The mft personally I will give it a miss, once you are used to APS-C quality it is hard to go backwards. Maybe the next iliteration of the nex, or some other manufacturers.

 

IF you do have doubts about the X1 at this juncture, best to sell it as it still fetches a good price, until the X2 comes out.

 

My pre-ordered M9 steel grey with 50 summilux (actually I ordered the 35 cron but they are out) just arrived, I will do a shootout and compare between my DSLR with 1.4 lenses tomorrow. I will then decide on the M9 after seeing the images for myself.

 

I will keep my X1 for sure, it has given me so many keepers, irregardless of its quirkiness, its one great camera, and I cant see myself not having it, even with an M9(too big and heavy too for everyday use).

[h00ligan]

If you guys are really interested I'll get a tripod out, shoot in good light and low light, post comparisons. Most of what I have seen are noise comparisons...to be sure mft loses on that one, but with a faster lens...providing one doesn't need greater dof, it's a wash.

 

Obviously it all depends on need..maybe my x1 isn't as sharp as some other owners'.

 

Cj, I'd love to see comparisons with your new m9 when it arrives, congrat, I'm jealous.

[phancj]

If you guys are really interested I'll get a tripod out, shoot in good light and low light, post comparisons. Most of what I have seen are noise comparisons...to be sure mft loses on that one, but with a faster lens...providing one doesn't need greater dof, it's a wash.

 

Obviously it all depends on need..maybe my x1 isn't as sharp as some other owners'.

 

Cj, I'd love to see comparisons with your new m9 when it arrives, congrat, I'm jealous.

 

YEs, Edward comparisons will be great.... shoot wide open to really see the capability of the lens, stopping down all lenses will look okay.

 

I dunno if I will pick up the M9 tomorrow, I need to do the comparisons with my DSLR before I commit. Afterall, the M9 isnt that light altho smaller than the DSLR, and I will lose AF completely and have to relearn the whole system from scratch. The IQ must be stellar compared to my DSLR f/1.4 lenses before I jump in. RIght now I am using the D300 still so I'd expect the fullframe M9 to be much better than it with equivalent lux lenses. From my last trial with the 28 lux I wasnt too impressed with the red fringing and general difficulty in focusing on wide apertures. We'll see!

[h00ligan]

Here's an example of a similar shot I'd take indoors. These were just boring shots of convenience.. put into lightroom and exported directly without touching anything.

 

The settings aren't identical, they don't need to be for real world illustration.

 

You can see how the panny lens is wide vs the x1 - and you can see the iso benefit of the x1 (but again, it needs it). gf1@320 x1@800. Outdoors in contrasty situations, the x1 handles shadow area better - more detail less noise, and the raw files have more headroom..

 

That said, at 3x the cost, it is not 3x the camera. In fact it's a very close race - and I'd agree, without printing big or liking to crop a lot.. save money, why not.. unless..

 

You like shooting jpg (leica way better), you need lower weight, x1 is a bit smaller.. long exposure is nicer because you can keep the iso lower too, which means cleaner timed shots.

 

Here are the two files directly - full size

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/5146122733_d410154141_o.jpg

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5146122511_80d3a63f0b_o.jpg

 

Which do you prefer? Is there much in it? Not to me. Look at the canon logo - Fringing?

[Mr_Jones]

I'm guessing from the focal length that the x1 is the one I prefer, but not because of the focal length. To me it's like the difference between vinyl and cd. That means different things to different people and it's all about what suits the individual.

 

I do think its a big difference though.

[h00ligan]

Which one did you prefer? It wasn't my intention to try and fool people - I'm just curious.

 

Yes you can see a focal length difference, but.. I wasn't using a tripod, and I moved the GF1 back in an attempt to get a similar fov.

 

Interesting comment about vinyl vs cd - I'm guessing you find the iso noise more pleasing from one than the other?

 

Oh and thanks for your feedback.

[phancj]

Here's an example of a similar shot I'd take indoors. These were just boring shots of convenience.. put into lightroom and exported directly without touching anything.

 

The settings aren't identical, they don't need to be for real world illustration.

 

You can see how the panny lens is wide vs the x1 - and you can see the iso benefit of the x1 (but again, it needs it). gf1@320 x1@800. Outdoors in contrasty situations, the x1 handles shadow area better - more detail less noise, and the raw files have more headroom..

 

That said, at 3x the cost, it is not 3x the camera. In fact it's a very close race - and I'd agree, without printing big or liking to crop a lot.. save money, why not.. unless..

 

You like shooting jpg (leica way better), you need lower weight, x1 is a bit smaller.. long exposure is nicer because you can keep the iso lower too, which means cleaner timed shots.

 

Here are the two files directly - full size

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/5146122733_d410154141_o.jpg

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5146122511_80d3a63f0b_o.jpg

 

Which do you prefer? Is there much in it? Not to me. Look at the canon logo - Fringing?

 

Edward,

 

Honestly, its hard to tell from a single shot especially that particular shot. Take 2 dozens shots in varying circumstances and you'll get your answer.

 

Also, leave all the exif data intact so we can compare the parameters properly. I choose to save ALL exif data for all shots I take, coz later on I can review and improve on them by experimenting with different settings.

 

Everyone attributes different cost/quality considerations, and often a little better costs a lot more. It is for the individual to grasp what is worth it and whats not. To me the X1 for its size and IQ is excellent value.

 

CJ

[Mr_Jones]

Ok, I prefer the second one (ending 0b_o).

 

When I compared the difference to vinyl vs cd, I mean they both have there benefits but it's individual preference not right or wrong.

 

Which one did you prefer? It wasn't my intention to try and fool people - I'm just curious.

 

Yes you can see a focal length difference, but.. I wasn't using a tripod, and I moved the GF1 back in an attempt to get a similar fov.

 

Interesting comment about vinyl vs cd - I'm guessing you find the iso noise more pleasing from one than the other?

 

Oh and thanks for your feedback.

[h00ligan]

CJ, I'll take more shots out and about.

 

Most of the time I don't have the patience to try and 'fool people'. I wasn't aware a static link removed the exif on flickr, sorry. I also think that there are times direct comparisons with the exact same settings are good, but there are times when comparisons should be made via 'how would I use this one, now how would I use this one' I'm not going to shoot at 2.8 indoors on a camera with more crop factor and push up the iso on a smaller sensor. Of course the leica would fare better were I to do that. The reality of the situation however is that with the increased crop factor the depth of field is not very different between the panasonic at 1.7 and the leica at 2.8. They yield similar results. The x1 slower lens but better iso performance vs.. etc.

 

Mr Jones - the second shot that you prefer is with the gf1/20mm. The first with the Leica. What I've been noticing about the x1 is highlight fringing.. like on the white canon letters. I know panasonic corrects this with software in camera (as the mft standard requires software as a part), but I've had a hard time getting rid of it in lightroom. Maybe it's not fringing, but.. ? As I understand it, it's fringing.

 

In good to moderate light at anything short of nearly full resolution, it's a coin flip. In quite low light.. the x1 edges forward imo, but only if you need a hair more dof.

[Mr_Jones]

Well that's interesting, I was quite close to getting a gf1 before I plumped for the x1. I thought the x1 tipped the scales in the test shots I had seen online at that point.

[Guest stnami]

Edward iso/exposure differences is probably the most interesting aspect

 

X1 iso 800 - 1/60 s at f/2.8

 

GF1 iso 320 - 1/60 s at f/1.7

 

Visually depending on monitors etc all looks pretty same same as all these quasi test do

[h00ligan]

Stnami - I agree. I just figured I'd take that little sample in the way I would try with both cameras not with a comparison in mind. I'm starting to realize that it is beneficial to sometimes look at things that way rather than to say, ok set them both to xyz - especially when you're talking about different sensors.

 

There seems to me (I don't own any full frame camera) to be a similar difference between 1.5/1.6 crop and ff... Maybe a bit less.

 

I just thought this was a bit interesting. Considering the well discussed shortcomings of the x1, it would be hard for me to say to a friend 'sure buy the leica not he panasonic'. Particularly if those friends have chosen to procreate. Heh.

 

If you want any gf1 full size raws, I'll put a couple up in varying light. Nothing exciting just something untouched that can be evaluated manipulated, etc. Let me know.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[h00ligan]

Well that's interesting, I was quite close to getting a gf1 before I plumped for the x1. I thought the x1 tipped the scales in the test shots I had seen online at that point.

 

 

And that's the hard part about evaluating online..very often we have no idea what was done, or if our level of skill in post..even down to sharpening well, can achieve the same or similar results.

 

I think the x1 has better color than the gf1 for those who don't want to muck round changing it...but there are profiles that correct the gf1 color.

[Mr_Jones]

I will look at the gf2, 'cause it's a smaller body and that was a big deal to me when I looked at the gf1.

 

I'm very impressed with the x1 white balance, even shooting grey card which was always necessary with my d200, I'm finding the figures are so close it makes little difference.

 

The test photos I was referring to were from DP Review, so I went against the advice there because I saw what I wanted from the leica, and felt that it edged the gf1 + it's a little smaller right?