X1 vs the M9 for low light only

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Edward but I picked up a GF1 and Sigma DP1s on a fire sale (1/3 price of a X1).......... too good of a bargain to miss he bought a X1(flower/ landscape shooter).

 

 

Once we hit the PP trail it is a whole new ball game............... for those that want stuff straight from the camera they are at the mercy of camera manufacturers, others like me we have a greater playing field

[Advertisement]

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

[h00ligan]

Pixel level image quality is very slightly better in the x1, which matters for those that print I guess. White balance is better on the x1, agreed. It is both smaller and lighter than the gf1, true, but neither are much of a factor..in fact i think I have more issues getting shake free shots at lower shutter speeds the lighter the camera, since neither has in body stabilization.

 

The x1 is much quieter.

[h00ligan]

Thanks Edward but I picked up a GF1 and Sigma DP1s on a fire sale (1/3 price of a X1).......... too good of a bargain to miss he bought a X1.

 

I very nearly bought a dp1s. The files I saw were fantastic. Though I gather it may be slower than the x1? What are your thoughts on both?

 

I am trying to learn the camera and post processing in concert. I have recently spent a lot of time reading and practicing sharpening and noise reduction. Before photography I was relatively familiar with Photoshop as a graphic designer.

[Guest stnami]

dp1s is great for landscapes and still object, files need PP work on them great at 50 and 100 iso .......... 800iso washed out colour great for " digital hand colouring"

 

Not ideal or the fast and furious stuff DSLR do a better job there

 

About post processing, too many stray on to the technical side practising sharpening and noise reduction etc. Internal camera software like olympus E1 E400( Kodak sensors I think) early Nikons and the old Leica D2 do a better job of it all plus great colour rendition. But they are old camera now and few bother with them.

 

Post processing should be about extending the file into an interesting image, emotion etc.......imo

[h00ligan]

Good thoughts on sharpening. I'd have to agree on most but landscapes...where it really seems to pay off. It's not something I have a ton of interest in anyway..sharpening a portrait is usually more work than benefit...except maybe eyes. I'm sure that's different for fashion photographers. A non made up model..aka average person..doesn't benefit from mega treatment for symmetry, sharpness, etc..but that's my taste. In my learning it's taken differen paths and, for now, I want to focus on emotion not popular beauty. I prefer awkward and different, so I am trying to improve at that.

 

My first foray into digital art had nothing to do with my photography. I took stock art and adapted it to how I felt. I definitely feel I've headed down a dangerous path since caring about making my own images and I want to get back some of my initial feeling and lessen my consideration for having ...for lack of better words..lens 'perfectness'.

 

Even the x1, on sharpening, takes a bit of work for raw files to get to the same place. Olympus seems to own that arena for now. My time is proabably better spent getting exposure correct than worrying about sharpness. Heh.

[Hacker]

I urge you to try RF focusing on the M9 in the dark, I think unless you are a true expert and with really good eyesight it can be tricky.

 

The M9 is not TTL, and I have not really experienced difficulty focusing in the dark. I've tried to convince myself to get the X1, and I could hardly focus the subjects in the shop and walked out empty handed. Perhaps the X1 is not for me, but great for others.