Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, that answers the question. He purchased the camera around July 2nd and completed his NEX evaluation around July 26th. We know his initial take was more negative on the NEX but in the NEX review where he does more serious comparisons it is hard to say that the X1 wins out in IQ, its only real claim to fame. While the lens on the X1 is better than the kit lenses it isn't that much better ($1000). As you can see in the DPR lens tests, wide open at f2.8, the $250 (actually available for $100 in the dual kit package) lens is sharper in the center and sharper in the corners. It is only when the Leica lens is stopped down to f8 that it out performs the little guy as far as resolution goes. The Leica has less distortion but that can be handled in PP and CA is only slightly better which can also be handled in PP. Considering it is more difficult to make a 16mm f2.8 than a 24mm f2.8 and looking at the price difference one isn't getting much for the money. The X1 lens is certainly not in the class of Leica M lenses and one can put a real Leica M lens in front of the NEX.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[h00ligan]

Interesting john. That said, I am not entirely convinced by dpreviews sharpness test. In steve's review, you can look side by side, and frankly the results just don't support the charts.

 

I seem to recall a test that rated some leica lenses VERY poorly...I'll see if I can dig that up. Certainly using steve's review (great real world testing) the leica I would say seemed well ahead in iq, not marginally. Wonder why the charts don't support that.

 

I'd love to do some blind testing!

[barjohn]

I can tell you first hand that in my own informal testing using the Leica/Minolta Rokkor 40/2 lens, a lens known for its sharpness, it beats out the Sony 16mm by a very slim margin. Where the NEX shines IQ wise is in the higher ISO range. In Steve's review of the NEX where he shows the image of the hand and keyboard comparing the NEX and X1 (both at ISO 3200), the NEX is clearly better with better color saturation and less noise. But the real difference shows up when you go above ISO 3200, territory the X1 can't reach. If you use NEX's hand held low light mode, it blows away large DSLRs at 6400 with images that look like ISO 200.

 

See these threads for examples:

 

Nex-5 @6400 with kit lens.: Sony NEX Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

Twilight mode - my attempt at a test [Page 1]: Sony NEX Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[h00ligan]

I agree the color/ saturation on that hand shot was very odd...that said, it was also a jpg comparison. I hope adobe gets some raw support for the nex soon!

 

Look at the shot of the tree trunk Steve posted. The x1 won that round for sure.

 

Did you see the thread over at dpreview with the people climbing the rocks and the ocean? (you'd know it if you have). Very poor sharpness. Again I wonder if there are some qc issues at Sony.

[ChiILX1]

Thanks, that answers the question. He purchased the camera around July 2nd and completed his NEX evaluation around July 26th. We know his initial take was more negative on the NEX but in the NEX review where he does more serious comparisons it is hard to say that the X1 wins out in IQ, its only real claim to fame. While the lens on the X1 is better than the kit lenses it isn't that much better ($1000). As you can see in the DPR lens tests, wide open at f2.8, the $250 (actually available for $100 in the dual kit package) lens is sharper in the center and sharper in the corners. It is only when the Leica lens is stopped down to f8 that it out performs the little guy as far as resolution goes. The Leica has less distortion but that can be handled in PP and CA is only slightly better which can also be handled in PP. Considering it is more difficult to make a 16mm f2.8 than a 24mm f2.8 and looking at the price difference one isn't getting much for the money. The X1 lens is certainly not in the class of Leica M lenses and one can put a real Leica M lens in front of the NEX.

 

Be careful- the only time I saw the NEX fare well against the X1 was in JPEG comparisons. The RAW were much worse and we all have X1's to shoot in RAW. Plus high ISO performance is definitely poorer on the NEX unless you give up control to it's special mode for it.

 

Looks like a great camera but not as great as the X1. I like my intuitive manual controls, build quality, hotshoe, optical viewfinder, serious warranty (I've had a lot of promising cameras crap out on me after their 90 day warranties), and I like not having to mount a huge lens on my camera to have 35mm equivalent focal length.

[JanCderidder]

Got a Nex-3 with kit-zoom and I'm impressed I must say (499€) Clunky, but sort of nice looking in real life ...cute?

[JanCderidder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am also very sure that none of the X1 owners will ever buy a Nex for him/herself, at least the current models. Plus I also heard many Nex owners are seriously disappointed with the cameras coz the image quality with the AF lenses are not there yet and is close to P&S, and now they have to live with unpocketable camera. The X1 is just the right compromise of size and quality.

 

I own an X1, and I love it ....

 

I have also recently bought a Nex3 just to see what all the hype was about. With the Kit-zoom which came with the camera the images are not as good as the X1, but the focal lengths are more versatile. It's still luggable along with the X1 in a little bag, and the imagery isn't all that bad as we are led to believe. Menu's are quirky for sure, but so was the iPhone menu and I got use to that as well..... All in all not a bad product for a reasonable price.

 

and I still have "nostalgic" feeling about sony for my first digital was a Sony R1 which was a magnificent camera, well I thought anyway

[jsrockit]

The X1 lens is certainly not in the class of Leica M lenses ...

 

While you are right, I wouldn't dismiss it as not being a great lens. It blows away many of the Voigtlander M lenses I've used.

 

Also, why are you here always trying to debunk the X1? If you do not like it, why bother even thinking about it?

[Dan States]

Thanks, that answers the question. He purchased the camera around July 2nd and completed his NEX evaluation around July 26th. We know his initial take was more negative on the NEX but in the NEX review where he does more serious comparisons it is hard to say that the X1 wins out in IQ, its only real claim to fame. While the lens on the X1 is better than the kit lenses it isn't that much better ($1000). As you can see in the DPR lens tests, wide open at f2.8, the $250 (actually available for $100 in the dual kit package) lens is sharper in the center and sharper in the corners. It is only when the Leica lens is stopped down to f8 that it out performs the little guy as far as resolution goes. The Leica has less distortion but that can be handled in PP and CA is only slightly better which can also be handled in PP. Considering it is more difficult to make a 16mm f2.8 than a 24mm f2.8 and looking at the price difference one isn't getting much for the money. The X1 lens is certainly not in the class of Leica M lenses and one can put a real Leica M lens in front of the NEX.

 

HA! That's rich! I own both and there is simply no comparison...the 16 is total turd. The 24 is outstanding at all apertures. DPREVIEW must have had a bum X1 because you would have to be blind not to know the Leica is worlds ahead optically. All these tests tell me is that DPREVIEW has inconsistent results from their methodology.

 

As for 'M' class....it certainly is better than any but the latest generation of 35mm Leica lenses. At 2.8 it's much better than the V4 Summicron especially in the corners and handling flare. Excepting the latest asph generation what Leica M 35mm angle of view lens surpasses the X1?

[Guest badbob]

Also, why are you here always trying to debunk the X1? If you do not like it, why bother even thinking about it?

 

I'd say debunking(?) is welcome when it offers facts that I wouldn't otherwise have because I don't have the time to research everything myself.

[ChiILX1]

Somewhere on this forum is someone posting comparison shots between their M9 and X1- and I remember everyone agreed that a lot of the X1 shots were better!

 

Now one Sony comes out and there are people on here saying the Sony's shots are better? If the M9 and the X1 are both surpassed by a $499 camera, I guess Leica's KAPUTT

[jsrockit]

I'd say debunking(?) is welcome when it offers facts that I wouldn't otherwise have because I don't have the time to research everything myself.

 

I guess that's right... not to mention the title of the thread... oops, my bad. However, barjohn's been doing this with the X1 since day 1.

[davidhunternyc]

You guys, may I say something in barjohn's defense? I have been in his shoes before. For some reason, whenever anyone critiques a product in an unflatteringly light, there is a rush to judgement. Yet, if someone sings praises for a product, then that is a moral good. Positive, negative, or indifferent, critiques are not supposed to have moral consequences. They just are. I think it is a healthy that someone like barjohn is on this forum and is pursuing his line of prosecution. If critiquing the X1's shortcomings is barjohn's cross to bare, I say go for it. Leica needs to hear it.

[barjohn]

Someone has to tell the emperor that his new clothes while not no clothes is really a bikini! :D

[Guest stnami]

most pro photographers prefer the m8 or m9 to the X1 as do most people participating on this forum

 

The Sony is a lemon at the moment, great IQ shit lenses the X1 great IQ great lens, shit focus................... time for someone to step up to the plate who is willing to address all these things ..........where is Hanimex when they are needed ?

[jsrockit]

You guys, may I say something in barjohn's defense? I have been in his shoes before. For some reason, whenever anyone critiques a product in an unflatteringly light, there is a rush to judgement. Yet, if someone sings praises for a product, then that is a moral good. Positive, negative, or indifferent, critiques are not supposed to have moral consequences. They just are. I think it is a healthy that someone like barjohn is on this forum and is pursuing his line of prosecution. If critiquing the X1's shortcomings is barjohn's cross to bare, I say go for it. Leica needs to hear it.

 

I just find it strange. If I don't like something, I just don't bother with it and go find something I like.

 

As far as the X1 goes... it's the same old story. No camera is perfect, but if you can deal with its shortcomings, it is a great camera. For those of us that use it and like it, we know we have a good tool. That said, I'm cool with someone saying it isn't for them. Shit, rangefinders in general have several shortcomings, but we still love them too.

[Dan States]

You guys, may I say something in barjohn's defense? I have been in his shoes before. For some reason, whenever anyone critiques a product in an unflatteringly light, there is a rush to judgement. Yet, if someone sings praises for a product, then that is a moral good. Positive, negative, or indifferent, critiques are not supposed to have moral consequences. They just are. I think it is a healthy that someone like barjohn is on this forum and is pursuing his line of prosecution. If critiquing the X1's shortcomings is barjohn's cross to bare, I say go for it. Leica needs to hear it.

 

That's why Leica has an email address.... this forum is not the Leica compaint line. All actions have a consequence even if we don't like what happens and if you constantly complain about Leica's on a Leica forum you are going to tick people off.

[Danielsan]

Thanks, that answers the question. He purchased the camera around July 2nd and completed his NEX evaluation around July 26th. We know his initial take was more negative on the NEX but in the NEX review where he does more serious comparisons it is hard to say that the X1 wins out in IQ, its only real claim to fame. While the lens on the X1 is better than the kit lenses it isn't that much better ($1000). As you can see in the DPR lens tests, wide open at f2.8, the $250 (actually available for $100 in the dual kit package) lens is sharper in the center and sharper in the corners. It is only when the Leica lens is stopped down to f8 that it out performs the little guy as far as resolution goes. The Leica has less distortion but that can be handled in PP and CA is only slightly better which can also be handled in PP. Considering it is more difficult to make a 16mm f2.8 than a 24mm f2.8 and looking at the price difference one isn't getting much for the money. The X1 lens is certainly not in the class of Leica M lenses and one can put a real Leica M lens in front of the NEX.

I dont believe those tests John, i only believe my eyes and the pictures from the X1 i saw are much better then the ones from Sony so im not sure about the DPREVIEW test at all. The fact is that eh X1 pictures i saw are much sharper then the ones from NEX5

and I still have "nostalgic" feeling about sony for my first digital was a Sony R1 which was a magnificent camera, well I thought anyway

 

The R1 was really not bad, it had a giant sensor, larger then most of the cameras in its class today

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jsrockit]

Street Shooting with the Sony Nex-5 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

"The NEX-5 was lightning quick with AF, it was small enough where no one really even gave me a second look. I shot video and stills and just had the LCD tilted up so I could walk Rollei style through the streets, mainly un-noticed. It worked out well as I never had to bring the camera to my eye. It stayed at my waist and was pretty cool to shoot like that while walking. Just walk…see a moment and SNAP!"

[eelekim]

There are 2 kinds of photographers: One is obsessed with technology, equipment and lab tests and one doesn't care much about all those and uses whatever he or she has that can do reasonably well for what he wants the most and concentrates on his or her photography instead. The former likes to hop around with different cameras whilst the latter prefers to save his or her time, energy and money for better photography.

 

I'm not obsessed with technology, equipment and technical tests. I don't like to change my cameras whenever the next hot camera has arrived. When I have found a camera that feels like a part of me and I can depend on it to achieve my kind of shots, I just forget everything else but taking pictures with it. After all, a camera is only a black box with a pinhole.

 

I'm interested in reading criticisms like John's. I'm still interested in cameras in general. If not, why am I here and do I bother responding to the threads in this forum? OK. My point is: Even if the NEX's outperform X1, so what? What if another makes and models outperform NEX's?

 

I've heard those hi-fi's that measure well usually don't sound good. I guess the technical specs of my amp and dac are not up to the clinical standards as accepted by the general audio enthusiasts. But they sound so good that they do bring me closer to music and I enjoy the experience so much.

 

I believe X1 measures quite well but it's surely not the best ever. But it does let me enjoy taking pictures more than any cameras I've ever used. Maybe NEX does as well. I just don't care. I'm satisfied with my X1. All the comments, feedbacks and criticisms are good for the potential buyers out there. Good luck to them. And it's more important to know what we really want and how the camera can achieve it.

 

To me, emperor looks better in bikini than in anything that he feels not confident.