Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also John, any luck finding that high iso sample you mentioned?

 

Sorry for the delay but I had a nightmare flight getting to my beach house in Texas and I had a few things I had to fix so I hadn't had time to play with my camera. Here are a couple of ISO 6400 shots. I don't have LR here with me so these are out of the camera with only WB adjusted and no NR applied other than the cameras set to low. One done with 18-55mm and the other with the 16mm. The settings were as follows on the 18-55 was shot at 1/40th f3.5 and 18mm and the 16mm was shot at 1/50th at f2.8.

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

[ChiILX1]

Sorry for the delay but I had a nightmare flight getting to my beach house in Texas and I had a few things I had to fix so I hadn't had time to play with my camera. Here are a couple of ISO 6400 shots. I don't have LR here with me so these are out of the camera with only WB adjusted and no NR applied other than the cameras set to low. One done with 18-55mm and the other with the 16mm.

 

Interesting bookshelves....

[barjohn]

I know everyone knocks the lenses but the 18-55mm is still a sharp lens. It has distortion that is pretty fixable in software and the LR3 plugin works well. The bokeh of the lens is superb as you can see in Jonoslack's images on GetDPI at this thread: The Shocking NEX kit zoom and it's dreadful bokeh - The GetDPI Photography Forums

[barjohn]

One last quick shot at ISO 6400 with 16mm f2.8 1/200th sec.

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!

[eelekim]

Hi John,

 

Sorry to hear about your flight. Is everything fine now?

 

Thanks for the high ISO photos. Any low ISO photos of the same scene under the same light for comparison?

[phancj]

Sorry, Barjohn, I gotta be frank here, the high iso shot are passable on the whole, but the images from the kit lens are far from sharp. Also, they are nowhere near iso 400 like you described.

 

Bottom line is right now there is no good E-lenses that sony is offering, and to buy the expensive LR3 to correct distortion is the backwards way of doing it, not to mention the cost.

 

The X1 comes with LR3 if you buy it now, has a great lens and can do AF. There is simply no comparison between X1 and Nex right now.

 

Which is not so say the nex has no future, I am sure future product lines will get better, as will better lenses being released. But whether the E-mount lenses can match that in the X1 remains to be seen. However, I will not buy a camera and bet on future lenses to come out, I want to take nice pictures right away, and I want the option of AF for the good lenses. I also need comprehensive raw support right out of the box.

 

The X1 is also the first in line, Leica will launch the better X2 for sure.

 

Electronic products these days got very short product life cycles, you buy the best that fit your budget at any given one time, not wish and wait and bet on the future. Enjoy them now!

[phancj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know everyone knocks the lenses but the 18-55mm is still a sharp lens. It has distortion that is pretty fixable in software and the LR3 plugin works well. The bokeh of the lens is superb as you can see in Jonoslack's images on GetDPI at this thread: The Shocking NEX kit zoom and it's dreadful bokeh - The GetDPI Photography Forums

 

Checked out the photos, they were great! However, hard to see lens distortion on flowers, not to mention amount of post-processing applied.

 

The truly great photographers can use crappy gear and maximize the camera specs, it is amateurs like myelf that require better gear to take good pictures.

 

I bought the old panasonic point and shoot with super zoom ("Leica" lens) years ago having seen images by some expert photographer online and the images I took with the cam was appalling

 

Point is, I tried the both nex kit lenses(was thinking of buying for wife) and they were horrendous compared to the one in the X1. It was not even close.

 

Like I said, I advise all who are considering the nex or the X1 to bring the laptop and review at the shop immediately. Then, and only then you will see the truth. The LCD on the nex is great, so photos look great, but when you blow up on the laptop screen it is blllaaahhhh! The X1 is the reverse.

[Guest douglasf13]

Of course the expensive Leica lens on the X1 is better than the cheap kit lenses of NEX. Is anyone even arguing that point? I just saw a few preliminary NEX shots with the CV 35 1.4, and that looks like it'll be a real competitor.

[h00ligan]

agreed, which is to me why it's more of an m8/.2 competitor maybe.. manual focus interchangeable sensor, small size, asp-c...

 

More interesting than I thought at first, I'd have to hold one and see what mf is like in hand. Obviously the focus mechanism is different, but aside from one being a rangefinder and one using direct focus, they are remarkably similar - the nex obviously has the iso advantage given it's much newer.

 

I'm not slagging off the m8 by any means, just pontificating on possible merits (which have taken me a while to see).

[barjohn]

I'll post some shots later today with Leica/Minolta 40/2 lens at regular ISO and high ISO.

[jsrockit]

agreed, which is to me why it's more of an m8/.2 competitor maybe.. manual focus interchangeable sensor, small size, asp-c...

 

More interesting than I thought at first, I'd have to hold one and see what mf is like in hand. Obviously the focus mechanism is different, but aside from one being a rangefinder and one using direct focus, they are remarkably similar - the nex obviously has the iso advantage given it's much newer.

 

I'm not slagging off the m8 by any means, just pontificating on possible merits (which have taken me a while to see).

 

I could not disagree more. M8 competitor? The Sony? The beauty of the M8 is the rangefinder, the shutter speed dial, the minimal menu, the heavy / quality feel, the simple light meter, etc. It is a no nonsense digital camera that acts like a traditional camera. The Nex is a point and shoot with some manual capabilities that are buried in menus.

[h00ligan]

So if you put it in program shift, shutter speed, or aperture priority mode, with auto iso.. I see what you mean with it making more decisions. However, I guess I should have been more clear I meant more about technically, the internals.

[AlanG]

 

More interesting than I thought at first, I'd have to hold one and see what mf is like in hand.

 

Yesterday, I played with a Nex 5 for the second time. The magnified MF worked extremely well and was quick to use. The shutter lag is not too bad either. I loved the LCD and the fact that it can be used at waist level. Although shooting at waist level for vertical compositions would be nice too. If they make a good clip on EVF for the Nex, or another model with one, or another brand with similar specs and one, then I'm sold. I can't see why Leica doesn't do this - perhaps even in a full frame model at some point.

 

Until a similar APS or FF model with a good clip on EVF comes out, I'm on hold.

[phancj]

I could not disagree more. M8 competitor? The Sony? The beauty of the M8 is the rangefinder, the shutter speed dial, the minimal menu, the heavy / quality feel, the simple light meter, etc. It is a no nonsense digital camera that acts like a traditional camera. The Nex is a point and shoot with some manual capabilities that are buried in menus.

 

Even with IR issues, I see that images on the M8/.2 is far superior. Whats irks me about the nex is its lack of good lenses for AF, and if we gotta forgo that then I would say that rangefinder focusing is far better and quicker than other MF systems. The way I see it nex was designed for AF, but to reach the wider audience including more advanced photo enthusiasts they throw in the ability to use other than E-mount lenses but will lose AF. To me, that is backwards and defective. My nikkor lenses from like 15 years ago are still useable with AF.

 

I thought M8 was crop factor of 1.3 so larger than X1 or nex? Also, the use of CCD provide better tonal range and the lack of AA filter produces sharper images for sure.

 

I think it is pure naivety to think one could pay a lot less and get more, things are built at a certain price point to address a certain target audience. I have a long ongoing discussion with an ex-colleague and good friend who did extensive comparisons with the different models of nikon & canon and he came to a conclusion that even with the exact same sensor, camera manufacturers provide better and more advanced image processing algorithms and hardware for high end models and cripple those from lower end models. He also cited the incident years ago when canon crippled one lower-end model with software and some smart Russian user went in and enabled those advanced functions, giving him all the functions available only on higher end models! There is some differences between the D3 and the D700, the canon 5D and the 1DMk 3, etc,etc, not just in build quality but the entire image processing ability.

 

On the basis of image quality alone, the M8 should trump the Nex and the X1. But high iso is another story as cmos sensors generate less noise. The lack of an AA filter provide a sharpness that is unavailable to those sensors with a filter.

 

A more accurate picture would be the M9 vs the Nex or even the top of the line Alpha series, since these cameras are closer in terms of technological cycle and the M8 is aging technology. In the hands of a great photographer and with both cameras taken to their extreme limits I cannot possibly believe that the sony will ever be close to a M9 in terms of image quality.

 

Like I said before, Sony is currently developing a next generation CCD technology. If cmos is the ultimate, why would an astute and responsive company like sony pursue a obsolete technology like CCD to fuel their future high-end models?? Fact is CCD apart from noisebissues has so many advantages over CMOS, or otherwise you will see phase one, mamiya, hasseblad all jumping to CMOS, you dun see that, do you?

 

We all get what we pay for somehow, buy a nex, and be happy with it for all its limitations. The same for the X1, the same for any camera or products. I would never dream that my X1 can perform like a M8 or M9 but am happy for what is does for me. The nex is a good camera with many functions, but like the X1, it has many drawbacks that cannot be sorted out save in future models. On the basis of image quality, however, at this current moment the X1 has an edge. When better E-mount lenses come out then we can compare again. Right now the discussion of using giant non-Emount lenses is ludicrous because you lose AF and also, it makes the camera no longer pocketable so I might as well bring a small dslr and provide AF for ALL lenses. The X1 is already stretching the size boundary for pocketable camera, the nex is sexy and cool with the pancake but hideous with anything else!

 

When we buy a camera, like buying a car, we best use it the way it is intended for and thats how they will work best. Like for cars, many buy an entry model and spend so much time and money to enhance but at the end of the day it will never be a ferrari!

[Guest douglasf13]

You basically know very little about what you're talking about in regards to sensor technology. CCD vs. CMOS has nothing to do with tonal range, but rather how the sensor deals with amplification. M8 and M9 are based off of Kodak technology that is easily 7 years old, and the Nex and X1's sensor technology is far superior, but sensor size equalizes things in the case of the M9. Sony is not developing a fullframe CCD for DSLR or NEX cameras. You've been looking at diagrams for upcoming security cameras on rumor sites. The Sony A900 is superior to the M9 sensor in just about every way, outside of detail from the lack of an M9 AA filter, but proper sharpening fixes that. The positives and negatives of the lack of an AA are certainly debatable, but there is no clear cut advantage either way.

 

Heck, even DXO mark gives the Nex and M9 sensor the exact same score.

 

As for lens sizes, do you even know how big a 35 pre-asph Summilux or comparable lens is? We're talking less than an inch and a half long WITH the adapter. It is still pocketable. Oh yeah, also, many are finding NEX easier to focus than M cameras.

 

The bottom line is that the M9, X1 and Nex cameras are all very good, and each has strengths over the other. It's up to us to look at our own shooting styles to determine the proper fit. Price has little to do with it in this case.

 

p.s. you may be interested in knowing that, in the Canon line, the lower end Rebel series actually does a better job with shadow banding than the 5Dii.

 

 

 

 

Even with IR issues, I see that images on the M8/.2 is far superior. Whats irks me about the nex is its lack of good lenses for AF, and if we gotta forgo that then I would say that rangefinder focusing is far better and quicker than other MF systems. The way I see it nex was designed for AF, but to reach the wider audience including more advanced photo enthusiasts they throw in the ability to use other than E-mount lenses but will lose AF. To me, that is backwards and defective. My nikkor lenses from like 15 years ago are still useable with AF.

 

I thought M8 was crop factor of 1.3 so larger than X1 or nex? Also, the use of CCD provide better tonal range and the lack of AA filter produces sharper images for sure.

 

I think it is pure naivety to think one could pay a lot less and get more, things are built at a certain price point to address a certain target audience. I have a long ongoing discussion with an ex-colleague and good friend who did extensive comparisons with the different models of nikon & canon and he came to a conclusion that even with the exact same sensor, camera manufacturers provide better and more advanced image processing algorithms and hardware for high end models and cripple those from lower end models. He also cited the incident years ago when canon crippled one lower-end model with software and some smart Russian user went in and enabled those advanced functions, giving him all the functions available only on higher end models! There is some differences between the D3 and the D700, the canon 5D and the 1DMk 3, etc,etc, not just in build quality but the entire image processing ability.

 

On the basis of image quality alone, the M8 should trump the Nex and the X1. But high iso is another story as cmos sensors generate less noise. The lack of an AA filter provide a sharpness that is unavailable to those sensors with a filter.

 

A more accurate picture would be the M9 vs the Nex or even the top of the line Alpha series, since these cameras are closer in terms of technological cycle and the M8 is aging technology. In the hands of a great photographer and with both cameras taken to their extreme limits I cannot possibly believe that the sony will ever be close to a M9 in terms of image quality.

 

Like I said before, Sony is currently developing a next generation CCD technology. If cmos is the ultimate, why would an astute and responsive company like sony pursue a obsolete technology like CCD to fuel their future high-end models?? Fact is CCD apart from noisebissues has so many advantages over CMOS, or otherwise you will see phase one, mamiya, hasseblad all jumping to CMOS, you dun see that, do you?

 

We all get what we pay for somehow, buy a nex, and be happy with it for all its limitations. The same for the X1, the same for any camera or products. I would never dream that my X1 can perform like a M8 or M9 but am happy for what is does for me. The nex is a good camera with many functions, but like the X1, it has many drawbacks that cannot be sorted out save in future models. On the basis of image quality, however, at this current moment the X1 has an edge. When better E-mount lenses come out then we can compare again. Right now the discussion of using giant non-Emount lenses is ludicrous because you lose AF and also, it makes the camera no longer pocketable so I might as well bring a small dslr and provide AF for ALL lenses. The X1 is already stretching the size boundary for pocketable camera, the nex is sexy and cool with the pancake but hideous with anything else!

 

When we buy a camera, like buying a car, we best use it the way it is intended for and thats how they will work best. Like for cars, many buy an entry model and spend so much time and money to enhance but at the end of the day it will never be a ferrari!

[stunsworth]

I've tried manually focussing M lenses with a Panasonic GF-1. I found it, to put it mildly, a pain. Very slow and impossible to use the rear screen in bright sunlight. Maybe the Sony has a different type of screen.

 

Using the clip on EVF is better, but that isn't possible with the Sony.

 

The Sony lacks the microlenses of the M8/9 so edge performance will be poorer as with the Panasonic.

 

I used MF lenses with Canon dSLRs for years, so I'm not anti manual focussing on digital bodies.

[phancj]

You basically know very little about what you're talking about in regards to sensor technology. CCD vs. CMOS has nothing to do with tonal range, but rather how the sensor deals with amplification. M8 and M9 are based off of Kodak technology that is easily 7 years old, and the Nex and X1's sensor technology is far superior, but sensor size equalizes things in the case of the M9. Sony is not developing a fullframe CCD for DSLR or NEX cameras. You've been looking at diagrams for upcoming security cameras on rumor sites. The Sony A900 is superior to the M9 sensor in just about every way, outside of detail from the lack of an M9 AA filter, but proper sharpening fixes that. The positives and negatives of the lack of an AA are certainly debatable, but there is no clear cut advantage either way.

 

Heck, even DXO mark gives the Nex and M9 sensor the exact same score.

 

As for lens sizes, do you even know how big a 35 pre-asph Summilux or comparable lens is? We're talking less than an inch and a half long WITH the adapter. It is still pocketable. Oh yeah, also, many are finding NEX easier to focus than M cameras.

 

The bottom line is that the M9, X1 and Nex cameras are all very good, and each has strengths over the other. It's up to us to look at our own shooting styles to determine the proper fit. Price has little to do with it in this case.

 

p.s. you may be interested in knowing that, in the Canon line, the lower end Rebel series actually does a better job with shadow banding than the 5Dii.

 

I do not profess to be a sensor expert, but from images coming out of M9 vs x1 or Nex I would have to say there is vast difference, 7 year old technology or not. Also, large and medium format backs all use CCD as far as I know, so thats that. I cannot say for sure if the A900 has a better sensor than the M9, but images suggest otherwise. The fact that DXo scores are comparable maybe its the Leica lens doing magic?

 

The Nex with adaptor and lens becomes thicker than the X1 with retractable lens.

 

I think price is a big issue, hence so much negativity surrounding any leica cameras. If we are all given any budget for a cam, I doubt any will choose the nex over M9.

 

Sharpening with software and real lens/sensor combo sharpness cannot be compared. Digital sharpening has much more drawbacks.

 

It is debatable which is easier to MF, but personally I find the rangefinder accurate and easier, maybe its just me.

 

But you are right, they are all good cameras, and all will have its own market. I just find that in my opinion having tried the nex, images from any of its kit lenses were poor, shutter was very heavy, and the inability to use AF with good lenses is fatal for me. For others, it may be different. What it has going for it is nice screen, panorama stitching, etc,etc. But these functions do not appeal to me coz I never use them. I have been shooting with dslrs for a while and never adjust much other than the few critical parameters. The rest of the buttons infuriate me, and I hate 300 page manuals:mad:or multiple levels of menus which slow me down:(

 

At the end of the day, to each his own but potential buyers may find their ideal cameras not from just reading this thread or any other forums, and I dare say if one is armed with a laptop and do direct comparisons of image quality between the nex and the X1, the kudos will go to the X1. That was my personal experience when the nex was launched and I fiddled with it for quite a while as I was excited about it like most then. The IQ was inferior to the X1 by a wide margin, a fact which the camera salesmen serving me concurred.

[phancj]

You basically know very little about what you're talking about in regards to sensor technology. CCD vs. CMOS has nothing to do with tonal range, but rather how the sensor deals with amplification. M8 and M9 are based off of Kodak technology that is easily 7 years old, and the Nex and X1's sensor technology is far superior, but sensor size equalizes things in the case of the M9. Sony is not developing a fullframe CCD for DSLR or NEX cameras. You've been looking at diagrams for upcoming security cameras on rumor sites. The Sony A900 is superior to the M9 sensor in just about every way, outside of detail from the lack of an M9 AA filter, but proper sharpening fixes that. The positives and negatives of the lack of an AA are certainly debatable, but there is no clear cut advantage either way.

 

Heck, even DXO mark gives the Nex and M9 sensor the exact same score.

 

As for lens sizes, do you even know how big a 35 pre-asph Summilux or comparable lens is? We're talking less than an inch and a half long WITH the adapter. It is still pocketable. Oh yeah, also, many are finding NEX easier to focus than M cameras.

 

The bottom line is that the M9, X1 and Nex cameras are all very good, and each has strengths over the other. It's up to us to look at our own shooting styles to determine the proper fit. Price has little to do with it in this case.

 

p.s. you may be interested in knowing that, in the Canon line, the lower end Rebel series actually does a better job with shadow banding than the 5Dii.

 

Please read:

 

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol60/pdf/sideview60.pdf

 

Sony is actively developing sensor technology, both CMOS and CCD.

 

And no, I do not go to security camera rumor websites.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ecaton]

Please read:

 

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol60/pdf/sideview60.pdf

 

Sony is actively developing sensor technology, both CMOS and CCD.

 

And no, I do not go to security camera rumor websites.

 

 

Hi Phancj,

 

Show us your camera(s). Since you seem to read so much and everything about digital lightboxes, I'm definitely interested to learn what your educated purchase decisions were.

[Guest douglasf13]

lol. That PDF you posted explains how Sony used CCD to get them to a certain point (exceed film quality,) and now they are developing CMOS to go beyond that (exceed human vision.) You're right though, Sony does still use CCD...in their lowest end DSLRs like the A230.

 

Again, of course the X1 has better IQ than NEX with the kit lenses. There is no question of that. I'm simply saying the differences are negated when alternative glass is used. If you sat an X1 and a NEX-5 (with a CV35 1.4 mounted) on a table in front of me and told me to take one, regardless of price, I'd pick the NEX for my uses. This isn't a price thing for me. Considering the build and lens quality of the X1, I don't find it considerably overpriced, although it does make the NEX-5 look like a bargain. If the X2 has a 50 1.4 equivalent and some updated components (like a better LCD,) I may very well consider it. My posts aren't knocking the X1, but, rather, praising the NEX and its abilities.

 

Steve is correct that the M9 has special microlenses, but some of that disadvantage is negated due to the NEX's smaller sensor size. m4/3 still gets in trouble because of the outrageous thickness of the filter pack on the sensor. With NEX some M lenses definitely have an issue if they have a very short back focus, so it is on a case by case basis.