Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

phnacj.

 

The question I asked was basically why are there so many X1s for sale when it is still in short supply. Forget the NEX, it really isn't relative to the question. Pretend it doesn't exist. Also, I take for granted the X1 has high IQ so you don't need to defend its IQ. I have never said it didn't. What I have said is that other cameras may have as good or better with the right glass, not that the X1s was bad.

 

Having bought and sold high end watches in my past, I don' find your analogy convincing.

[stunsworth]

What I have said is that other cameras may have as good or better with the right glass, not that the X1s was bad

 

John, how do you find focussing your Sony with Leica M glass? I only ask, because as I've mentioned above I've found it virtually impossible to get consistently focused results when using the rear screen on a Panasonic GF-1 and M lenses.

 

In particular it's very difficult to see the rear screen when it's sunny - so the magnified view doesn't help that much. Do you find the Sony acceptable? Have you tried it with longer lenses wide open?

[barjohn]

Stunsworth,

 

I have only tried it with the 40/2 and it is very easy. Much easier than the GF1. I think it is because the Sony LCD is such high contrast compared to other LCDs on cameras I have owned. Placed in bright sunlight mode it is visible and usable in very bright day light. No other LCD screen has come close under those conditions. The bright EP-1 screen would wash out completely as would the GF1. The Ricoh GXR screen would be visible but not usable. You should read Jonoslack's experience in the DPR Sony thread to get an experienced Leica user's perspective. He resisted buying one for a while and finally gave in and seems to be having a great deal of fun with it.

[anupmc]

phnacj.

 

The question I asked was basically why are there so many X1s for sale when it is still in short supply. Forget the NEX, it really isn't relative to the question. Pretend it doesn't exist. Also, I take for granted the X1 has high IQ so you don't need to defend its IQ. I have never said it didn't. What I have said is that other cameras may have as good or better with the right glass, not that the X1s was bad.

 

Having bought and sold high end watches in my past, I don' find your analogy convincing.

 

Simple. The X1 is inexpensive enough for many non-traditional Leica people to test the Leica digital waters. It's no surprise to find some for re-sale. As for not finding any Sony's for sale, mass market products like the Sony have a notoriously poor re-sale value, I'm sure you know that.

 

In any case, don't you think it's a little premature for you to be declaring the X1 a failure based on just the number of re-sale units you've spied here and on Ebay? Come on, seriously.

[phancj]

phnacj.

 

The question I asked was basically why are there so many X1s for sale when it is still in short supply. Forget the NEX, it really isn't relative to the question. Pretend it doesn't exist. Also, I take for granted the X1 has high IQ so you don't need to defend its IQ. I have never said it didn't. What I have said is that other cameras may have as good or better with the right glass, not that the X1s was bad.

 

Having bought and sold high end watches in my past, I don' find your analogy convincing.

 

Why is it not relevant? isnt the comparison made between the 2 cameras?

 

All I am saying is not that the nex cannot equal or beat the nex with great glass either, though you will lose AF.

 

My analogy with watches represents the current state of things, and in a bad economy the higher end watches tend to lose more value when sold at this time, so my opinion is that the price of the X1 is an issue so there may be less takers, the nex being cheaper is easier to sell. You are entitled to your opinion, whether you have bought or sold high end watches or not. I have, and I know the situation well here. The more expensive the item, the less people are able to afford in these difficult times. Is that hard to comprehend?

[phancj]

Stunsworth,

 

I have only tried it with the 40/2 and it is very easy. Much easier than the GF1. I think it is because the Sony LCD is such high contrast compared to other LCDs on cameras I have owned. Placed in bright sunlight mode it is visible and usable in very bright day light. No other LCD screen has come close under those conditions. The bright EP-1 screen would wash out completely as would the GF1. The Ricoh GXR screen would be visible but not usable. You should read Jonoslack's experience in the DPR Sony thread to get an experienced Leica user's perspective. He resisted buying one for a while and finally gave in and seems to be having a great deal of fun with it.

 

And one more thing, I havent seen the iso 5000 images with the iso 400 look, please SHOW US tHE PHOTOS!

 

You were making such an absurd statement I find the need to remind all that you have not delivered the proof yet??!!

[JanCderidder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah let's see some 5000 ISO images with a 400 ISO look .... you did promis them a while back now ..... or do you still need time trying to edit the EXIF information, there must be an APP for that :-)

[Guest badbob]

If the X1 IQ is so good that many of you will put up with a long list of shortcomings, why are so many for sale in the used market?

 

Seems to me the X1 is right on the line between being a collector's item due to low quantity manufacturing, high price and overall uniqueness, and OTOH being an overpriced anachronism that almost succeeded but ultimately failed due to performance issues.

 

Then again, remembering my successes with the LX3 as an indoor party camera in low light situations where flash is a no-no, and how much better the X1 does that, the X1 definitely does have a success niche.

[jsrockit]

I'm sure we will see many Sony NEXs for sale as well very soon... it is just how the camera market works... many people are never satisfied.

[prk60091]

i believe some people buy it hoping to make a "killing" -great camera + short supply = profit on ebay?

[Guest douglasf13]

To answer a few of the questions. Yes, I'd rather have an M9! I nearly bought one a couple of times. With the lenses I was looking at, it would have come to around $12,000, and I couldn't quite justify it. I waited to see what Sony would bring in mirrorless (it had been rumored for a while,) and now my A900 and NEX-5 will be a good team for considerably less than the M9 on its own.

 

Like was mentioned above, MFDB uses CCD because it has to. No one is making a large CMOS. Now there are some amplification advantages with CCD at base ISO, but I'd bet that most MFDB users would go CMOS if they had the option. I used to own a back, and I would have.

 

Again, my only point is that the X1 does not have an IQ advantage over the NEX if you use a good lens. My CV 35 1.4 is small, and I'd put it up against any other 35mm M lens except for the much bigger, much more expensive 35 Lux ASPH. I would have already bought the X1 if it had a fast, standard prime. Granted, the fact that it's a live view camera ,and Leica still put such an old piece of LCD tech in it for that price is absurd. I would have paid a couple of hundred more bucks for a modern screen.

[h00ligan]

I don't think ANYONE can defend the screen choice Leica made... well logically or reasonably. Yes it 'works' because it displays an image, but given the overall minor cost increase of production it is farcical they didn't use something much more modern tbh.

 

Another strange choice was no manual focusing around the lens barrel, even focus by wire would have been fine.. if we can spin a tiny thumb wheel, why not a larger wheel around the barrel?

 

I do think the lens that was used is top notch! I do think the NEX has crappy kit lenses comparatively.. if one actually bought an elmarit for the nex, it would cost more than the x1 - so whilst we can compare different lenses, if one wants leica glass, one pays the price one way or another.

 

I don't feel this is like saying 'well hey this panasonic has leica glass' fwiw.

[jsrockit]

My CV 35 1.4 is small, and I'd put it up against any other 35mm M lens except for the much bigger, much more expensive 35 Lux ASPH.

 

The CV is just as good as the 35mm summicron or biogon? Man, the CV 1.4 isn't even as good as their CV 35mm f/2.5 PII IMHO. The thing is that you'd have to compare the NEX with a M mount 24mm and not a 35mm, which is arguably easier to make without distortions and whatnot. I'm more comfortable with the lens on the X1 compared to the CV 25mm and a NEX. Buy a better 24mm / 25mm M size lens and a NEX and you are over X1 money. For a fixed 24mm lens in point and shoot form, the X1's lens is a bright spot in this design.

[Guest douglasf13]

The CV is just as good as the 35mm summicron or biogon? Man, the CV 1.4 isn't even as good as their CV 35mm f/2.5 PII IMHO. The thing is that you'd have to compare the NEX with a M mount 24mm and not a 35mm, which is arguably easier to make without distortions and whatnot. I'm more comfortable with the lens on the X1 compared to the CV 25mm and a NEX. Buy a better 24mm / 25mm M size lens and a NEX and you are over X1 money. For a fixed 24mm lens in point and shoot form, the X1's lens is a bright spot in this design.

 

It depends what you're looking for. Compared to the 35 Summilux pre-asph, the CV Nokton is sharper at large apertures, but has some distortion. Both the Biogon and Summicron are great lenses, but a lot of that corner sharpness advantage is eliminated with the 1.5x crop of the NEX sensor. I like the drawing style of the Summicron, so that may be my next lens, but I wanted speed first (I love using my Summicron 50mm R on DSLRs.) The Biogon is pretty big in size, and that's what counted it out for me, but it is a great lens. The CV 35 f2.5 has corner smearing on NEX. The Contax G 35mm is also a good, $300 option, btw.

 

I'm not comparing 35mm equivalents, because that isn't what I'm interested in. As I mentioned earlier, the decision to go with a slowish 35mm equivalent is why I didn't buy the X1 in the first place. The jury is still out on which 25mm lenses work well on NEX, because you're right about the difficulties of the wider lenses.

 

My only point with these posts is that the NEX-5 is certainly capable of X1 quality results, if you're interested in alternative lenses, and it is not a toy camera like so many make it out to be. As a standard lens shooter, the X1 was an immediate no go for me. If Leica releases an X2 with a 50mm 1.4 equivalent and a current LCD, I would seriously consider buying one, although it depends what Sony releases with Zeiss E mount lenses.

[phancj]

To answer a few of the questions. Yes, I'd rather have an M9! I nearly bought one a couple of times. With the lenses I was looking at, it would have come to around $12,000, and I couldn't quite justify it. I waited to see what Sony would bring in mirrorless (it had been rumored for a while,) and now my A900 and NEX-5 will be a good team for considerably less than the M9 on its own.

 

Like was mentioned above, MFDB uses CCD because it has to. No one is making a large CMOS. Now there are some amplification advantages with CCD at base ISO, but I'd bet that most MFDB users would go CMOS if they had the option. I used to own a back, and I would have.

 

Again, my only point is that the X1 does not have an IQ advantage over the NEX if you use a good lens. My CV 35 1.4 is small, and I'd put it up against any other 35mm M lens except for the much bigger, much more expensive 35 Lux ASPH. I would have already bought the X1 if it had a fast, standard prime. Granted, the fact that it's a live view camera ,and Leica still put such an old piece of LCD tech in it for that price is absurd. I would have paid a couple of hundred more bucks for a modern screen.

 

Exactly my point on how pricing makes a big, big impact on our decisions on which camera to buy, and this works against Leica often. I think in camera like AV equipment a small incremental performance advantage translates to a disproportionate increase in price, guess thats life.

 

I agree with you only so far as to the fact that if you use a great lens the performance of the nex can be comparable if not better than the X1, but you lose AF for sure. Also, the way I see it (from images from both cameras), perhaps Sony has a less competent image processing engine. I also come to this logical conclusion coz we all know Sony supplies sensors to nikon, and most probably also made the one in the X1. Their alpha cameras with carl zeiss lenses rock, so we can overcome sony's inability to build good lenses. However, I notice that even though sony supplies the sensor to nikon and some, their own alpha lines with similar sensors sometimes do not perform on par with the nikon counterparts. Perhaps image processing is the key also? So with good lenses, similar sensors, whats left is the image processing engine? Of course this is guesswork but my gut feel points that way. Nothing scientific or documented.

 

The screen in X1 sucks for sure, incomparable to the one in nex, no question about that. The first time I used the X1 I thought I was ripped off upon reviewing the image on screen!!?? The screen is worse than my P&S from many years ago! But the images are astounding when you open them in the computer, so i guess I rather have that instead of the reverse, which was my initial experience with the nex. The images I shot looked great on the nex's gorgeous screen, but was poor when seen fullscreen.

 

Look Douglas, I was so enthusiastic about the nex when it was launched, you could buy 2 instead of only one X! And with interchangeable lens, great screen, panorama, beautiful star-trek like interface (though the menu annoyed me but I can get used to it for sure) However, the losing of AF is critical and fatal for me (or my wife for that matter) since AF is so convenient. When competent E-mount lenses comes out with the same quality as the lens in X1, I will be the first to buy.

 

And for me 35mm is ideal, 50mm standard lens doesnt do it for me, not wide enough for many circumstances(my 50mm nikkor is gathering dust haha). The speed of the lens is fine, given the high iso performance.

[AlanG]

"I think in camera like AV equipment a small incremental performance advantage translates to a disproportionate increase in price, guess thats life."

 

It doesn't have to be.

 

A good 24mm f2.8 AF that only has to cover the APS format does not exactly stretch the limits of modern lens design. I'd think Sony (or pretty much anyone) could make a really good one and sell it for a lot less than $1400.

[phancj]

"I think in camera like AV equipment a small incremental performance advantage translates to a disproportionate increase in price, guess thats life."

 

It doesn't have to be.

 

A good 24mm f2.8 AF that covers the APS format does not exactly stretch the limits of modern lens design. I'd think Sony (or pretty much anyone) could make a really good one and sell it for a lot less than $1400.

 

I have my doubts about sony lenses, and in any case, it hasnt happened yet for the nex. The nex has tremendous potential, no doubt about it at all, but whether great E-mount lenses come out if at all is moot until they do. Meanwhile, we are stuck with MF if we want to use good lenses.

 

Speculation and wishing for future great lenses may not necessarily happen, even if they are announced. My personal gut feeling is sony is successful with the nex as it is, so it is a current cashcow without the need for rocking the boat and releasing expensive lenses for the nex. They may choose to reserve the great primes and zooms for the alpha series.

 

Of course, that is my personal speculation too:D:D

[AlanG]

I have my doubts about sony lenses, and in any case, it hasnt happened yet for the nex. The nex has tremendous potential, no doubt about it at all, but whether great E-mount lenses come out if at all is moot until they do. Meanwhile, we are stuck with MF if we want to use good lenses.

 

Speculation and wishing for future great lenses may not necessarily happen, even if they are announced. My personal gut feeling is sony is successful with the nex as it is, so it is a current cashcow without the need for rocking the boat and releasing expensive lenses for the nex. They may choose to reserve the great primes and zooms for the alpha series.

 

Of course, that is my personal speculation too:D:D

 

I don't know what Sony may or may not do. I was only pointing out that you don't have to pay a lot of money to get great results with an APS sensor and a 24mm 2.8 lens. (36 mm 2.8 equivalent) The X1 may be a wonderful camera, but even if you say that the electronics, LCD, design and construction in the X1 match those of the Nex, I can't see how such a lens justifies adding $1400 to the price. (Assuming a price of $600 for the body on each camera.)

 

For example, a Nikkor AF 35mm 2 for FF only costs $310. And a Nikkor AF 24mm 2.8 for FF is about $345. Lenses designed for smaller formats (e.g. APS) may be less expensive to make as they require smaller circles of coverage and thus can use simpler smaller designs. The elimination of interchangeable lens mounts (with electronic coupling) and the lack of a focal plane shutter in the X1 should make it simpler and cheaper to produce.

[phancj]

I don't know what Sony may or may not do. I was only pointing out that you don't have to pay a lot of money to get great results with an APS sensor and a 24mm 2.8 lens. (36 mm 2.8 equivalent) The X1 may be a wonderful camera, but even if you say that the electronics, LCD, design and construction in the X1 match those of the Nex, I can't see how such a lens justifies adding $1400 to the price. (Assuming a price of $600 for the body on each camera.)

 

For example, a Nikkor AF 35mm 2 for FF only costs $310. And a Nikkor AF 24mm 2.8 for FF is about $345. Lenses designed for smaller formats (e.g. APS) may be less expensive to make as they require smaller circles of coverage and thus can use simpler smaller designs. The elimination of interchangeable lens mounts (with electronic coupling) and the lack of a focal plane shutter in the X1 should make it simpler and cheaper to produce.

 

Hey Alan, unfortunately what you described is NOT available yet except the X1, no? So as a consumer your only choice if you want AF, pocketability and the 35mm equivalent with the IQ seen in the X1 you really must shell out the dole? Of course I also wish for a cheaper X1 but if it offers what I want and I feel I can afford it I would buy it to enjoy it. I would not go on to argue what is worth or not worth the money and compare this brand to the next bottom line is if it works and pleases you, thats your camera. At this moment the X1 is my camera. Come photokina things may change, but I do not see a realistic contender to the X1 at this point in time, not for my needs at least.

 

Try telling Leica to drop prices??

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[phancj]

Sorry Alan, one point to add, I do not think the build quality or design of the nex is near the X1, although I must say it is a neat little sexy camera. Reason I say this is whenever someone sees the X1, they are instantly taken in by it. it has this retro cool look reminiscent of a camera from another era. My relatives, friends, and almost everyone especially gals are instantly attracted to it, and say nice things about the design and looks. I will not even go on to described their expressions when you show the pop-up flash, the 2 dials, etc,etc. The feel of the materials is something else compared to the nex, which is a well-executed standard Japanese camera, although a lot smaller. The nex is pretty for sure, but generic in design. The X1 is totally different, and stands out of the crowd for sure.