Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[phancj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Urghhh! Now I am getting a headache! using preview in MAc Snow leopard, how do you get a 100% crop then post on this site? I dun usually care about % scale and for most of the time just use the jpeg directly from the camera and crop and resize smaller....

 

Alternatively John, maybe I email you the jpeg instead? I do not use flickr, etc,etc

[stunsworth]

View the image at 100% then press cmd+shift+4. That will allow you to select an area and save it as a snapshot. Then upload the snapshot.

[jsrockit]

100% crops are for nerds...

[phancj]

100% crops are for nerds...

 

haha...I should be inclined to think that way. Normally I just capture the best image I can, and crop and do PP as necessary to get the best possible photo..isnt that what photography is about? never understood or tried the 100% crop thingy...

[h00ligan]

I only used those 100% crop to illustrate because they were handy. They were handy because someone specifically challenged an assertion I made on another forum, which required me to show 100% crops. sorry!

 

My point was you can clearly see a reduction in color and sharpness when attaching to the forum rather than linking. I had posted one time by attaching and could not figure out why the image looked so off, much more noticeable than the examples I posted. So I just think for now (could be improved with vbb upgrade) posting from flickr gets the image much closer to raw.

[barjohn]

Thanks, that explains why what I see prior to post looks so different after posting it.

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

View the image at 100% then press cmd+shift+4. That will allow you to select an area and save it as a snapshot. Then upload the snapshot.

 

A try with your recipe (and a Dlux-4).

Jan

 

cat: 1/250, f/4.5, 100 ISO

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=216974&stc=1&d=1282334675

 

hunting scene: 1/1000, f/4, 80 ISO

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?

attachmentid=216975&stc=1&d=1282334675

 

coin: 1/50, f/2, 80 ISO

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=216973&stc=1&d=1282334675

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!

[Guest douglasf13]

haha...I should be inclined to think that way. Normally I just capture the best image I can, and crop and do PP as necessary to get the best possible photo..isnt that what photography is about? never understood or tried the 100% crop thingy...

 

100% crops are for nerds, I agree....but so is spending time on forums talking about camera IQ. Those that don't use crops (or largish prints) to judge sensor and lens qualities really have no business critiquing the subtleties of camera IQ in the first place. Just about any DSLR sized sensor and lens produces good quality for web sized jpegs or 4x6 prints. It's the enlarging where the quality differences generally show up.

 

p.s. many also tend to forget that the raw conversion, whether in-camera jpegs or using a separate raw converter, is as equal a piece of the IQ puzzle as the lens and sensor. That's why more difficult to use programs like Raw Photo Processor or Raw Therapee still have dedicated users.

[h00ligan]

Thanks, that explains why what I see prior to post looks so different after posting it.

 

Glad to help, it had me stumped for a while!

[phancj]

100% crops are for nerds, I agree....but so is spending time on forums talking about camera IQ. Those that don't use crops (or largish prints) to judge sensor and lens qualities really have no business critiquing the subtleties of camera IQ in the first place. Just about any DSLR sized sensor and lens produces good quality for web sized jpegs or 4x6 prints. It's the enlarging where the quality differences generally show up.

 

p.s. many also tend to forget that the raw conversion, whether in-camera jpegs or using a separate raw converter, is as equal a piece of the IQ puzzle as the lens and sensor. That's why more difficult to use programs like Raw Photo Processor or Raw Therapee still have dedicated users.

 

I think any kind of comparison done with downsized files is subjective and probably not conclusive. The best way of course is to have the full-sized images from both cameras, which was what I did when thinking about buying the nex. I had my X1 with me, and shot images then compare on laptop. The nex with kit lens and [pancake was ok for what it was, but a lot poorer than the X1, and you do not need to be a pro to see the obvious differences.

 

Now I am thinking about a rangefinder to my collection, so since the M9 has no demo kit to try at the store I go to (the M9 gets sold out the moment it arrives), I went down to a used cam yesterday and they had 3 M8s, the owner was gracious and very helpful, i tried the M8 and the images with the summicron were very nice, but I felt the shutter was too "heavy", very much like the feeling with the nex. The owner did say the M8.2 is much better and of course the M9. As a newbie to rangefinder, my dozen shots done at the store were all in focus save one shot. But I did struggle a little with a shot or two coz i found it challenging to align the two images, but I suppose will get better with practice.

 

Having made a quick review of the images, I must say the images are very good, and not better than the X1, but different. I cannot put a finger on it, I think both cams produce nice images and for me I prefer portraits with the X1 but for scenery and other stuff I seem to prefer the M8 images(based on the shots I made).

 

of course, I very much prefer AF, and the nex's inability to AF other than E-mount is the final nail in the coffin as far as that cam is concerned for me.

[andybarton]

My point was you can clearly see a reduction in color and sharpness when attaching to the forum rather than linking. I had posted one time by attaching and could not figure out why the image looked so off, much more noticeable than the examples I posted. So I just think for now (could be improved with vbb upgrade) posting from flickr gets the image much closer to raw.

 

In my experience, that's not true IF you stick to the rules about the file size when uploading.

 

Flickr spends a LOT of time "processing" shots when you upload there and really mashes them up.

[h00ligan]

Andy, I am pretty sure I stuck to the rules for those attachments, the results are apparent. This isn't unique to l-cam, it's a VBB thing and likely due to database compression. I certainly haven't experienced better shots attaching here compared to flickr. Maybe uploading to the account would be a better choice, I can run a test on that.

 

.....

 

You're right, my files were larger.. I'll try again with reduced quality, but I'll be surprised if vbb hosting is better than flickr - and for a lot of shots, users may want to post more than 300k - in which case there is no choice.

 

Ran a quick test, you're right, it's a wash so long as the shot is under 300k. No better but no worse than flickr. So directly attaching smaller images seems a viable choice.

[andybarton]

I will start a new thread with three examples.

 

Here is the comparison thread

[barjohn]

phancj, while I too prefer AF, I can tell you that from my first hand experience the MF on the NEX with manual lenses is far easier than the MF on the M8. I found two issues with the RF focusing. In many cases I could not see the patches due to insufficient contrast between the patches and the background and with longer lenses it was very difficult to ascertain the focus point wide open. The NEX magnified view is so clear and sharp that it is easy to see the point of focus and in those few cases where I want to be extra sure I can go to 14x for very precise focus. I find I can manual focus with the NEX just as fast or faster than I could with the M8. Of course, that still doesn't compare to AF and especially with the very quick AF of the NEX much, much faster than the GXR which is similar in focus speed to the X1. While the current kit lenses are slightly below what I would like in quality they are far from horrible and I suspect we will soon see some really good AF lenses available (if rumors are substantiated). The new 18-200 has gotten very good reviews but I am more interested in small primes.

[Ecaton]

Based on my experience, fast lenses fully open, long lenses, heavy lenses, all are rather difficult to focus precisely and accurately with the NEX, be it at waist level with the camera held closer to the body or at shoulder height with slightly stretched arms. The light and tiny NEX body does not help to stabilize the front loaded package either.

Stopped down, at reasonably high shutter speed, things are easier, for obvious reasons.

Nobody should believe that the NEX' MF speed and accuracy with M lenses is even close to the one reached with a RF camera. There is simply no comparison! RF is probably the best and screen focusing the worst system/technique, when it comes to manual focusing.

So it escapes my logic, why Barjohn is constantly trying to talk the NEX to a MF wonder. No question, it beats the X1 or Sigma DP1/2, but they are not really the gold standard for MF solutions, are they?

 

For MF my (meanwhile sold) EP2 with excellent EVF and effective in body IS was clearly superior to the NEX. It had other shortcomings, though.

[h00ligan]

I held a nex3 with kit zoom yesterday when I happened to be in Best Buy, I was surprised how heavy it was (mostly lens weight it seemed). The 5 would be lighter and certainly seems to have better ergonomics based on photos. The nex 3 was tough to hold for me.

[AlanG]

...So it escapes my logic, why Barjohn is constantly trying to talk the NEX to a MF wonder. No question, it beats the X1 or Sigma DP1/2, but they are not really the gold standard for MF solutions, are they?...

 

A lot of photography is of static objects where there is plenty of time to use manual focusing. One could use the AF zoom when you need to work more quickly. In any case, I think a good clip on EVF would greatly enhance the camera. (So I'm waiting.)

[phancj]

phancj, while I too prefer AF, I can tell you that from my first hand experience the MF on the NEX with manual lenses is far easier than the MF on the M8. I found two issues with the RF focusing. In many cases I could not see the patches due to insufficient contrast between the patches and the background and with longer lenses it was very difficult to ascertain the focus point wide open. The NEX magnified view is so clear and sharp that it is easy to see the point of focus and in those few cases where I want to be extra sure I can go to 14x for very precise focus. I find I can manual focus with the NEX just as fast or faster than I could with the M8. Of course, that still doesn't compare to AF and especially with the very quick AF of the NEX much, much faster than the GXR which is similar in focus speed to the X1. While the current kit lenses are slightly below what I would like in quality they are far from horrible and I suspect we will soon see some really good AF lenses available (if rumors are substantiated). The new 18-200 has gotten very good reviews but I am more interested in small primes.

 

Like I said, if I buy a Nex, it will be because it can do AF. I bough the X1 coz it can too. I believe the NEx is meant to be an AF machine like the X1/DP2 coz for compacts AF is more elegant especially for those with big hands, not to mention failing eyesight:mad:

 

There is no need to defend the kit lens, they suck big time, and so does the X1 LCD, no question about that. You will lose credibility at least to me if you tell me otherwise, especially when you are an experienced photo enthusiast.

 

I am eagerly waiting for Zeiss or at least great Sony E-mount lenses, but am not having high hopes since I have somewhat an idea of who this camera is targeted for, and that massive target market (unfortunately not us) are not as stringent on IQ like us. I think Sony reserves the Alpha line more for serious enthusiasts, but thats just my two cents worth.

 

Nevertheless, if AF E-mount good lenses come out, I will add a nex to my arsenal:D

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of photography is of static objects where there is plenty of time to use manual focusing. One could use the AF zoom when you need to work more quickly. In any case, I think a good clip on EVF would greatly enhance the camera. (So I'm waiting.)

[Ecaton]

Like I said, if I buy a Nex, it will be because it can do AF. I bough the X1 coz it can too. I believe the NEx is meant to be an AF machine like the X1/DP2 coz for compacts AF is more elegant especially for those with big hands, not to mention failing eyesight:mad:

 

There is no need to defend the kit lens, they suck big time, and so does the X1 LCD, no question about that. You will lose credibility at least to me if you tell me otherwise, especially when you are an experienced photo enthusiast.

 

I am eagerly waiting for Zeiss or at least great Sony E-mount lenses, but am not having high hopes since I have somewhat an idea of who this camera is targeted for, and that massive target market (unfortunately not us) are not as stringent on IQ like us. I think Sony reserves the Alpha line more for serious enthusiasts, but thats just my two cents worth.

 

Nevertheless, if AF E-mount good lenses come out, I will add a nex to my arsenal:D

 

Fully agree and neither do statements like: "........I can tell you that from my first hand experience the MF on the NEX with manual lenses is far easier than the MF on the M8. ........", help credibility.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

Nobody should believe that the NEX' MF speed and accuracy with M lenses is even close to the one reached with a RF camera. There is simply no comparison!

 

That's certainly my experience too - with a GF-1, but the principle's the same. It takes me several times the length of time to focus and shoot with the GF-1 than it does with the M8, and that's assuming I can see the screen clearly enough in the first place.