Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest stnami]

YouTube - Kanal von DigitalRevCom

[AlanG]

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...

 

By design, I wasn't talking about appearance. The Nex has interchangeable lenses, a better tilting LCD and a 7 fps shutter. So I can't see why the body of the X1 would be worth more. Yes, as you point out, if you want a compact APS camera that has an AF 35mm equiv lens, there is only one choice at the moment. But all I was saying is that the price may not translate to the sum of the parts.

 

By the way. I don't own either camera although I've checked out both. The lack of a clip-on EVF is a big negative to me as I like to frame accurately and don't always want to use the LCD.

[Guest douglasf13]

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.

 

The reason I would rather have an M9 over the NEX-5 is mostly emotional. The performance differences between the two are relatively negligible in the scope of things. In fact, to restate my above comments, I'd probably still have both an M9 and NEX-5, and each would be better than the other in various situations. Either way, it is about price when you're talking about such a gigantic gulf between the two. The M9 is a Rolex and the NEX-5 is a high end digital watch. Both are capable of similar results, but one is handcrafted and beautifully built, and I certainly understand the want and need for both. I have some "Rolex" cameras in the closet, but I'm not interested in them currently.

 

I completely agree that AF is a make it our break it feature. It's no biggie for me, but I understand that is not the norm. There are some pretty strong rumors about Sony announcing more lenses at Photokina, but I'll believe it when I see it. Sony would be smart to have Zeiss design a 35mm equivalent, since the rangefinder lenses are hit or miss at that length (although I hope they announce a 50mm equivalent, selfishly )

 

As for Sony sensor vs. Nikon sensor application, there are a couple of main differences that I'll touch on. Firstly, Nikon's 14 bit processing on the EXMOR sensors like the D300s and D3x (D700/D3/D3s are not Sony sensors) is a nice trick that takes multiple sensor reads, and that gives a little better shadow detail at the cost of frames per second. It's a very cool trick that works well. Secondly, Sony uses a color filter array that is near-MFDB quality. This gives many of their cameras the best color separation and hue resolution of any APS-C or 35mm DSLR. The problem is that the more opaque CFA allows less light to hit the sensor compared to Nikon (and Canon even more,) so it requires a bit more gain when amping up ISO, thus resulting in a little more noise at high ISO. So, the CFA of Sony gives a color over high ISO preference, which is simply a user preference. It seems Sony has found more of a balance with recent APS-C cameras, and there's little between Nikon, Sony and Canon at high ISO anymore.

 

Anyways, enough of the tech talk. X1, M9, NEX-5...all capable of great images.

[Dan States]

Soooo, now that LR3 can read the Sony Raw files I thought I'd see if a serious Raw handler makes a difference in the usability of Nex files. The closest thing so far has been Bibble and it looses a lot of resolution if you use CA correction. Now with LR I can directly compare files from all my cameras under standardized working procedures....

 

Answer: Wow. Files made with the Sony 16mm lens still look pretty lame, but a world better than what we get from IDC or Bibble. The real treat is using Leica and Zeiss M mount lenses which bring out the true potential of the sensor. Great stuff and certainly the equal or better of the X1 with the right lens. I posted a few quick shots on my flickr page if you want a look. Full aperture shots from the Biogon 28 and Planar 50 along with a stopped down landscape from the 16mm. (Which took some work to make acceptable to my eyes).

 

PS, the shot of the big dipper was made at 1600 iso and then cranked up 1.25 stops and then fiddled with for dramatic effect.

[phancj]

By design, I wasn't talking about appearance. The Nex has interchangeable lenses, a better tilting LCD and a 7 fps shutter. So I can't see why the body of the X1 would be worth more. Yes, as you point out, if you want a compact APS camera that has an AF 35mm equiv lens, there is only one choice at the moment. But all I was saying is that the price may not translate to the sum of the parts.

 

By the way. I don't own either camera although I've checked out both. The lack of a clip-on EVF is a big negative to me as I like to frame accurately and don't always want to use the LCD.

 

 

Alan, I think you got to either own or have close friends in camera shops who are willing to lend you one to toy with before you can really comment on both cameras. A brief checking out will not do. What I do is to bring my own memory cards, shots loads of photos then go back to examine and do PP on the images. Right out of the camera jpegs are already better for the X1 compared to nex, raw files are world apart. To be fair, it could be that raw support for the nex is not up to par yet so there is still teething pains, but for the X1, I got a free copy of LR2 (now you get LR3) so that mitigates part of the costs also. Nice to be able to have full raw functionality out of the box, no? I have no doubts nex will get better, and I am keeping my options open but right now, the X1 trumps the nex for my needs, and I can be sure also that the X2 will be better so thats another comparison then?

 

I have also said again and again that pricing is relative to many factors and you cannot just add up the parts and decide that a camera is worth this $ or that $. By your argument and reasoning no one in the right mind will buy rolex, LV bags, etc,etc. We buy what is good for us, and what appeals to us.

 

All I can say (and I have said many times) is my purchase of X1 was an experiment and also to satisfy my need for a tiny travel camera, but it ended up being the cameras that I use 95% of the time. It is a pleasure to use, and deliver images I am more than satisfied with. I am no pro, but it makes taking photos easy and fun, and deliver great images consistently.

 

 

 

The reason I would rather have an M9 over the NEX-5 is mostly emotional. The performance differences between the two are relatively negligible in the scope of things. In fact, to restate my above comments, I'd probably still have both an M9 and NEX-5, and each would be better than the other in various situations. Either way, it is about price when you're talking about such a gigantic gulf between the two. The M9 is a Rolex and the NEX-5 is a high end digital watch. Both are capable of similar results, but one is handcrafted and beautifully built, and I certainly understand the want and need for both. I have some "Rolex" cameras in the closet, but I'm not interested in them currently.

 

I completely agree that AF is a make it our break it feature. It's no biggie for me, but I understand that is not the norm. There are some pretty strong rumors about Sony announcing more lenses at Photokina, but I'll believe it when I see it. Sony would be smart to have Zeiss design a 35mm equivalent, since the rangefinder lenses are hit or miss at that length (although I hope they announce a 50mm equivalent, selfishly )

 

As for Sony sensor vs. Nikon sensor application, there are a couple of main differences that I'll touch on. Firstly, Nikon's 14 bit processing on the EXMOR sensors like the D300s and D3x (D700/D3/D3s are not Sony sensors) is a nice trick that takes multiple sensor reads, and that gives a little better shadow detail at the cost of frames per second. It's a very cool trick that works well. Secondly, Sony uses a color filter array that is near-MFDB quality. This gives many of their cameras the best color separation and hue resolution of any APS-C or 35mm DSLR. The problem is that the more opaque CFA allows less light to hit the sensor compared to Nikon (and Canon even more,) so it requires a bit more gain when amping up ISO, thus resulting in a little more noise at high ISO. So, the CFA of Sony gives a color over high ISO preference, which is simply a user preference. It seems Sony has found more of a balance with recent APS-C cameras, and there's little between Nikon, Sony and Canon at high ISO anymore.

 

Anyways, enough of the tech talk. X1, M9, NEX-5...all capable of great images.

 

I would agree with practically everything you are saying here, except the minor performance difference between the nex and the M9. The image quality of these 2 machines (though both competent) are worlds apart. I would put the nex in the ballpark of the X1, but both are nowhere near the M9. I do not subscribe to the "Leica Look", but the images from the M9 has this quality not found in most cameras, could be the lack of AA filter, could be the CCD sensor, I do not know. But I know the difference in IQ is definitely obvious.

 

End of the day, cameras are to be enjoyed and I am enjoying mine.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan, I think you got to either own or have close friends in camera shops who are willing to lend you one to toy with before you can really comment on both cameras.

 

I satisfied my curiosity by handling both cameras and didn't need to go further. I don't think a luxury product vs. mass produced product argument is relevant here.

[phancj]

I satisfied my curiosity by handling both cameras and didn't need to go further. I don't think a luxury product vs. mass produced product argument is relevant here.

 

How can it not be relevant? You brought out the fact that the X1 is pricey for what it is, I am merely saying that Leica is a luxury product, so pricing is as such.

 

Handling and really examining the images is different.

[Guest douglasf13]

M9 is a bigger sensor with older tech and no AA. NEX is a smaller sensor with newer tech and an AA. Those that know how to optimize a RAW and sharpening workflow should be able to get similar results out of both with the same lens, outside of the different fields of view.

 

The X1 is not better in IQ than the NEX with a good lens. Of course, I'm talking about raw. I could care less about jpegs.

[phancj]

M9 is a bigger sensor with older tech and no AA. NEX is a smaller sensor with newer tech and an AA. Those that know how to optimize a RAW and sharpening workflow should be able to get similar results out of both with the same lens, outside of the different fields of view.

 

The X1 is not better in IQ than the NEX with a good lens. Of course, I'm talking about raw. I could care less about jpegs.

 

I cannot agree with your point on nex files being sharpened to match the M9 files. The m9 sensor with no AA filter will be able to capture finer details that the nex sensor cannot pick up by virtue of the AA filter. Sharpening is one factor, the presence or lack of finer details corresponding to the resolving power of the lens is another matter. For sure, the larger sensor and lack of AA filter would mean that the M9 will be able to resolve finer details compared to the nex/X1.

 

I didnt say that the X1 will be better than nex with good lens. I am saying that you lose AF for the nex and there may be difference in the image processing algorithm of both cameras so producing different looks. The preference of individual differs,I prefer the X1 drawing.

 

Support for raw in the nex as far as I know was not fast forthcoming, but the X1 is bundled with LR3.

[Guest douglasf13]

NEX RAW is supported by LR 3.2, Bibble, IDC, RPP, Raw Developer, and Aperture (and others.) That is a none issue.

 

AA vs. no-AA has been a feature that has been debated to death for many, many years. It is simply a matter of trade offs, and one is not better than another. My Leaf digital back was AA-less, and, yes, it was nice to not have to give sharpening as much attention in post, but other times it drove me nuts because of moire. Do one photoshoot of a model with a finely patterned dress and you'll start to question the decision of whether or not AA filters are a good idea. With RL deconvolution sharpening, the divide between the two is rather small. In the end, like I said, this is all debatable at best.

 

Really, we're starting to get into print size here. The M9 does have a slight megapixel advantage combined with no AA filter, so you can print slightly larger with better detail, but I'd say the differences are academic, and it would be difficult to tell the difference from a RAW workflow and print master.

 

p.s. My friends who own both the M9 and NEX-5 say that the NEX is much better at high ISOs, but that is only anecdotal, and I have no evidence to support it, say take that for what it is worth.

[JanCderidder]

Douglas,

 

even with the kit-zoom it's high ISO performance is very good.

 

It's the IQ of the lens that isn't all that good, but adequate for 60% of ones daily shots.

 

I use mine sometimes with my 35mm Cron but find the focussing tedious.

 

Money wise, the initial purchase is a good deal, but then you need a good/high quality adapter, and then a high quality lens and you're still stuck with manual focussing. I had the 35mm so this expense doesn't count for me, but starting from scratch it will become rather expensive..... but nice, once you get the color rendition under control

[phancj]

NEX RAW is supported by LR 3.2, Bibble, IDC, RPP, Raw Developer, and Aperture (and others.) That is a none issue.

 

AA vs. no-AA has been a feature that has been debated to death for many, many years. It is simply a matter of trade offs, and one is not better than another. My Leaf digital back was AA-less, and, yes, it was nice to not have to give sharpening as much attention in post, but other times it drove me nuts because of moire. Do one photoshoot of a model with a finely patterned dress and you'll start to question the decision of whether or not AA filters are a good idea. With RL deconvolution sharpening, the divide between the two is rather small. In the end, like I said, this is all debatable at best.

 

Really, we're starting to get into print size here. The M9 does have a slight megapixel advantage combined with no AA filter, so you can print slightly larger with better detail, but I'd say the differences are academic, and it would be difficult to tell the difference from a RAW workflow and print master.

 

p.s. My friends who own both the M9 and NEX-5 say that the NEX is much better at high ISOs, but that is only anecdotal, and I have no evidence to support it, say take that for what it is worth.

 

Dunno about you or anyone else, but I love to see all that finer details coz it contributes so much to the quality of the image. The exclusion of the AA filter does allow finer details to be recorded. Sharpening do not add details not recorded.

 

The nex will be better at high iso I think (in terms of noise) since CMOS generally handle noise better, though I think the CCD noise is more "film-like" if I may. Moire is definitely a problem in some instances.

 

End of the day I think the whole IQ thing can be debated ad-infinitum but I must thank you for this little debate coz I am trying to learn new things in between work and a little healthy debate never hurt. This forum is great for that!

[Guest douglasf13]

Yeah, it's a tough call with the AA vs. no AA filter debate. I would say, in the end, I would choose no AA filter if I had the choice, but it isn't a clear cut decision. After all, it probably does cost the camera companies more money to include the AA filter, and they're not adding it simply to make image quality worse! Either way, as pixel pitches get smaller and smaller, the need for AA filters will diminish.

 

There are certainly differences in the look of image noise, and I might agree, although it is a tough call, because the look of that noise has a lot to do with camera processing and supporting electronics as well. RAWs from all companies aren't exactly "raw." I've owned 1 MFDB and 1 DSLR with CCD sensors, and I do like the "grain" of them at base ISO. That being said, I think Sony CMOS "grain" is pretty good, too.

[phancj]

Yeah, it's a tough call with the AA vs. no AA filter debate. I would say, in the end, I would choose no AA filter if I had the choice, but it isn't a clear cut decision. After all, it probably does cost the camera companies more money to include the AA filter, and they're not adding it simply to make image quality worse! Either way, as pixel pitches get smaller and smaller, the need for AA filters will diminish.

 

There are certainly differences in the look of image noise, and I might agree, although it is a tough call, because the look of that noise has a lot to do with camera processing and supporting electronics as well. RAWs from all companies aren't exactly "raw." I've owned 1 MFDB and 1 DSLR with CCD sensors, and I do like the "grain" of them at base ISO. That being said, I think Sony CMOS "grain" is pretty good, too.

 

Yup, raw is not really raw. I ever thought of buying a M7 and just scan the films, but it is troublesome given the lack of many competent labs these days, plus there is no instant gratification haha...

[ChiILX1]

Case closed! Today I experienced for myself the difference between pictures taken with the X1 and NEX:

 

I was waiting in line to enter Lollapalooza and a guy behind me had an NEX 3 or 5- they didn't let it in! No interchangeable lens cameras allowed!

 

Haha the guy left to take it home and probably had to shoot with his mobile the whole time!

 

I forgot to mention that on top of the above story- while I was taking pictures at Lollapalooza a guy approached me and started talking to me- he had an old M4. He said he had taken a picture of me taking a picture of the crowd. He thought it was cool that we each had the Leica of our generation. Turns out the guy is a big time photographer here in Chicago- has a big studio and teaches photography courses at a university here. I got his contact info, he invited my girlfriend and I to his studio, who knows from there!

 

Point being- I didn't see any Sony owners running up to each other exchanging contact info. I like the X1 better, build quality is better, LOVE the real (non-extended) 2 year warranty, the X1 is pocketable with a lens on it, pictures look better, the NEX couldn't even get into the show, and on top of it all, I'm part of a pretty badass fraternity which seems to already bring awesome benefits.

 

The only decent argument I've heard is that the NEX looks better when you mount $2000-$3000 Leica glass on it. So when you give the NEX X1-esk optics, the NEX has arguably a better IQ? Whoop de do- so does anything. The answer overwhelmingly seems to be that the X1 wins in all categories- except IQ when you make the NEX cost $1k-2k more. I think that's fair and I'll take my X1.

[prk60091]

I forgot to mention that on top of the above story- while I was taking pictures at Lollapalooza a guy approached me and started talking to me- he had an old M4. He said he had taken a picture of me taking a picture of the crowd. He thought it was cool that we each had the Leica of our generation. Turns out the guy is a big time photographer here in Chicago- has a big studio and teaches photography courses at a university here. I got his contact info, he invited my girlfriend and I to his studio, who knows from there!

 

Point being- I didn't see any Sony owners running up to each other exchanging contact info. I like the X1 better, build quality is better, LOVE the real (non-extended) 2 year warranty, the X1 is pocketable with a lens on it, pictures look better, the NEX couldn't even get into the show, and on top of it all, I'm part of a pretty badass fraternity which seems to already bring awesome benefits.

 

The only decent argument I've heard is that the NEX looks better when you mount $2000-$3000 Leica glass on it. So when you give the NEX X1-esk optics, the NEX has arguably a better IQ? Whoop de do- so does anything. The answer overwhelmingly seems to be that the X1 wins in all categories- except IQ when you make the NEX cost $1k-2k more. I think that's fair and I'll take my X1.

 

 

I don't have a dog in this race I never had an interest in the Sony but I have to followup bsgraupner's anecdote with one of my own.

 

On Saturday I took my wife and the x1 to the Wisconsin state fair. While in the cow barn I was taking a shot some young man came up to admire the x1 and talk about his leica's. Our wife's just stood rolling their eyes at their husbands. Even in a cow barn Leica users seek each other out. I agree with bsgraupner I doubt 2 Sony users wouldn't do the same, for that matter 2 nikon or canon users wouldn't care.

[Guest douglasf13]

Bsgraupner, I'm not talking about expensive Leica lenses on NEX. I'm talking about ZM, Contax G and Voigtlander lenses that are under the $1K mark.

 

Whether I'm carrying my A900, Leica SL or Hasselblad V, I have photographers approach me all the time, and we talk shop. Your anecdote is hardly Leica specific. In fact, a friend of mine was just telling me a story about someone approaching him and asking about his "vintage" camera...which was a NEX with an old Rokkor attached. Lol. The camera is so small that the lens is all that anyone notices.

 

There is nothing wrong with spending the money on the X1, but you have to recognize that it is a Rolex. Well made, luxurious, expensive, brag worthy...but doesn't tell time any better. If it had a f1.4 standard lens, I'd probably bite.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ChiILX1]

Bsgraupner, I'm not talking about expensive Leica lenses on NEX. I'm talking about ZM, Contax G and Voigtlander lenses that are under the $1K mark.

 

Whether I'm carrying my A900, Leica SL or Hasselblad V, I have photographers approach me all the time, and we talk shop. Your anecdote is hardly Leica specific. In fact, a friend of mine was just telling me a story about someone approaching him and asking about his "vintage" camera...which was a NEX with an old Rokkor attached. Lol. The camera is so small that the lens is all that anyone notices.

 

There is nothing wrong with spending the money on the X1, but you have to recognize that it is a Rolex. Well made, luxurious, expensive, brag worthy...but doesn't tell time any better. If it had a f1.4 standard lens, I'd probably bite.

 

I wasn't specifically addressing your comments- I hadn't even read them. But these I will address.

 

I know Leica isn't unique in the fact that people will approach you- but it's foolish to suggest that any Sony is equal to a Leica in that regard.

 

As for the lenses, I was addressing other people's comments about using Leica glass. I'm sure any of the lenses you mention would improve the NEX's reportedly sub-standard glass.

 

The comparison to watches is so inapplicable why even make it? As you say, the quality and price of a watch barely affects it's timekeeping, which is its function. People spend more money on watches for social and fashion purposes- purposes other than the primary function. There are no diamonds studded on X1's- at least not mine anyway. The quality and price of camera greatly correlates with the longevity, image quality, and build quality (among other things- such as the quality of life for the people who made it). So your point that a "Rolex does not tell time better" than a Timex, while true, is irrelevant to a discussion of cameras. I think you will find yourself greatly outnumbered if you try to mirror that logic into the realm of photography. There is much more of a output-quality continuum with imaging equipment than there is with the accuracy of watches.

[Guest douglasf13]

Actualy, I would say my Rolex analogy is very much in line. As you say, it's about build quality, history and longevity, which is what Rolex is about, too (I'm talking about their "regular" steel watches, not the diamond encrusted President models.) I'm sure Rolex users approach each other as well, although I guess I'm a little confused as to why this is a good thing. I'm usually trying to hide my cameras so I'm inconspicuous. Its the image quality per dollar that I'm not sure that I agree with. Granted, the M9 is a better example of this.