Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[ChiILX1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actualy, I would say my Rolex analogy is very much in line. As you say, it's about build quality, history and longevity...

 

That was not your point. You said a Rolex:

 

... doesn't tell time any better

 

I'm saying that's a ridiculous analogy since cameras take better pictures than one another.

[hteasley]

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.

 

Leica is pretty heavy into limited edition cameras, gold M cameras, and the like: for years, those were the only "new" models they introduced. I think the comparison is pretty apt. There's a lot of status in the red dot.

 

That said, there's a lot of quality, too. And there's a lot of longevity, at least so far. Leica makes amazing glass, and excellent feature decisions on their cameras, while companies like Sony throw a whole bunch of crap on the User Interface wall and see what sticks. But to say that Leica isn't about status even a little bit is to ignore a whole lot about the company and its history.

[ChiILX1]

Again- my point is that he originally made the point in his comparison that a Rolex:

 

Originally Posted by douglasf13

... doesn't tell time any better

 

I'm saying that's a bad analogy since cameras take better pictures than one another.

[phancj]

Again- my point is that he originally made the point in his comparison that a Rolex:

 

Originally Posted by douglasf13

... doesn't tell time any better

 

I'm saying that's a bad analogy since cameras take better pictures than one another.

 

One thing for certain, Leicas take great pictures, look great, gives bragging rights, and give owners a great sense of accomplishment and exclusivity. Sony cams no wonder how advanced with the latest technical blah blah cannot in any way come close to the aura of greatness surrounding Leica cameras with its rich tradition and great glass. Hell, everyone is also saying how the nex works great with Leica lens, a living testament to the timeless competence of Leica in making photographic instruments.

 

And yes, I wear a Rolex and see it as a reliable and competent timepiece, and my Leica too. It is a great photographic tool and I love using it and the feel and materials appeal to me. Having said that, I will not buy Leicas if it didnt take the best images in its class and right now, out of the box in that arena the X1 is the most competent, no doubt in my mind at all. The nex falls short unless you buy Leica glass, buy LR3 to deal with distortion, forgo AF, etc, etc. I buy the X1, take it out of the box and feel great using it and enjoy the wondrous images it takes! I do not like DIY, when I buy something, everything should work great out of the box!!

[hteasley]

I'm saying that's a bad analogy since cameras take better pictures than one another.

 

Even terrible cameras can take great pictures.

[ChiILX1]

Even terrible cameras can take great pictures.

 

Ha! The futility and pointlessness of this cyclical conversation solves the mystery as to why this NEX vs. X1 thread is still going!!!

[Guest douglasf13]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Again- my point is that he originally made the point in his comparison that a Rolex:

 

Originally Posted by douglasf13

... doesn't tell time any better

 

I'm saying that's a bad analogy since cameras take better pictures than one another.

 

I can think of quite a few cameras around the $2K price point that take technically "better" pictures than the X1 (or NEX.) The bad part of my analogy is that the X1 actually falls rather short in the electronics dept: AF speed, LCD screen, data throughout and speed, etc, so it isn't really top of the line in some respects. The economy of scale that the Japanese companies enjoy shows its strength in that regard.

 

All of that being said, I still would like to see an X2 with a standard lens and better LCD. That could be perfect for me.

[JanCderidder]

I can think of quite a few cameras around the $2K price point that take technically "better" pictures than the X1 (or NEX.) The bad part of my analogy is that the X1 actually falls rather short in the electronics dept: AF speed, LCD screen, data throughout and speed, etc, so it isn't really top of the line in some respects. The economy of scale that the Japanese companies enjoy shows its strength in that regard.

 

All of that being said, I still would like to see an X2 with a standard lens and better LCD. That could be perfect for me.

 

342 postings later....

 

Douglas,

 

simple question Do you have an X! yes/no?

Do you have a Nex yes/no?

[Guest stnami]

and what will that prove or disprove?

[JanCderidder]

and what will that prove or disprove?

 

that he can compare pictures, simple no?

 

I have both, I have compared and without saying the X1 produces a better result than the Nex with the 16mm or with the kit-zoom.

 

The X1 with the M adapter and the 35mm Cron produces excellent result which can be compared with the X1, actually I see very little difference between the 2.

 

Yes, the Nex is fantastic, versatile and does great low-light shots.

 

The downside of the Nex is Manual focussing of the Cron, however you put it I think AF, even slow AF is better than focussing on an LCD.

 

The nex has a Flip LCD which I like, I wish the X1 would have that.

 

With the right lenses they are similarly good, and similarly priced as well... so it's all a matter of personal choice. Size-wise the X1 is compacter by a bit and fits into coat pockets easier than the Nex would.

 

They are 2 very different cameras producing the same results if with the nex you are prepared to pay extra for the adapter and lens, if you have a Leica lens already then it might be worth going for the Nex instead of X1.

 

X1 comes with Lightroom which is a premium.

 

You need a "good" adapter for the Nex which adds another 200$ or so, yes I have seen the cheaper ones, I have one, it won't focus at infinity.

 

Comparing Rolex-, and other exotically branded watches to a camera comparison is well ... you know not very to the point. Basically with a margin of x% you get what you pay for, one way or the other all depending on needs and wishes... and funds.

 

X1 is 1500€

 

Nex 3 is 700€ for the set

Adapter is 189€

24mm good quality lens is 700€ minimum

 

so the versatiliy of the Nex wins here, you can use different lenses.... but all at a pretty steep price pattern.

 

I have chosen the X1 for "nice photography" creating results I like, and the Nex for a (very good) point and shoot making use of a zoom lens which comes in handy for holiday shots and such, I find this combination perfect......

[JanCderidder]

and what will that prove or disprove?

 

or in short... I think that most people contributing on this thread haven't a clue what they are actually talking comparison wise, for they either use one or the other.

[Guest stnami]

Douglas answering yes or no will prove/disprove nothing

[JanCderidder]

Douglas answering yes or no will prove/disprove nothing

 

I realize that, but Douglas is just one of the many..... How hard is it to prove you point with for my part blow ups of walls and newspapers, comparisons discussions on how one would be able to improve the IQ by doing x, y or z. Any conclusion will always be personal but dragging Jaguars, fiats, aston martins, BMW's Rolexes, ademars Prickett (or whatever) into the equation turns it into a hostile topic pretty fast ... let alone the "red-dot"

 

They are all cameras, they take pictures ... and for that matter probably tell the time more precisely than any rolex ever will..... maybe the G2 is just as good, I would like to hear/see/read more about comparisons so I can judge for myself... instead of stating that the button for function x should be in the place of button y which is totally useless anyway etc. etc.

[Guest stnami]

So why ask the question ................

............ on another note one has to see images both high res digital and printed and not just from a technical standpoint they also have to be produced under various conditions both ideal and marginal..........

 

Me I get to borrow high end cameras from various people and haven't bought one for a couple of years, mainly because there is nothing out there in the market that makes a major difference to what was produced in the last few years.

[JanCderidder]

Stnami, yeah you are right of course, why ask the question in the first place.

 

I don't make a habit of buying everything new once a gimmick is added, I just got into this "little" spending spree for I found that I never took my camera out anymore due to size, and I do like photography so to me the X1 made sense, so did the Nex actually, but then whilst reading about it you get drawn in to al the discussion on the internet..... :-)

[phancj]

I can think of quite a few cameras around the $2K price point that take technically "better" pictures than the X1 (or NEX.) The bad part of my analogy is that the X1 actually falls rather short in the electronics dept: AF speed, LCD screen, data throughout and speed, etc, so it isn't really top of the line in some respects. The economy of scale that the Japanese companies enjoy shows its strength in that regard.

 

All of that being said, I still would like to see an X2 with a standard lens and better LCD. That could be perfect for me.

 

If you add extreme portability as a consideration then I think you are not going to find the camera, irregardless of the drawbacks or price of the X1?

[jankap]

Ha! The futility and pointlessness of this cyclical conversation solves the mystery as to why this NEX vs. X1 thread is still going!!!

 

Well, it is at least in this thread possible to boost your status from beginner over experienced user to expert user.

Jan

[hteasley]

Ha! The futility and pointlessness of this cyclical conversation solves the mystery as to why this NEX vs. X1 thread is still going!!!

 

Thanks for underlining the meaning of my post. Well spotted.

[Guest badbob]

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.

 

If the Rolex's output (i.e. display time) were dependent on advancing digital technoloy, then it would be a good comparison. While the 12mp sensor of the X1 is good and the image quality good due to very low noise, you are still left with 12mp, and you can see with landscapes and natural detail such as foliage that you're getting a rather crude image compared to what a decent MF camera will produce. I'm sure Leica is aware of the digital limitations of their small cameras, and is planning for the future. Probably the M9 and X1 are both as good right now as any film cameras of comparable size ever were, so the trick would be to increase their longevity by planning ahead with good sensor research.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

One thing for certain, Leicas take great pictures, look great, gives bragging rights, and give owners a great sense of accomplishment and exclusivity....

 

WOW!