Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1

[sfage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wouldn't buy the Sony camera. The issue with both machines is the missing VF.

 

... but the swinging view screen? I definitely don't want to spend money on that. I'd rather see some better parts somewhere else in the machine. I'll take a better lens over the engineering time and parts to make that screen. As soon as I saw that screen, I closed the page.

 

This is not a serious photographical instrument.

 

Think about it this way: let's say there's a new car out. It has a special push-button on the dashboard that opens the hood with a slow, sexy motor. Of course, to stay competitive, the manufacturer has to use pop rivets in the motor housing rather than proper bolts.

 

I'll take the bolts. I can get out of the car and open the hood myself.

[barjohn]

This post makes perfect sense. You would clearly rather have a screen you can't see in bright day light and whose resolution is so poor you can't judge focus and that is fixed to the body (the cheapest possible way to affix the screen with the cheapest possible screen) rather than have a screen that is very high resolution, easily usable in bright sunlight and tilt-able so that you have flexibility in shooting because that makes the former a serious photographic instrument. Gosh...how stupid to think you should actually be able to see the screen on a camera. Of course you would also rather pay more. I almost forgot that.

[jsrockit]

This post makes perfect sense. You would clearly rather have a screen you can't see in bright day light and whose resolution is so poor you can't judge focus and that is fixed to the body (the cheapest possible way to affix the screen with the cheapest possible screen) rather than have a screen that is very high resolution, easily usable in bright sunlight and tilt-able so that you have flexibility in shooting because that makes the former a serious photographic instrument. Gosh...how stupid to think you should actually be able to see the screen on a camera. Of course you would also rather pay more. I almost forgot that.

 

Hmmm, let's see... should I get the camera whose screen I cannot see only in certain situations (i.e. bright sun ... get a viewfinder) but makes great photos or the one that has a great screen but shitty lenses?

[barjohn]

You can change the lenses for better lenses can you change the screen for a better screen?

[Danielsan]

You can change the lenses for better lenses can you change the screen for a better screen?

 

Yeah u change from one bad quality lens to the next, congratulations

[jsrockit]

You can change the lenses for better lenses can you change the screen for a better screen?

 

Nope, but as an X1 user, the X1's screen res is completely blown out of proportion. Yes, it sucks in direct bright sun... but I just use the ext VF. Most camera's LCDs suck in bright sun.

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alright, I have opened my mind - I have no bias toward sony (well I don't think much of the alpha dslr's except price)...I have crawled through dpreview thread after thread, I have looked at a lot of samples in the hands of people at my level or less, as well as those better than mine. I have looked at Steve Huff's samples from the Seal tour..

 

Nothing I see impresses me. If I was spending that money, I'd by a mft camera. I'd rather have sharpness in good light. The shots I see are better than a point and shoot, but not even up to snuff with mft, let alone the x1. If I'm seeing that at my level - I have to think other photographers are too.

 

Forget comparing to the x1, just look at other offerings in the price range.. there are far far better. Sorry to those who support it, I don't see it as a good camera now.. i see it as a camera people will buy because it's a sony and they like sony.

 

Again, even if I cut the x1 out of it, I'd much rather a pen or gf1 or samsung or ricoh.. all of which make a better image imho.

 

I tried to 'get it' but I just don't see how anyone actually interested in photography is into this camera with the current native lenses. I'm sure there's a huge benefit when going with MF lenses that cost as much as the camera, but that's really not the point with this one.

 

As a side note, there's also no way I would buy a lx5 (let alone a rebranded leica lx5 at ~$1000) at $500 over the Epl1... so it's not some random brand loyalty.. given that I own (for now) a gf1.

 

Sorry, it just does nothing for me, on any front.

[phancj]

To put things in perspective, image quality is based on three parameters: Lens, sensor & Image processing engine. It is sad that Sony as the supplier of Sensor to BOTH Leica in the case of the X1 and many Nikon models consistently fail to produce any camera in the league of the two brands. I like Sony, have the PS3, PSP, AV equipment, was the first to buy the MD players (failed), etc.etc but apart from my 2MP cybershot (very ancient first line models) which was at that time astounding in terms of image quality, I see Sony not making much progress as compared to other manufacturers these days. Of course they can create marketing hype as to swivel & touch screen, panorama, blah blah blah but end of the day we need a camera to make the best pictures, and on many models including the Nex5 they fail to deliver.

 

It may be the crappy lens, or their flawed processing engine. In any case, no amount of gizmo apart from image quality is going to entice a serious photographer who wants to make great pictures to buy it. it is fun as a toy to show off its multitude of features and razzle dazzle...

[davidhunternyc]

I think the #1 job of any company is to make the most money possible. If that means offering whistles and bells, and slight of hand magic tricks, then so be it. I am not defending Sony as a camera manufacturer but only as a business. It is always better for business to cater to the masses.

Sad but true.

[RichardM8]

The simple fact the quite some people apparently have an irresistible urge to shout their liking of a Sony or whatever camera and pissing on Leica on a Leica forum keeps amazing me...

 

So to worship Sony, pls go here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1009

[phancj]

The simple fact the quite some people apparently have an irresistible urge to shout their liking of a Sony or whatever camera and pissing on Leica on a Leica forum keeps amazing me...

 

So to worship Sony, pls go here: Sony Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

While they are at it remember to get a Leica lens with that camera for acceptable image quality:D

[Ecaton]

In a moment of weakness I bought the NEX 5 with kit zoom, and last weekend added the 24mm equiv pancake. I initially thought I would sell the EP2 and have the Nex becoming my X1's buddy to ad versatility to the travel bag. All in all, there are a couple of things going for the Nex, speedy af, 7fps, promising sensor with strong high iso performance, size and weight, panorama mode, etc. However, besides its gadgetry appeal, the Nex falls short as a serious photographic tool, to a large extent because of very very disappointing lenses. I don't see how anybody being used to Leica lens quality and performance, whether X1 or m-mount, could enjoy such mediocre IQ.

Granted, better lenses can be used with adapters on the Nex (but even Sony alpha mount lenses in mf mode only, whereas 4/3 lenses remain fully functional on mft bodies).

As far as m-mount lenses are concerned, they perform best and are most fun on a m-mount body, in my case a M8.

Despite its inferior sensor, as a reasonably well rounded system and good (not great) IQ performer, the EP2 beats the Nex, in my humble opinion.

[jsrockit]

It appears that the u4/3 cameras are still the best option in this category based on size vs. sensor vs. price. If Panasonic brings out a GF-2 (or similar) with better high ISO and a built in VF of some sort, I won't be able to pass it up.

[h00ligan]

I think It would be REALLY hard to pass it up with one stop better iso performance. Aside from ISO noise the gf1+20mm probably would not have been replaced by the x1 for me though...

 

@Ecaton - thanks for the feedback from an owner of mft, leica, and nex.

[TEBnewyork]

Alright, I have opened my mind - I have no bias toward sony (well I don't think much of the alpha dslr's except price)...I have crawled through dpreview thread after thread, I have looked at a lot of samples in the hands of people at my level or less, as well as those better than mine. I have looked at Steve Huff's samples from the Seal tour..

 

Nothing I see impresses me. If I was spending that money, I'd by a mft camera. I'd rather have sharpness in good light. The shots I see are better than a point and shoot, but not even up to snuff with mft, let alone the x1. If I'm seeing that at my level - I have to think other photographers are too.

 

Forget comparing to the x1, just look at other offerings in the price range.. there are far far better. Sorry to those who support it, I don't see it as a good camera now.. i see it as a camera people will buy because it's a sony and they like sony.

 

Again, even if I cut the x1 out of it, I'd much rather a pen or gf1 or samsung or ricoh.. all of which make a better image imho.

 

I tried to 'get it' but I just don't see how anyone actually interested in photography is into this camera with the current native lenses. I'm sure there's a huge benefit when going with MF lenses that cost as much as the camera, but that's really not the point with this one.

 

 

Ouch....I'm a NEX user as well as a M4/3 user as well as a former M8 user, and I am really enjoying the new Sony. After looking at micro 4/3 files for almost 2 years (Oct '08), I am impressed by what I see coming out of the NEX. I think I've posted some good shots with the NEX, stuff that would compare well with any camera including the X1 and m4/3, and plenty of stuff I couldn't get with the X1's wide lens.

 

Personally, I am not a Sony fan. While I do own the A900, I don't really trust Sony to give me a clear upgrade so that what I bought with the A900 has a natural progression. I hate that they do dumb things like making the firmware update for the NEX windows only etc. so I really think you categorize the buyers of NEX as Sony fans.....I am a fan of what works for me.

 

My ideal camera right now would be an M8/9 where the rangefinder focusing is replaced with an EVF. My worst problem with the M8 was a lower than desired keeper rate with fast lenses close in lower light. I wasn't fast enough at focus or accurate enough.

 

When I sold my M8's I kept my 21 Elmarit, 50 Lux and 75 Cron and some Voigtlanders. I'm still waiting for my adapters to the E mount. Curious to how wide you can go with the m lenses before problems ensue....on m4/3 the results weren't very good. I don't mind doing manual focus at all - because I know I can be fast and accurate and I think it is disingenous to complain that adapted lenses are only MF on NEX but then talk about the M8/9 in the same breath. I've adapted Sony's small 50 f1.4 and IQ is excellent. I've also adapted my larger Zeiss lenses which again produce stellar results on the NEX and will back up my A900 on a upcoming 2 week photo trip in Ireland.

[TEBnewyork]

Granted, better lenses can be used with adapters on the Nex (but even Sony alpha mount lenses in mf mode only, whereas 4/3 lenses remain fully functional on mft bodies).

 

Not all m4/3 cameras support the 4/3 lenses and in many cases the AF is painfully slow.

[Ecaton]

I don't mind doing manual focus at all - because I know I can be fast and accurate and I think it is disingenous to complain that adapted lenses are only MY on NEX but then talk about the M8/9 in the same breath .

 

I would not quite agree with this statement. Leica M-mount camera's are made for mf lenses only, whereas NEX, mft etc were designed to be used primarily with af lenses. For mf, some may be ok, for zf they are already akward. This is were m-mount camera's shine.

[Guest badbob]

I think the #1 job of any company is to make the most money possible. If that means offering whistles and bells, and slight of hand magic tricks, then so be it. I am not defending Sony as a camera manufacturer but only as a business. It is always better for business to cater to the masses.

Sad but true.

 

Actually the #1 job of any company is to sustain profits over the long haul. I was visited by marketing people from Hewlett Packard in the 1980's, and they said that unless a company can continue to trade on the best parts of its reputation, it will eventually fail.

 

Sony's best bet isn't necessarily to "broaden" its appeal if that means losing its reputation for innovation.

[Danielsan]

i would rate the NEX5 on 2nd place behind the X1 because the NEX5 have the same sensor size then X1 and the 4/3 models have smaller size sensors, which is important in low light.

 

I dont think that the NEX5 has better low light qualitys then the X1, both have nearly the same sensor size, interesting wo see how the Samung NX10 compares cause it has also the same sensor size.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest badbob]

i would rate the NEX5 on 2nd place behind the X1 because the NEX5 have the same sensor size then X1 and the 4/3 models have smaller size sensors, which is important in low light.

I dont think that the NEX5 has better low light qualitys then the X1, both have nearly the same sensor size, interesting wo see how the Samung NX10 compares cause it has also the same sensor size.

 

Both of the cameras you mention are comparable in some ways to the X1, but neither of them is a compact camera like the X1. So the X1 is in a class by itself.