X1 vs M8,2

[leicashot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

X1 is much better than the M8 in file quality. Possibly a tad less dynamic range but the images doe very well with sharpening and image quality from ISO 400 to 2500 is much better.

 

If you've used rangefinders before I would buy the M8 just for the joy of 'using' it. For pixel peepers, the X1 will produce better files.

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

X1 is much better than the M8 in file quality. Possibly a tad less dynamic range but the images doe very well with sharpening and image quality from ISO 400 to 2500 is much better.

 

If you've used rangefinders before I would buy the M8 just for the joy of 'using' it. For pixel peepers, the X1 will produce better files.

 

did you do direct comparisons and in which regard do you find the images of the x1 better?

 

I ask because I have NOT done direct comparisons but have used both cameras and do find I get slightly better results from the M8 (now M9).

I do think that the CCD without AA filter has a different look than the CMOS of the X1, but maybe its also just imagination.

[ezc203]

tom0511: +1

 

I, too, have similar experiences. Have not tested the X1 side-by-side with the M8, but through "normal" usage, I find the X1 files better. Just a preference I suspect, but would be nice to see some "real" tests, or actually.. I may conduct one myself

[leicashot]

did you do direct comparisons and in which regard do you find the images of the x1 better?

 

I ask because I have NOT done direct comparisons but have used both cameras and do find I get slightly better results from the M8 (now M9).

I do think that the CCD without AA filter has a different look than the CMOS of the X1, but maybe its also just imagination.

 

No I would never waste my time doing side by side tests but I have a great memory for pixel peeping and find wonderful detail in the X1 files, especially above ISO400 where it has a pretty clear advantage over the M8 files in noise. The files also hold up to sharpening better at higher ISO's too. I'd even put the X1 sensor over the M9 sensor too, except being a lower resolution.

 

The X1's sensor is brilliant and should not be underestimated. Bar it's obvious shortcomings compared to similar style cameras, it delivers some of the best results I've seen on the market, compared to any camera, and yes, i believe the results compete favorably to the M9, even beating it at higher ISO's.

[tom0511]

No I would never waste my time doing side by side tests but I have a great memory for pixel peeping and find wonderful detail in the X1 files, especially above ISO400 where it has a pretty clear advantage over the M8 files in noise. The files also hold up to sharpening better at higher ISO's too. I'd even put the X1 sensor over the M9 sensor too, except being a lower resolution.

 

The X1's sensor is brilliant and should not be underestimated. Bar it's obvious shortcomings compared to similar style cameras, it delivers some of the best results I've seen on the market, compared to any camera, and yes, i believe the results compete favorably to the M9, even beating it at higher ISO's.

 

Mmmh,

I find the x1 files very good but what I get from the M9 looks to me like even more microdetail and I dont even feel to have to do much sharpening. Also contrastwise to me the M9 images show slightly more pop (probably also depends a lot which lens one uses) IMO.

 

So I understand its not everybodies finding but for my taste I like the x1 files a lot still prefer M8 and M9 files.

However its pretty close so I wouldnt choose any of the cameras just based on IQ but use the one which works best for a certain situation.

[RichardM8]

Apart from who likes which files more, the - as it seems - valid comparison between the X1 and the mighty Ms speaks strongly for the X1s IQ imo.

 

It's an amazing little Leica, that much is clear!

[leicashot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me say that my comments above are based on extensive use of all three cameras, and as much as I rate the M9 champ for best camera, the X1 produces the best file quality.

[RichardM8]

Apart from who likes which files more, the - as it seems - valid comparison between the X1 IQ and the mighty Ms alone speaks strongly for the X1 imo.

 

It's an amazing little Leica, that much is clear!

[jsrockit]

Let me say that my comments above are based on extensive use of all three cameras, and as much as I rate the M9 champ for best camera, the X1 produces the best file quality.

 

Based on what?

[leicashot]

Based on my experience, which is extensive enough for me, maybe not so much for skeptics as yourself.

[jsrockit]

I understand it's from your experience leicashot... don't be so defensive. What I meant was based on what IQ criteria... what attributes made you decide the X1 had the best files? I'm not being skeptical. I like the IQ of my X1 more than the M8 I had. I'm just curious because I really want an M9 and thought that it would be the best leica digital yet.

[leicashot]

I understand it's from your experience leicashot... don't be so defensive. What I meant was based on what IQ criteria... what attributes made you decide the X1 had the best files? I'm not being skeptical. I like the IQ of my X1 more than the M8 I had. I'm just curious because I really want an M9 and thought that it would be the best leica digital yet.

 

My apologies for my assumption. The files are cleaner from ISO 400 and especially at ISO 640/800-1600 by a decent amount. At ISO 1600 on the X1 it matches the ISO 640 on the M8, and ISO 1000 on the M9.

 

The files also have more accurate colors too. Not too sure about dynamic range between them but they seem to be comparable. The lens quality of the X1 is awesome, much better than I expected, but the M9 may have more sharpness depending on the lens used. both sharpen very well without affecting images quality too much.

 

Hope this helps

[tom0511]

Since this made me curious I took the M9+35 Summarit and the x1 tonight and shot some images at different ISO.

My findings are:

both cameras at ISO1600: ISO X1 slightly less noise but also slightly less detail (viewing at 100%)

 

The M9 at ISO 640 to me looks clearly better than the X1 at 800 ISO (it doesnt offer 640). Here the x1 had no noise advantage/maybe even a little more noise - but the M9 shows clearly more detail.

 

Overall the M9 images do look more 3D and also the bokeh of the 35 Summarit on the M9 beats the X1 slightly IMO.

 

my personal conclusion: IMO up to 640 ISO the M9 + 35 Summarit IQ is slightly better in every regard

 

at 1600 ISO and higher the x1 has an noise advantage - but depending on the subject and tones the M9 does still show more detail (not in the shaddows though)

 

this is all based just on converting the DNG with standard settings in LR - since C1 does only have a profile for the M9 but not for the x1. Normally c1 shows even more detail.

 

The x1 files can be tuned a little bit with sharpening (the M9 images are sharp from the beginning)

 

Thats what I see.

 

The x1 delievers great IQ, but it doesnt beat the M9.

[leicashot]

Since this made me curious I took the M9+35 Summarit and the x1 tonight and shot some images at different ISO.

My findings are:

both cameras at ISO1600: ISO X1 slightly less noise but also slightly less detail (viewing at 100%)

 

The M9 at ISO 640 to me looks clearly better than the X1 at 800 ISO (it doesnt offer 640). Here the x1 had no noise advantage/maybe even a little more noise - but the M9 shows clearly more detail.

 

Overall the M9 images do look more 3D and also the bokeh of the 35 Summarit on the M9 beats the X1 slightly IMO.

 

my personal conclusion: IMO up to 640 ISO the M9 + 35 Summarit IQ is slightly better in every regard

 

at 1600 ISO and higher the x1 has an noise advantage - but depending on the subject and tones the M9 does still show more detail (not in the shaddows though)

 

this is all based just on converting the DNG with standard settings in LR - since C1 does only have a profile for the M9 but not for the x1. Normally c1 shows even more detail.

 

The x1 files can be tuned a little bit with sharpening (the M9 images are sharp from the beginning)

 

Thats what I see.

 

The x1 delievers great IQ, but it doesnt beat the M9.

 

Doesn't surprise me as the lens resolution in the Summarit is definitely better than that in the X1. Pretty damn good for the cheaper X1 though.

[tom0511]

x1-800 ISO: (f2.8?) 100%crop

 

 

M9+35 Summarit 640 ISO:(f4?) 100% crop

[Ramses]

Great example shots fr comparing. In my eyes the M9 kills X1.

 

But then again. What is a cameras IQ.

IQ depends on many thing; lens light focus exposure and so on.

When shooting at ISO set above 800 its not easy to compare. I think much will depend on how much light there is. It's a hard decision for me. I'm thinking of buying a M8,2 but I'm not sure. Heart say yes, head say wait.

[Guest badbob]

In the two photos, you can see the X1's noise pattern as clearly as reading a road map. I don't see a similar pattern at all in the M9 image, but maybe that's due to higher resolution?

[tom0511]

not to forget that this is 100%. In print or normal magnification both images would look totally fine.

I agree it also depends on many factoes including correct exposure.(I did not have to push the x1 image)

 

Frankly if I had to choose between a M8 and a X1 I would recommend to not choose based on IQ (even though I am a believer the M8 has the edge). But both will do great. (Besides I would not want to shoot the M8 much higher than ISO 640).

I would choose based on:

-do you want the smaller size and silent shutter of the X1?

-Are you fine with just 35mm and f2.8 or do you want to use different focal lengths and eventually a faster lens?

-then there is AF vs MF - but I feel I can manually focus the M8/M9 at least as fast as the AF of the x1 works in most cases.

-optical viewfinder of the M vs display of the x1 (of course you can put an optical viewfinder on the x1 too)

 

The M8 with a 28/2.8 is not soo soo much bigger than a X1+viewfinder but there is a big weight difference.

After first getting used to the slowish AF I now bring the x1 quite often.

If I had to choose for just one system I would personally prefer the M - there are just times when a little longer lens and compressed look is nice too. Like a 28-50mm combo on the M8. (By the way I have a black M8 for sale )

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[RichardM8]

-then there is AF vs MF - but I feel I can manually focus the M8/M9 at least as fast as the AF of the x1 works in most cases.

 

I only had the opportunity to hold and play around a few times with the beautiful M9. So while being unexperienced with it, I still wonder if this is really the case. Not that it really matters but still... After a few hundred frames I've found that my X1 consistantly locks focus in about 1 second. A bit quicker with high contrast scenes, a bid slower with low contrast/low light scenes. And when it locks, it's very accurate (I use the center focus square only).

 

With all sorts of varying real world scenes (not all scenes have sharp clear lines to help focus) I think about 1 second is pretty short to accurately focus manually.

 

I wonder what - on average - the 'score' would be with say hundred different scenes between a manual M vs. the X1 for both speed and accuracy.

 

Again, just wondering. This is my no means an attempt to put the Mx in a different light or something.

[tom0511]

I only had the opportunity to hold and play around a few times with the beautiful M9. So while being unexperienced with it, I still wonder if this is really the case. Not that it really matters but still... After a few hundred frames I've found that my X1 consistantly locks focus in about 1 second. A bit quicker with high contrast scenes, a bid slower with low contrast/low light scenes. And when it locks, it's very accurate (I use the center focus square only).

 

With all sorts of varying real world scenes (not all scenes have sharp clear lines to help focus) I think about 1 second is pretty short to accurately focus manually.

 

I wonder what - on average - the 'score' would be with say hundred different scenes between a manual M vs. the X1 for both speed and accuracy.

 

Again, just wondering. This is my no means an attempt to put the Mx in a different light or something.

 

I feel I get more keepers focus wise with the M than with the x1.

One important thing with the M: once you have focused to a certain distance you often only have to make small adjustments for focus (sometimes you can do this with just moving your head with the camera a little forward or backward) . Also once you have focused and wait for the right moment you would still see in the rangefinder if your focus is still ok or if you need to adjust.

With the X1 I most often prefocus- but once one waits for the right moment slight changes in distance can appear and lead to slightly OOF. (I am not talking stills but "shooting" people/kids etc.)

Also lets say I want an image of a running kid. I would prefocus with the M somewhere closer and I can see once the kid is in focus and press the release. I could prefocus with the x1 too but there I have to rely to press the button at the moment when the kids runs across my prefocus point-which I find harder (specially with the electronic display)

The last point is that with the x1 here and then it happens that my focus is in the background and not on the subject even though I thought I had focused on the subject (thats why I now use spot focusing more often with the x1) - I usually never have this problem with the M.

And last you can zone focus much better with the M since you have DOF marks on the lens.

 

I get along ok with the x1 focus, but I get more "focus keepers" with the M and I feelfaster. I have to add that I have used Leica rangefinders for about 20 years now so I am pretty much used to it.