tom0511 Posted August 30, 2010 Share #21 Posted August 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) As a diversion since we are on this topic what are good lenses to mount on Nikon bodies? I read somewhere that some Leica lenses cannot be modified for Nikon bodies? Currently entertaining this thought of using R lenses on my Nikon as well... You can modify some Leica lenses. I have a Leica 100 APO with Nikon mount. But frankly I dont use it much because I like AF if I use the Nikon and the Nikon lenses are not bad either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 30, 2010 Posted August 30, 2010 Hi tom0511, Take a look here For those interested in facts..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom0511 Posted August 30, 2010 Share #22 Posted August 30, 2010 I don't agree Tom. Yesterday (too) I went through holiday pictures with a friend he shot with the EP2 - 17mm (and a D700). To my eyes the images from the EP2 get visibly noisy from ISO 200 on. They also lack the dynamic range, sharpness, the rich colors and 3D qualities of many X1 files. The RAW files don't hold up nearly as good as the DNGs from the X1 when 'pushed & pulled' in Lightroom. To me these camera's are in a different league. Their prices are too so that's ok. Richard. Richard, if I am not too lazy I should post some of the images to show what I mean (and what I see). I find it interesting that we have such different impression. I even thought if my x1 is maybe somewhat not 100% ok, since I am one of those guys who believes that the x1 IQ is excellent but not totally up to the M9 and who also believe that there is a difference between x1 and m4/3 but not a huge one. The thing is that it doesnt matter to me that much since for me all 3, M9, x1 and E-P2 deliever very good IQ for me (with the M9 standing out for my taste deliever exceptional IQ) and IMO the cameras differences are more in user interface and functions and not so much in IQ. One thing where I see the x1 as the absolute champion is that it is inobstruisve, small, quiet. With the x1 I feel there is by far the smallest barrier between the subject and myself - which is an important aspect IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted August 31, 2010 Share #23 Posted August 31, 2010 Richard,if I am not too lazy I should post some of the images to show what I mean (and what I see). I find it interesting that we have such different impression. I even thought if my x1 is maybe somewhat not 100% ok, since I am one of those guys who believes that the x1 IQ is excellent but not totally up to the M9 and who also believe that there is a difference between x1 and m4/3 but not a huge one. The thing is that it doesnt matter to me that much since for me all 3, M9, x1 and E-P2 deliever very good IQ for me (with the M9 standing out for my taste deliever exceptional IQ) and IMO the cameras differences are more in user interface and functions and not so much in IQ. One thing where I see the x1 as the absolute champion is that it is inobstruisve, small, quiet. With the x1 I feel there is by far the smallest barrier between the subject and myself - which is an important aspect IMO. To put things in perspective obviously the M9 with say the cron or the lux & its FF sensor will deliver outstanding images way beyond what the X1 and m4/3 can ever accomplish. In the same light, the difference between the X1 and m4/3 is obviously also there, but how much difference for it to be a deal breaker is based on individual wants and needs. Hell, there are some who argue also that there is only a slight difference in IQ between the M9 and the X1??!! End of the day we use what we think is right for us. Comparisons are so subjective. Having said that, I can discern a substantial difference in m4/3 images and those from the X1, enough for me NOT to buy into the m4/3 system Others may see this differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted August 31, 2010 Share #24 Posted August 31, 2010 Hell, there are some who argue also that there is only a slight difference in IQ between the M9 and the X1??!! Slight is a relative term. But apples & apples, I would call the IQ from an M9 with a 'modest' 35mm lens indeed only slightly better than an X1. Very slightly. And on high(er) ISOs the difference gets even smaller. If any at all. There has been a thread with comparing images on this forum too. But for me the step between m4/3 and the X1 is definitely much bigger than between the X1 and M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 31, 2010 Share #25 Posted August 31, 2010 What would you describe as a "modest" 35mm lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted August 31, 2010 Share #26 Posted August 31, 2010 Slight is a relative term. But apples & apples, I would call the IQ from an M9 with a 'modest' 35mm lens indeed only slightly better than an X1. Very slightly. And on high(er) ISOs the difference gets even smaller. If any at all. There has been a thread with comparing images on this forum too. But for me the step between m4/3 and the X1 is definitely much bigger than between the X1 and M9. Slight is relative, thats the main thing. You are absolutely right on the fact that the X1 can deliver comparatively same or even better photos at high iso compared to the M9 but at close to base iso I personally feel the IQ of the M9 is in a class of its own, particularly with the lux lens. IMHO there is a tonality and"look" of the lux/M9 combination that I must concede is impossible with any other camera combo I have seen. I cannot put my finger on it precisely, but these images are sharp, but with a fineness, smoothness and rich tonality that the X1 cannot achieve. And I do love my X1 a lot! And yes, I see a big difference between m4/3 and the X1 images too, high iso or not. The AF in the X1 just makes it more convenient for me to take loads of pictures... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted August 31, 2010 Share #27 Posted August 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) True... But it's also true that an M9 + 35 'Lux cost about 5 x the price of the X1 if I'm not mistaken. Seen in that light the M9s superior IQ is 'not that much' IMO. Price wise these 3 cameras' go from $800, $2000 to $10.000 +. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted August 31, 2010 Share #28 Posted August 31, 2010 True... But it's also true that an M9 + 35 'Lux cost about 5 x the price of the X1 if I'm not mistaken. Seen in that light the M9s superior IQ looks 'not that big' IMO. Ouch! Thats true too... I dropped my X before and it was painful, dropping an M9 will be catastrophic?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted August 31, 2010 Share #29 Posted August 31, 2010 True... But it's also true that an M9 + 35 'Lux cost about 5 x the price of the X1 if I'm not mistaken. Seen in that light the M9s superior IQ is 'not that much' IMO. Price wise these 3 cameras' go from $800, $2000 to $10.000 +. But its also true that you can get an M8 + a nice lens for around 2000k Anyways- I am not arging against the x1 at all. I really love that camera and these days it is my most used camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanCderidder Posted August 31, 2010 Share #30 Posted August 31, 2010 As for an M8 with a nice lens, I own one; M8 + 35 cron. Firstly I have to say that the price-range will be more in the region of 2500-3000, and then still they will be used, which for the lens might not be such a big thing but for the M8.... mmm wouldn't advice a three year old one. The X1 will be better with high ISO than the M8, where the limit is around 640 or so. The general IQ at lower ISO's ... wouldn't put a bet on either, both are very good. As for a comparison with any 4/3 ... try cropping an image for a 1:1 print ... you will notice the difference immediately, if you haven't yet done so on screen (and this at any ISO value) I like the 4/3 principle as well as their camera's, but if the image quality would of been equal across the range I would of bought a 4/3 instead of an X1 (stand to reason). I have however also bought a Sony Nex which I think is good value for money even with the kit-zoom which I have, and will produce very nice prints as well, in my opinion higher IQ than 4/3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted August 31, 2010 Share #31 Posted August 31, 2010 As for an M8 with a nice lens, I own one; M8 + 35 cron. Firstly I have to say that the price-range will be more in the region of 2500-3000, and then still they will be used, which for the lens might not be such a big thing but for the M8.... mmm wouldn't advice a three year old one. The X1 will be better with high ISO than the M8, where the limit is around 640 or so. The general IQ at lower ISO's ... wouldn't put a bet on either, both are very good. As for a comparison with any 4/3 ... try cropping an image for a 1:1 print ... you will notice the difference immediately, if you haven't yet done so on screen (and this at any ISO value) I like the 4/3 principle as well as their camera's, but if the image quality would of been equal across the range I would of bought a 4/3 instead of an X1 (stand to reason). I have however also bought a Sony Nex which I think is good value for money even with the kit-zoom which I have, and will produce very nice prints as well, in my opinion higher IQ than 4/3 I agree 100% with your assessment of IQ for m4/3 vs X1/M8, there isnt any comparison. I am surprised many say the difference isnt great, but I guess thats a matter of perspective. I also agree with you that I would buy into the principle of m4/3 given their interchangeable lens if the IQ is comparable to X1, except the fact that current m4/3 are way too large in my opinion compared to the X1. I feel however, that despite its good sensor and ergonomics, the current E-mount lenses are horrendous for what they are. Yes, it is good value for money, but I am not willing to lose AF and use third party lenses. I am still keeping my options open with this cam, I believe in its potential. However, that is only if Sony doesnt clip its wings for fear of losing grip on the alpha series. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted August 31, 2010 Share #32 Posted August 31, 2010 as an experiment and to burst my brother in laws bubble- i had a shoot off w/him a couple of sundays ago my x1 vs his ep1 w/the kit lens wih shots of my nephew.... as expected the x1 "blew the doors" off the ep1 but i thought the shots of the ep1 were quite good- i think better than my old dlux4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted August 31, 2010 Share #33 Posted August 31, 2010 just to find out if I see the same you guys see: here are some e-p2+17mm vs x1 images. Part of it is with 1 step different ISO and f-stop to compensate to generate same DOF. Other are just at f2.8 (where the Oly lens is not said to be the sharpest lens). Still on the link you can see full size images. Would you say that in these 3 examples the x1 blows the E-P2 away? #2: #3 (and dynamic range) since I know that resized images dont say anything here the link to the full sized images: x1-ep-217mm Photo Gallery by TOM at pbase.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted August 31, 2010 Share #34 Posted August 31, 2010 Not on resize, take them both out in lower light and the difference even at resize will be apparent. IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted August 31, 2010 Share #35 Posted August 31, 2010 Looking closely at your full size images I would say the X1 is clearly better though blown away would be a little strong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #36 Posted September 1, 2010 I think these images are not very good to show the differences but even in these you easily see the superiority of the X1. With more challenging lighting conditions, high contrast scenes and/or low light the differences with stand out like a sore thumb. Steve Huff has done some simple but very clear comparisons. The full size images leave no doubt about the differences in image quality imo. Crazy Comparison Part 2: Sony NEX-3, Olympus E-P2 and the Leica X1 (HIGH ISO JPEG) | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Quick Test – 3 Shots – Sony NEX-5, Leica X1, Olympus E-P2 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted September 1, 2010 Share #37 Posted September 1, 2010 hey Tom, Just went thru the images on your site and must say in terms of color, vibrancy and overall image quality the X1 files are noticeably better by some margin. Thanks for the effort in making the comparison shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 1, 2010 Share #38 Posted September 1, 2010 <snip> even in these you easily see the superiority of the X1. I had to open the examples of the ferns above in PS to tell which shot was taken with which camera. I suggest that it is not easy to see any superiority of the X1 in the shots posted here. Sorry, but if you can see it, I am happy for you. Especially since the bottom two shots are made by the same camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted September 1, 2010 Share #39 Posted September 1, 2010 I had to open the examples of the ferns above in PS to tell which shot was taken with which camera. I suggest that it is not easy to see any superiority of the X1 in the shots posted here. Sorry, but if you can see it, I am happy for you. Yes Andy, what I did was to look at the full sized images, there are marked differences. Colors, tone, vibrancy and overall image quality. And you do not have to look really hard. But I think the smaller images posted you will not see much difference. Thats not surprising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #40 Posted September 1, 2010 I think these images are not very good to show the differences but even in these you easily see the superiority of the X1. With more challenging lighting conditions, high contrast scenes and/or low light the differences with stand out like a sore thumb. Steve Huff has done some simple but very clear comparisons. The full size images leave no doubt about the differences in image quality imo. Crazy Comparison Part 2: Sony NEX-3, Olympus E-P2 and the Leica X1 (HIGH ISO JPEG) | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Quick Test – 3 Shots – Sony NEX-5, Leica X1, Olympus E-P2 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Richard, I saw Steves comparisons before. Regarding the images I posted: the one with the ofrest and sky does include some pretty strong contrast IMO and the DR of the m4/3 holds up pretty well IMO. If you guys write "ahead"- which regard do you mean mainly? detail? or anything in the tones; or color? Again- in the end its not that important if we do totally agree or not - I just stay with my opinion that the IQ difference between the x1 and m4/3 is not that big under most conditions-even with the 17/2.8 lens which does not have the very best reputation. Of course as soon as we reach 1600 or even 3200 ISO (which I believe is indeed usable with the x1) the world looks different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.