X1 v GF1 v others now

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know there there have already been several comparison threads, but some are now almost a year old and were based on speculation before the X1 was even available -- which took six months plus. I'd like to hear real-world experiences from those who have used both cameras. (Oh OK, mention the Oly and others too, if you must).

 

I am not so interested in the obvious handling differences -- I think the simple top-plate dials of the X1 are superior to anything else out there, and my real favorite is still the Leica M. And don't mention AF, we all know it could be faster. Above all I would like to know whether the IQ of the GF1 equals the X1? Some have rubbished it totally -- but is the X1 really so much better?

 

Surely a lot depends not just on sensor size and software but on the lens used, for example fixed 20mm versus 35mm versus kit zoom. Interchangeable lenses are certainly handy and I like the look of that 7-14mm.

 

Interesting if Leica came up with its own version of the GF1. Would you get one?

[Advertisement]

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

[phancj]

Not sure if the comparison is worthwhile given the numerous similar threads.

 

Given the limitations of the smaller sensor of the mft, I personally would not vote for it, even if Leica launches a mft. In that case, I rather keep using the X1. With great lenses the mft can be quite good really, the difference in IQ can be minimal, but given a choice I would want the better IQ of the two. Price differential will be negated if u buy great lenses for the mft. Comparing the two formats and the difference is apparent to me, bokeh, control of depth of field, high iso performance....

 

Having said that, many would be satisfied with mft format, but my minimum is an aps-c, of course fullframe would be best.

 

To each his own.

[Guest stnami]

I have tried both periodically, I am in a position to borrow........... I shoot aperture preferred at f5.6/f8 with the occassional f2 or there abouts so dials interfaces are not an issue.

 

IQ the X1 wins hands down and differences are evident at 400iso............. then there is that pesky sony nex5 with a leica lens though no AF

 

Non brand lenses eg leica , voigtlander work so much better on the m8/9s a bit fiddly on the GF1, I wouldn't bother for heavy use. The 7-14 adds bulk and the front element is quite dominant(wouldn't want to scratch it) ..........Price wise and ergonomically the GF1/20mm combo with a voigtlander VF is a bargain and pretty bullet proof for knocking around. So if you need a versatile good light camera the GF1 is hard to beat

 

 

The X1 is a luxury camera due to it's narrower spectrum of utility but for many sedentary photographers it is all the need. Others may use it as a little backup

 

 

 

 

 

hmmmn I wonder what the samsung NX100 will bring to the table Mirrorless Rumors | Home

[RichardM8]

David, there have been many posts about the GF1 vs. the X1. In recent threads here too. There is quite a lot of it in the X1 vs. Nex monster thread I believe...

[nippa]

If I'm honest then I'd have to say that the X1 is a difficult camera to use.

 

That is to say , difficult in that focusing is a tad slow , depth of field is more limited than smaller sensor cameras and the fixed lens means either lost opportunities or a lot of moving about much to the amusement of those non-photographers with me.

With just one look at the image quality you forget those problems and accept what you have - the finest image maker at its size.

I also love the simple menu, top plate controls ( not too loose for me! ) and the near silent shutter.

 

My GF-1 and G1 are so simple to use until you try to work your way through the myriad of options. They are pretty good at taking pictures but even the 20mm lens doesn't beat the X1 lens.

The weakness of m4/3 is the sensor and with smaller APS-c cameras hitting the market I don't see where m4/3 is going.

 

If Leica made a GF-1 I wouldn't buy it ....too large !

When Leica makes the LX-5 with OLED display that will replace my DLux4 as my very small compact.

[efftee]

I was recently shopping for a camera to stand in on occasions where the M9 -- at the risk of sounding sacrilegious -- couldn't get the job done. Yes, hard to believe but it is hopeless at macro or when I simply needed AF, and I definitely can't stick it in my pocket.

 

So my criteria for this camera were: it has to be (1) as compact as possible, and (2) IQ as high as possible. I narrowed my choices down to the m4/3 Panasonic GF-1 and Olympus EP-1/2, and APS-C Leica X1 and Ricoh GXR (with the A12 module). The Sony Nex-5 would be in my shortlist too except the store where I regularly go to get my gear didn't carry Sony. Anyway, here's what I thought (my own subjective views, of course):

 

The GXR and X1 produced better images (at least when viewed on my MBP), understandably so with the APS-C sensor, than the m4/3 pair.

 

The Pens and X1 were the most compact, followed by the GF-1, then the GXR (A12). With either S10 or P12 modules, the GXR is considerably smaller but at the sacrifice of IQ.

 

The hands liked the X1 most, followed by the GXR, then the Pens and lastly the GF-1.

 

The EVF was very useful on the GF-1, GXR and Pens, especially when the subject is very low or in very bright conditions.

 

The GXR is conceptually different from the rest, with the sensor and processor on the lens unit rather than the camera. The rationale is that they are optimized to the lens, which is completely sealed so it all but eradicates the need to clean the sensor. Cool.

 

The X1 and Pens are most good looking. Then the GXR, followed by the GF-1.

 

Though the Pens and GF-1 could use my M lenses with an adapter, I was told the manual focus was a bitch and WB is way, way off.

 

The X1's macro is a joke.

 

AF on all the cameras suck.

 

In the end, I got the GXR. The guy said I would be back to get the X1, just a matter of time. He's probably right.

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for replies so far, especially comments on IQ. Yes, IQ at high ISO (400 and over) is excellent. Really useful. Is there such a difference at lower ISO? I see Steve Huff rated the GF1 highly, and he also likes the X1, but it's very hard to tell at screen resolution which is why I appreciate the feedback.

[Guest stnami]

Is there such a difference at lower ISO?

There is a difference especially when in less than ideal light, larger sensors have that extra latitude to cope with light. On a sunny day one would be hard pressed with seeing differences at 100/200isos unless you are printing very large and viewing from at 30cms distance wise

 

Remember few here print so their assessments are screen driven

[NZDavid]

Thanks for that, stnami, you're up bright and early this morning! Big print from X1 did look impressive and that was at 800 ISO. May be no real gain in using low ISOs. But I am still impressed with print quality from scanned films -- and the image has a different look. Seems no real reason in sacrificing IQ if you don't have to. An interchangeable lens X1 would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath... Best from the city that rocks.

[Guest stnami]

Working days here .......... the GF1 (up to 400iso) nex5 for 800/1600 iso is the way to go especially jf you have a leica lens or two and no m8/9........... but the need for a leica camera outstrips all aspects for some even though lenses hold the key.

 

Best from the city that rolls.

[Guest badbob]

There's little to compare between a GF1 and a X1. Both are cameras, but only one is always a small camera. Both have fairly large sensors. Everything else is way different, whether price, flexibility, performance, you name it.

 

Anyone who is doubtful about purchasing an X1 is very unlikely to be happy with such a camera when they can buy a Sony or Panasonic with interchangeable lenses instead.

[phancj]

Quite the contrary Badbob, I bought the X1 at launch coz demand was crazy and stocks were low so I reserved one with my regular cam shop. I liked to use it for a week or two as a new "Leica" experience since I havent used any. I figured I could sell it easy for the same price if I didnt like it.

 

Turned out that I now prefer this camera to ALL others out in the market today. Somehow it just suit my needs well, be it traveling, everyday snapshots, everything except macro for work which I use my DSLR exclusively. If any buyer knows the limitations of this camera in terms of macro and fast action sports(and it is not hard, just visit ANY forum:)) and the fixed 35mm prior to buying, they WILL be totally satisfied, IMHO.

[Guest stnami]

and....................? Samsung NX100 Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV3kDXfiPwQ

[hector_jorge]

As everyday camera I have a D-Lux 3, excellent camera, but with a not very usefull screen for me because I need glasses for close reading. For that reason, I bought a GH1, bigger than the D-Lux 3 but with an excellent EVF. The X1 is nice, but I would like a viewfinder in the body, not as an accessory protuding from the top of the camera, that I will need to use all the time. I will like interchangeable lens too, but as I use the 28s in my cameras most the time, I can live with only one lens. So if the new Leica camera is an X2 with integrated viewfinder, I will surely buy one.

[jsrockit]

The X1 is nice, but I would like a viewfinder in the body, not as an accessory protuding from the top of the camera, that I will need to use all the time.

 

I don't see it this way at all... the viewfinders that come in cameras of this side are small and cramped compared to the external type. The X1 isn't a pocket camera anyway, so this adds minimal weight and size to the X1. The OVF is really good, bright, and allows you to see outside the framelines. An internal one... if the CM or Minilux is any indication, would be a compromise.

[Guest badbob]

Quite the contrary Badbob,

 

Actually you didn't say anything contrary. I was referring to people who were agonizing over the decision of X1 -vs- m4/3 - the many features and performance of the m4/3 compared to the image quality of the X1.

 

I don't see any such agony in your reply.

[RichardM8]

Thanks for replies so far, especially comments on IQ. Yes, IQ at high ISO (400 and over) is excellent. Really useful. Is there such a difference at lower ISO? I see Steve Huff rated the GF1 highly, and he also likes the X1, but it's very hard to tell at screen resolution which is why I appreciate the feedback.

 

David, if you download the daylight images shot a base ISO from the site from Steve, it's really easy to see the superior IQ from the X1 in the full size images.

 

Richard.

[phancj]

Anyone who is doubtful about purchasing an X1 is very unlikely to be happy with such a camera when they can buy a Sony or Panasonic with interchangeable lenses instead.

 

Yes Bob, what I am in effect saying is that I believe anyone who is doubtful about the X1 but somehow buys it or gets to use it WILL BE totally happy given the IQ/interface compared to the sony or panasonic. But that of course is my own personal opinion and experience.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

David, if you download the daylight images shot a base ISO from the site from Steve, it's really easy to see the superior IQ from the X1 in the full size images.

 

Richard.

 

Thanks for the tip, I'll try it. Internet speed is a drawback, though!

[Ecaton]

I don't see it this way at all... the viewfinders that come in cameras of this side are small and cramped compared to the external type. The X1 isn't a pocket camera anyway, so this adds minimal weight and size to the X1. The OVF is really good, bright, and allows you to see outside the framelines. An internal one... if the CM or Minilux is any indication, would be a compromise.

 

Instead of a build in flash a good size pop up VF, with basic focus confirmation, could easily have been installed. A x.1 with better af, improved mf functionality, and a pop up VF with af confirm. would be hot.