D700 and X1

[ravinj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Borrowed a friend's D700 + Nikon 24-70 f2.8 for a week. Very impressive combo, built like a tank and weighs like one too. Lightning fast AF (much faster than most DSLRs and all of MFTs including GF1 and faster than the X1, of course) in both good light and bad. Full frame meant that 24mm = 24mm and that opened a whole new perspective for landscapes. Stunning low light performance and noise was very well controlled even on long exposures.

 

So where does that leave our little friend, the much maligned X1? Feature for feature, there is obviously no comparison. HOWEVER, using a common sense approach to compare, the X1 holds its own pretty well so far as output quality is concerned. Not bad for a minnow compared to a whale.

 

Two samples attached. Taken on different days and times, so this should not used for comparison (it is useless to compare on the web anyway). Rather use it as a rough approximation.

 

D700:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

X1:

 

D700 Crop:

 

X1 Crop:

[phancj]

Hey Ravinj,

 

I have been also shooting Nikon since film.

 

To the credit of the X1, I have not used any of my Nikkor zooms since I got it. These days, I use the Nikon for work (macro). For recreation, I use it VERY occasionally and mostly for specific purposes. For the Nikkor 24-70, sharpness is very good but bokeh and other qualities pale in comparison to the 70-200 f2.8.

 

These days I have to use all the latest Nikkor AFS1.4G to get the kick out of the images. I just got hold of the 85 and my 35 is on the way. And EACH of the lenses approach the price of the ENTIRE X1.

 

So I have to say the X1 is really competent and yes, inexpensive.

[h00ligan]

Interesting comparison, thank you.

 

I did another one today against the gf1.. and the benefits of mft for smaller aperture showed. It was consistently sharper, albeit a minor advantage.

 

I'm starting to wonder if maybe my x1 isn't performing up to par with others. The test I did today was tripod based, 1-2 second exposure at f8 and f11.. it seems that diffraction becomes a minor issue for the x1 beyond f8 - does that line up with other x1 users experiences?

 

I certainly am not trying to make any kind of a statement.. I just wonder if my x1 isn't the best of the bunch.. it seems to consistently lose in sharpness tests..but there are no obvious issues like decentering and the like.

 

Thanks again for the comparison!

[ECliffordSmith]

Hi Edward,

 

I do not have a GF1 or any MFT camera to do any comparisons but as a long time M8 user that has recently bought an X1 I can stunned by the amount the detail the X1 can capture.

 

How are you processing the files? The standard settings after a DNG import in lightroom left me feeling a little cold when I first processed them. A bit of sharpening though and the details really appear.

 

Perhaps you could post some examples of where you feel the image is not sharp and we can confirm whether we would expect similar or better results with our cameras?

[h00ligan]

Hi Ed,

 

Here's an f8 grab from lightroom comparing the two - off center sharpness at 100% - awb and autotone in lightroom, with the defaults applied (including default sharpening of the same level).

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1106/5157020055_c6a796da8c_o.png

 

I realize it's not as good as me making crops, but the difference is so obvious I feel that would be overkill. I can however do so tomorrow if desired. It's not that I think they are bad, it's just that I feel the camera costing 1/3 wins on sharpness. The x1 has more dynamic range by a bit... and again better iso performance clearly. Both shots were iso 100

 

Thanks for your help!

 

Oh btw, I understand the aperture differences between systems - but this was sharper than the f11 shot.

[ECliffordSmith]

Hi Edward,

 

Well, that is quite a difference. Personally I would expect to be able to get at least as much detail from the X1 in that situation as you did with the Panasonic system. The image lacks punch too.

 

I would be interested to see what other X1 users think but if you consistently get this it could be worth emailing a crop to Leica and asking if they think the results are as they expect.

 

Do you feel the output in the crops in the first post in this thread could be realised with your camera?

[phancj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting comparison, thank you.

 

I did another one today against the gf1.. and the benefits of mft for smaller aperture showed. It was consistently sharper, albeit a minor advantage.

 

I'm starting to wonder if maybe my x1 isn't performing up to par with others. The test I did today was tripod based, 1-2 second exposure at f8 and f11.. it seems that diffraction becomes a minor issue for the x1 beyond f8 - does that line up with other x1 users experiences?

 

I certainly am not trying to make any kind of a statement.. I just wonder if my x1 isn't the best of the bunch.. it seems to consistently lose in sharpness tests..but there are no obvious issues like decentering and the like.

 

Thanks again for the comparison!

 

Edward,

 

There got to be something wrong with your X1, cos the X1 is plenty sharp. In fact, I set sharpness to medium low instead of the default.

 

Apart from the expensive nikkors f1.4s stepped down, the X1 is as sharp if not sharper than many of nikon's primes.

 

Sharpness is dependent on sensor size as well, not to mention finer details, and more importantly high iso performance.

 

No offense, but I think the mfts are not in the same league as the APS-Cs, all things being equal. In the case of the X1, its lens has been proven good. And to me its image processing engine seems sound too, with accurate colors, AWB and smooth tones. In fact, I did shots with the M9 and personally feel the AWB in it is way off compared to the tiny X1, apart from high iso performance. That counts for something?

[RichardM8]

Edward,

 

I'm with CJ on this one. There must be something wrong. No way a GF1 (or indeed any MFT) has the edge on sharpness compared to the X1. The X1 has many flaws and shortcomings, but this is not one of them...

[ravinj]

I did another one today against the gf1.. and the benefits of mft for smaller aperture showed. It was consistently sharper, albeit a minor advantage.

 

I just wonder if my x1 isn't the best of the bunch.. it seems to consistently lose in sharpness tests..but there are no obvious issues like decentering and the like.

 

 

Hi Edward,

 

Which lens did you use for MFT? Based on technical analysis, the Panasonic 20mm lens is indeed sharper than X1's lens when both are close to wide open. However, in my own experience I did not see any drastic differences in output sharpness from GF1/20mm and X1. I would however say that I found the overall rendering, shadow noise and details better with the X1.

 

Try shooting the same scene at F5.0 for both lenses and see if it makes a difference. Place the objects you want to compare sharpness in the center of the frame.

 

I my own tests, I found the X1 to be more than capable of matching the output of D700 which is quite an achievement.

 

At approx F2.0 - F2.8, the Panasonic 20mm seems sharper:

 

Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Lens Review: 3. Test results: Digital Photography Review

 

Leica's sharpness peaks at F5.0-5.6 range:

 

Leica X1 Review: 15. Photographic tests (Lens): Digital Photography Review

[h00ligan]

Center sharpness is very close. I was testing off center sharpness for landscapes.

 

I'll play around more today..I agree the color and white balance is better on the x1, but for a couple weeks vie been observing the panny 20 on mft is sharper than the x1

 

I've also compared with my 7d and 15-85. Which beats them both. The sigma 30 on the 7d is not sharp comparatively, but I didn't buy it for landscape sharpness.

[ChiILX1]

Leica X1 Review: 15. Photographic tests (Lens): Digital Photography Review

 

"The Elmarit 24mm F2.8 ASPH performs very competently in our studio tests. Sharpness is excellent in the center of the frame even wide open, distortion and lateral CA are both well-corrected, and falloff is low. It's a distinctly better performer than the Olympus M Zuiko Digital 17mm F2.8 sold with the E-P1 and E-P2, much sharper across the board and with a lot less lateral chromatic aberration when stopped down. Compared to the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH, though, it doesn't do quite so well, and is measurably softer at larger apertures (however purists may well prefer that, unlike Panasonic and Olympus, Leica doesn't use software distortion correction as an integral part of the system design)."

[ravinj]

"The Elmarit 24mm F2.8 ASPH performs very competently in our studio tests. Sharpness is excellent in the center of the frame even wide open, distortion and lateral CA are both well-corrected, and falloff is low. It's a distinctly better performer than the Olympus M Zuiko Digital 17mm F2.8 sold with the E-P1 and E-P2, much sharper across the board and with a lot less lateral chromatic aberration when stopped down. Compared to the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH, though, it doesn't do quite so well, and is measurably softer at larger apertures (however purists may well prefer that, unlike Panasonic and Olympus, Leica doesn't use software distortion correction as an integral part of the system design)."

 

Compared to the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH, though, it doesn't do quite so well, and is measurably softer at larger apertures

 

I guess this only substantiates Edward's tests and my observation as well regarding the Panny 20mm: it is sharper than the Leica X1. Center sharpness of the 20mm is quite amazing. Oly 17mm/F2.8 is not known for sharpness anyway. My observation is based on actual tests and not just reading on dpreview or other sites. While I did not see any drastic differences in sharpness between 20mm and the X1 lens, the difference is indeed there. Whether or not Panasonic uses software to correct for distortion is immaterial as the final result is what matters. If someone is really a purist, they shouldn't be using digital anyway.

 

Lens sharpness is only one part of the story however. I had the GF1 with the 20mm but sold it as the overall look of the images was not as compelling as the X1. In more capable hands than mine, I am sure the GF1/20mm combo could easily match the X1 in daylight.

[phancj]

Compared to the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH, though, it doesn't do quite so well, and is measurably softer at larger apertures

 

I guess this only substantiates Edward's tests and my observation as well regarding the Panny 20mm: it is sharper than the Leica X1. Center sharpness of the 20mm is quite amazing. Oly 17mm/F2.8 is not known for sharpness anyway. My observation is based on actual tests and not just reading on dpreview or other sites. While I did not see any drastic differences in sharpness between 20mm and the X1 lens, the difference is indeed there. Whether or not Panasonic uses software to correct for distortion is immaterial as the final result is what matters. If someone is really a purist, they shouldn't be using digital anyway.

 

Lens sharpness is only one part of the story however. I had the GF1 with the 20mm but sold it as the overall look of the images was not as compelling as the X1. In more capable hands than mine, I am sure the GF1/20mm combo could easily match the X1 in good light.

 

Yes Ravinj, in good light.

 

With combinational/low lighting the mft will start to demonstrate its weakness, as will high iso.

 

What I am trying to say is I take APS-C over mft anytime.

[ravinj]

Yes Ravinj, in good light.

 

With combinational/low lighting the mft will start to demonstrate its weakness, as will high iso.

 

What I am trying to say is I take APS-C over mft anytime.

 

Correct. This was one of the reasons I sold my MFT gear, fortunately with any monetary loss. I guess sensor size matters.

 

I will however say that I got some very good shots with the E-PL1 and the Pana 20mm using E-PL1's built-in flash that has the ability to bounce. This is one area where X1 is very weak - its flash is pathetic and high ISO capability cannot really compensate for this.

 

This picture taken with E-PL1/Pana 20mm + built-in flash was simply not possible with the X1. Straight JPG from camera. Lens was wide open at F1.7, focus was on the eyes. I tilted the flash back so it was bouncing off of the ceiling. Pretty amazing result for a $600 combo.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[h00ligan]

Yes Ravinj, in good light.

 

With combinational/low lighting the mft will start to demonstrate its weakness, as will high iso.

 

What I am trying to say is I take APS-C over mft anytime.

 

The thing is..in most cases the difference iss off set by the faster lens. Dof is virtually the same based on sensor and aperture combination...the gf1 close focuses, focuses faster, writes faster, replays faster, has a much better screen, and certainly seems more durable. Anad again, it's 1/3 the price.

 

My point is this, it's so close, I'm having a hard time justifying the x1.

[phancj]

The thing is..in most cases the difference iss off set by the faster lens. Dof is virtually the same based on sensor and aperture combination...the gf1 close focuses, focuses faster, writes faster, replays faster, has a much better screen, and certainly seems more durable. Anad again, it's 1/3 the price.

 

My point is this, it's so close, I'm having a hard time justifying the x1.

 

I see your point totally. As in most things something like IQ you pay a huge premium for a miniscule benefit.

 

But then I am a sucker for IQ thats why I invest in the X1 (as a compact) and for my DSLR I now get only the fastest and best 1.4G Nikkors. I agree also that in good light these lenses do not perform a lot better than less expensive lenses but in certain conditions (particularly low light) they really shine. The x1 vs mft is something like that.

 

I am now seriously looking at the nokia N8 as well for a camera phone. To me its somewhat like the X1, cranky like anything, slower compared to the competition, LCD not as good as others, UI is sluggish and crap, but takes great photos and have reception like no others. The iPhone and some androids or the HTCs are glitzy, responsive, great screen, killer apps, but drop calls, and lousy camera by comparison. I choose tolive with slow and shitty UI, but dig great IQ and video. Plus direct HDMI output and USB I/O as per computer.

 

To me the primary function for a phone is to make calls, in my case add great camera.

 

For a camera the ONLY thing I really look seriously at is IQ.

 

Maybe its just me?!

[phancj]

Correct. This was one of the reasons I sold my MFT gear, fortunately with any monetary loss. I guess sensor size matters.

 

I will however say that I got some very good shots with the E-PL1 and the Pana 20mm using E-PL1's built-in flash that has the ability to bounce. This is one area where X1 is very weak - its flash is pathetic and high ISO capability cannot really compensate for this.

 

This picture taken with E-PL1/Pana 20mm + built-in flash was simply not possible with the X1. Straight JPG from camera. Lens was wide open at F1.7, focus was on the eyes. I tilted the flash back so it was bouncing off of the ceiling. Pretty amazing result for a $600 combo.

 

[ATTACH]230091[/ATTACH]

 

Haha Ravinj you got me there! I have NEVER used the flash to take photos, tried it when I first bought it but left it. Same for my nikons, come to think of it I never use flash save for shooting my friends' weddings...

[ravinj]

The thing is..in most cases the difference iss off set by the faster lens. Dof is virtually the same based on sensor and aperture combination...the gf1 close focuses, focuses faster, writes faster, replays faster, has a much better screen, and certainly seems more durable. Anad again, it's 1/3 the price.

 

My point is this, it's so close, I'm having a hard time justifying the x1.

 

Having handled the GF1, I can see where you are coming from. All of your points about GF1 are valid and you don't have to justify anything. As CJ mentioned, there is a big premium for small improvements after a certain point. The relationship between price and quality is not linear. For some, it is worth it, for others it is not. Only you can decide if the difference between GF1 and X1 is worth it, especially given that the former excels in many areas.

[nippa]

I've always found that the resolving power of my Lumix GF-1 and 20mm pancake easily matches the Leica perthaps helped by the megapixel count.

It is the contrast, colour , clarity and narrower depth of field of the Leica that makes the difference for me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jsrockit]

You guys are nit-picking... they are all good cameras. Why do you feel the need to endlessly have the X1 come out on top in camera tests? I know it's a flawed camera, but I like it and don't need to justify using it to anyone. Are you guys into camera battles or photography?