X2 v M9 Images Compared?

[dave.gt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today, I received some image comparisons between an X1 (which I use) and an M9 (which I would dearly love to own). For the life of me, I have had little success in distinguishing between the two.

 

Now, the M9 appeals to me in so many ways, specifically using fast lenses on an M body. Nice complement for my M3.

 

I tried the 35mm Cron earlier this year on the M3 and since then have been working with the X1. Images seem quite comparable with the sharpness of the X1 and the higher ISO performance dominating.

 

Now, I am wondering if anyone has done images back to back with the X2 and the M9.

 

Seems to me the Leica X cameras are quite the ticket for those times when a mini-M9 are preferable due to size and low light.

 

Could someone post a comparison between the results from the X2 and the M9, (similalrly setup, of course)?

[dave.gt]

Okay, if no one has images, care to comment on the IQ vesus the M9 with a 35mm Cron?

[wda]

Dave, sensor size is more likely to distinguish performance, but only very slightly. The Elmarit on the X1 performs equally well with Elmarit lenses on M9. The big difference is that the M9 is a system camera, allowing you to use a variety of excellent lenses in focal lengths alternate to the 35mm fixed in the X1 and the option of faster versions. Faster lenses extend the ease of shooting in low light and give more control over depth of focus. (I quote X1 because that is the model on which I base my judgement.)

[nryn]

What David said.

 

Dave, I have both an M9 and an X2 and I think the answer is in your question--these are two cameras that, for me anyway, complementary. It hadn't occurred to me to compare the images from these two cameras because the situations in which I'd use them are very different. I am loving the X2 but it is in no way a replacement for my M9. It largely means that for the situations in which I leave my M9 at home (which largely have to do with size and weight), I'll still have a great camera I can take with me.

 

FWIW, I do think the X2 takes decent enough low-light photos (I don't know what it is with the masses' need to be able to photograph in a black hole these days). At 3200ISO I get an image I can print at fairly large sizes and still be happy with. But I wouldn't take along the X2 just to have a low light camera. I have the 35mm Summilux and both operationally and image-wise, I prefer the M9 in those situations largely due to the rangefinder.

[dave.gt]

Thanks, David and etherfarm. I am no stranger to Leicas from the M3 to the M9. The X1 has been in my hands about 4 months now and I am quite happy with the results as I continue to learn the best application for it. I am well aware of the M-body system and the attached costs.

 

The M9 is not even possible financially. Then there is the problem with needing faster lenses. A $10,000 expenditure on a camera body (used) and a couple of lenses is just not going to happen ever. SS checks come once a month and cover only the rent and groceries.

 

So, I thought about considering even an M8 with a 35 Cron...tried the 35 Cron on my M3 and the results were short of what I am able to obtain with the X1...

 

The X1 (and hopefully an X2 in a year or so) has surprised me with jpeg comparisons with the M9. It is a happy discovery as I make do with the M3, the X1 and my Leica R4. Life is not so bad after all.

[dave.gt]

Now, I must say, the images here indicate some very talented photographers out there are doing quite well with the underappreciated X1 (at least in some circles) and I am happy to follow their lead:

 

Flickriver: Most interesting photos from Leica X1 pool

[nryn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW, I certainly don't write off the X1. With a good eye behind the camera, the images produced by the X1 speak for themselves. I understand why people with X1s don't feel compelled to upgrade--they are clearly doing some great work already.

 

I also understand why people, myself included, waited for the X2....

[edinsiam]

I am currently considering an X1/2 as a light-weight replacement for my M8, which I 99% of the time use with one lens: the 28mm Cron Asph. What holds me back, however, is that the Leica X photos I see around the net seem to look much more contrasty and digital.

 

It seems that every Leica lens has its own personality, and it also seems that my 28mm asph is among the most prized for its softness and classic looks - which makes it ever harder for me to find a worthy contendant.

 

So what I would like to ask to X and M user is this: what digital M + M lens combo do you think X photos can be compared to (if they can be compared to any)? Of course, we are only talking about overall rendition, no aperture possibilities.

 

Thanks

 

ED

[dave.gt]

That is an interesting question. I have long used a single Summarit 1.5 lens on my M3 as I prefer softer images and even flare at times. Then, I added the R4 with a 50 Cron and found that the Cron was a beautiful complement to the Summarit.

 

In fact, I have used these two cameras/lenses for the last couple of years in my documentary work.

 

I never could get complementary images from my Nikon DSLRs. Side by side and even within the confines of a book, they looked out of place.

 

The X1 has been added because it compares favorably IMO to the 35 Cron. The only difficulty is getting used to a 35mm pov and the super sharp images! But I am getting there!

[wda]

I am currently considering an X1/2 as a light-weight replacement for my M8, ..

It seems that every Leica lens has its own personality, and it also seems that my 28mm asph is among the most prized for its softness and classic looks - ...

 

So what I would like to ask to X and M user is this: what digital M + M lens combo do you think X photos can be compared to (if they can be compared to any)?...

Thanks

 

ED

Ed, I think the 28mm Aspheric lens is the most apt lens to compare with the Elmarit on the X1/X2. But I am not sure I agree with your comment about it being prized for its 'softness'. If that lens is criticized it is for its modern 'clinical' look. Both Elmarits are superb lenses.

[nryn]

The 28 Elmarit ASPH is the one pegged with a "clinical" look. The 28 Cron, which I also have, definitely renders more smoothly and more "classically" (whatever that means).

 

I can see the comparison between the way the 28 Summicron-M and the way the X2 images, though I'm just getting to know the X2. Obviously the 28 on an M9 feels wider though. I have some older (1950s) M lenses, and I think that with the exception of color, the X2 reminds me a lot of a 35mm lens from that period.

[edinsiam]

Thanks for the replies.

 

David, I was talking about the 28mm Cron - which is a soft lens.

 

Etherfarm, wow, the X2 reminds you of older lenses? That is very soft, I guess? May i ask if you downloaded the latest X2 firmware?

 

Ed

[nryn]

Not in terms of softness and definitely not in terms of color. I guess I'm speaking more in terms of some of the more subtle rendering qualities, all of which by the way I find very pleasant. Some of the out of focus areas in particular. Hard to say exactly, and maybe I'm just remembering those images incorrectly or as I mentioned, I don't know the X2 that well yet.

 

In any case, the look of X2 files doesn't remind me of, say, the 75 Summicron APO or the 28mm Elmarit ASPH except in terms of sharpness (at least on the M9). The X2 images are (when I properly stabilize myself) razor sharp, but less clinical somehow.

[NZDavid]

I can compare X1 images with M9 and confirm the X1 takes superb pictures and the main differences are in handling and flexibility rather than image quality. Indeed, at high ISOs the X1 seems to beat the M9. If your main lens choice is 35 and you are happy with f2.8 and AF, the compact X2 will keep you happy. You can still enjoy your M3 for film.

[baci]

My sense was that the M9 was a more "immediate" shooting proposition in most cases. Preset focus, frame and hit the shutter release with little shutter lag. The X1 on the other hand is less likely to be used with preset focus and the lag while the auto focus does its thing can be the difference between perfect composition and "why is that man looking the wrong way". Even if the quality of the final image was comparable the ratio of usable to near-misses is higher with the M9. Perhaps? This just might be my incorrect preconception!

[JOM51]

With the X1 you can use manual focus using hyper focal distance (in aperture priority) and an external viewfinder, and you have an action ready camera without focus lag. It works I use my X1 like that when I need it.

[dave.gt]

With the X1 you can use manual focus using hyper focal distance (in aperture priority) and an external viewfinder, and you have an action ready camera without focus lag. It works I use my X1 like that when I need it.

 

Exactly...NO shutter lag. Just as fast as my M3.

[edinsiam]

Dave,

 

Would it be somehow possible to see those comparative photos of X1 and M9 you talk about?

 

Thanks a lot.

Ed