Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Totally different kinds of cameras. Asking which has the better image quality isn't useful as the look produced by the Olympus will depend to a great extent on what lens you fit to it. My guess is that it would take a master pixel peeper to discuss the technical image quality differences if you could find a lens with the same qualities, in an equivalent focal length, for the Olympus to compare to the Leica X2's 24mm.Which do you think has better image quality? I have read that the OMD has faster auto focus but which one is the better in IQ?
There are three native-mount lenses that are close to a 35mm equivalent for Micro-FourThirds format:thanks everyone for your inputs
i understand they are very different cameras and i would probably just use a fixed 35mm equivalent lens on the OMD..the one Mr Huff recommends..
Just trying to figure out the IQ on both...the pics i have seen from the OMD don't seem to have that 3d pop which maybe the X2 has. Again i'm not sure as i have not used either but ...
There are three native-mount lenses that are close to a 35mm equivalent for Micro-FourThirds format:
- Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8
- Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7
- Voigtländer Nokton 17mm f/0.95
I didn't see any specific one that Steve Huff recommended. The Panasonic and Olympus choices are full featured, native AF capable lenses. The Panasonic has a better reputation than the Olympus, although both are good quality.
The Voigtländer 17mm is a new offering, an 'ultra' speed lens, much larger, heavier and more expensive than the other two. It is manual focus only and manually operated aperture, kind of like a built for the mount lens adapted from other cameras. Likely very fine quality, both build and imaging, but since I haven't even seen a sample photo yet, never mind an example of the lens, anything is speculative.
There's one thing for sure, though: an E-M5 fitted with any of these lenses is going to be a very different camera to use than the X2.
As I wrote on another forum, in another similar "which is better" thread:
It is a truth that queries like this don't really go anywhere. Most of today's cameras, and these two in particular, are at a quality level that for most purposes makes the comparison of resolution, dynamic range, etc irrelevant to the final quality of the image. ... The cameras work differently, and produce different results as a part of that. Technical measurements, delightful exercises that they might be, do not answer the question of which camera fulfills your needs as the base-line qualities for both of these cameras are so good that the technical measurements address primarily the issues at the far edges of the envelope.
What makes a particular camera at this level more suitable for a particular endeavor has to do with the camera's dynamics in use and how I want to use the camera. That is a much larger, more complex topic than "what measure do these cameras fulfill?"
The 35mm equivalent lens Steve Huff liked was the CV 17/0.95. As Godfrey suggested, an OM-D with the manual focus, large and heavy CV 17/0.95 is going to be a very different animal than an X2 with its integrated 24mm f/2.8 lens. I suspect you'd get more of the "3d pop" with the OM-D and CV lens since what most people mean by 3d pop is a combination of sharpness (both lenses should be sharp), microcontrast, sensor (both have an AA filter) and shallow DOF (CV lens entrance pupil is greater than 2X larger than that of the Leica lens). However, you lose autofocus and gain quite a bit of size/weight with the OM-D combo.thanks everyone for your inputs
i understand they are very different cameras and i would probably just use a fixed 35mm equivalent lens on the OMD..the one Mr Huff recommends..
Just trying to figure out the IQ on both...the pics i have seen from the OMD don't seem to have that 3d pop which maybe the X2 has. Again i'm not sure as i have not used either but ...
how does this lens compare to the sigma that Terry just suggested?The 35mm equivalent lens Steve Huff liked was the CV 17/0.95. As Godfrey suggested, an OM-D with the manual focus, large and heavy CV 17/0.95 is going to be a very different animal than an X2 with its integrated 24mm f/2.8 lens. I suspect you'd get more of the "3d pop" with the OM-D and CV lens since what most people mean by 3d pop is a combination of sharpness (both lenses should be sharp), microcontrast, sensor (both have an AA filter) and shallow DOF (CV lens entrance pupil is greater than 2X larger than that of the Leica lens). However, you lose autofocus and gain quite a bit of size/weight with the OM-D combo.
That must be relatively recent, or my in-built disgust with Sigma products quality control blinds me to their existence. ];-)There is also the Sigma 19mm which is very good. It does AF on m4/3 bodies.
+1As has been said previously, two different systems.
I am looking for a simple camera. Not a system camera. X2, I am looking at seriously.
In the meantime I have been looking at some images from the X1. X2, very possible..for me.
But the again, it is the photog. No?
Flickriver: Most interesting photos from Leica X1 pool
Sigma came out with two lenses for both m4/3 and NEX. They are 19mm and 30mm and mirror the lenses for the DP1 and DP2 camera. They both turned out to be very good performers (30mm I think the better of two) and they are both extremely attractively priced at $199. They are especially welcome lenses for NEX owners. So far, no reports of QC problems and I haven't heard of anyone shipping the lens back.That must be relatively recent, or my in-built disgust with Sigma products quality control blinds me to their existence. ];-)
Seriously, I dimly recall that Sigma was offering some stuff for mFT now, but I've never even looked at the announcements. If it's good quality, that's a plus.
G
Hello and welcome.Following this, and it may be my first post here so Hey!
I didn't see much mention of the EVF but as an M and X1 user, playing around with the OM-D, I found the finder distracting in that it takes a few milliseconds to come on. I am not big on EVFs to begin with but with my X1, I enjoy a brightline finder when I want to use it because it is on before my eyes are in place.
David
Thanks Jono. I use the LCD most of the time too. I have an M9 coming so for me the X1 be around for a while before I step upHello and welcome.
I do agree . . . and the button on the X2 is not perfect - on the OMD I find the eye start mostly to have got there before me.
Of course, you can always use the X2 with a brightline finder . . . I always wanted the EVF, but truth to tell I use the LCD most of the time!
The X2 does have some pretty radical improvements over the X1 - in fact, it really seems to solve all the problems