The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

LEICA X2 OR OMD?

Moonshine

New member
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?

Thanks
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
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?
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.

The X2 is all about simplicity. The E-M5 is all about being a DSLR replacement, a system camera. Trying to analyze which is "better" is like asking "which do I like better, apples or oranges?" Only you can answer that.
 

250swb

Member
The E-M5 will always be able to make better use of a telephoto lens than the X2, and it can also beat it with wide angle lenses, and if you want to take it out on a wet day it will probably take much better photographs than an X2 that has been left at home. But I don't have an X2 to directly compare it with. But I do have an M9, and the files from the E-M5 can happily live alongside the best from an M9, not identical, but nothing to feel let down by.:D

Steve
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The one you will use more will have better image quality. I expect the OMD will have better noise at high ISOs. There is the 3:2 and 4:3 format difference. Interchangeable or not changeable lenses. These are really not the same camera to make direct comparisons. BTW, the OMD has two f/0.95 manual focus lenses that can be used on it.
 

Terry

New member
I actually don't think the OMD will have better noise at high ISO. If Leica is using the Sony 16mp sensor, it is a very good sensor indeed.

For the OMD you don't get a great 35mm (FOV) lens and the X2 is fixed there. So decide what your favorite focal length is and then figure out the lens you will be using.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI There
I haven't actually done a comparison of the noise, but I've been using both cameras quite a lot.
Godfrey has it really - they're for different purposes. If you're wedded to 35mm equivalent, then I'd say that the X2 has better IQ than the OMD with the 17mm - but if you aren't, then of course there is a huge amount more flexibility with the OMD.

Still, your question was about IQ. Given a good lens on the OMD I really don't think there's much in it - very close - the X2 is probably better at high ISO, but it's marginal, on the other hand I'd say that the OMD with the 25 f1.4 PL lens just about pips the X2.

The AF is perfectly good on both cameras (tracking focus isn't good on either of them). Both cameras take pictures when you press the button, and both will normally be properly exposed and in focus.

Basically, I'd say that IQ was close enough (given a good lens on the OMD) that you should be looking at other features to be making your decision.

all the best
 

Moonshine

New member
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 ...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
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?"​
 

Terry

New member
There is also the Sigma 19mm which is very good. It does AF on m4/3 bodies.

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?"​
 

Amin

Active member
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 ...
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.
 

Moonshine

New member
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.
how does this lens compare to the sigma that Terry just suggested?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Actually must back most of what has been said here.

Using the OMD now for almost a month and being VERY critical about usability and resulting IQ I must say the OMD is such a big step ahead of the former m43 cameras - both from Olympus and Panasonic - that it really opens a complete new playing (working) field for me.

It is (at least for me and I am very critical here) a real replacement of a DSLR with mirror, so it is much smaller, lighter and easily fast compared to many DSLRs available today. AF is superb and IQ is just great, even up to ISO 10000 which I used accidentally once, but the results are just stunning.

Especially if you combine with great lenses (the most capable IMHO the Olympus 12 and 45 and Leica 1.4/25) I am pretty sure you will not see any differences to the X2, but instead have a much higher flexibility plus you can get all of this for the price of the X2 alone (almost). And if you desire so, you can expand the system very well especially into the Tele range.

So for me the decision would be pretty clear, except I want a really minimalistic Leica approach - only then the X2 would appeal for me.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
There is also the Sigma 19mm which is very good. It does AF on m4/3 bodies.
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
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
As 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
+1

I'm with you. I have plenty of system cameras, too many really, and most of what I shoot nowadays is either the GXR-M or the M9 with one lens. There are times when I feel a simple camera with a single good lens, light and compact, is all I really want to work with. The X2 is right in line for that: the X1 was actually what I had been thinking of when the Fuji X100 came up, I didn't like it, and I went to the GXR instead.

Much as I like the GXR (I still do, it's a delightful camera that makes great photos) and am in love with the M9 (it's brilliant), that notion of a simple to use, one lens camera remains in my thoughts. The X2 fits the fantasy perfectly.

Maybe if I get off my duff and sell off some of the accreted excess stuff I will buy one before the end of the year.

G
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I recommend to play with both in a store.
I only have the x1 (not x2) and have used several m4/3 and Nex etc.
The x1 holds up very well in regards of IQ. I really havw allways liked the rendering of the lens (nice contrast) and the color output.
The user interface of the x1 is very simple and intuitive. And the camera is quite light and small.
If you are sure to only use 35mm fov anyways...hard to tell.
Do you want a built in EVF? OMD
Or do you prefer a small camera where you can use it with or without viewfinder? x2
Or do you like to put an OVF on it? x2
I am pretty confident that the x2 could have the edge in IQ, nice lens, bigger sensor, and I like the way Leica tweaks the color and contrast.
Those cameras all deliever such good IQ today, I start to believe user interface is more important than small IQ differences.
 

DwF

New member
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
 

Terry

New member
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
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.
 

jonoslack

Active member
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
Hello 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
 

DwF

New member
Hello 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
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 up :)

If I like this new M, the M8 will have to go because the X1 will compliment the M9 better for me than a second M body. I've really enjoyed my M8 so only time will tell, but full frame is important to me.

Very nice M9M stuff you are doing BTW!
 
Top