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!

Sean's Comparison of M, RX-1, XPRO-1 and DP2M is up

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Not sure what Sean wants to prove with such reviews and comparisons. He rather should stick to reviewing them one by one without comparing. I would never choose any of these cameras based on his opinion!

WRT the M, there is no other camera so perfectly suited for M lenses. And I would almost bet that the M with any 35 (2 or 1.4) of latest generation simply blows away the RX1 and others based on sheer IQ.

Having said that - if I wanted a fixed 35 camera, probably the RX1 would be the way to go and in its league it also is the best you can get today.

WRT Fuji - since they still have issues with their RAW conversions this is simply no longer an option for me. I need something which works from the beginning and do not intend to play beta tester for the next coming years for Fuji.
 

animefx

New member
The RX1 is an interesting camera with some good looking files but because it's not a rangefinder and should have fast autofocus for that kind of money. With the Nikon Coolpix A being announced (1.5 crop with 28mm f/2.8 equiv lens) these kinds of cameras should start showing up more over the next couple of years. I hope that Leica's next version of the X has a few different versions. It would be nice to have a faster 28 and 50mm equiv X3. f/2 would be realistic
 

retow

Member
LL quotes from 2009/10: "In the case of the M9 I have no doubt that the combination of the sensor and Leica M lenses is producing image quality that is easily equal to the best that I've ever seen for any camera with the exception of 39MP and 60MP medium format backs, which are also CCD based devices without AA filters." And further: "The World's Smallest, Lightest Full Frame Digital Camera".
Competition has caught up big time as far as IQ (sensor and lens combo) is concerned and the comparisons done by Sean make sense. Except for the RF experience and the "best platform for m-lenses" the above claims go to other makes in 2013 and future. To me the Leica price premium looks steeper than ever before considering all of that and difficult to rationalize.
 

jstaben

Member
Except for the RF experience and the "best platform for m-lenses" the above claims go to other makes in 2013 and future..
And that's the main reason to buy a Leica (if that's important to you). Not sure why it's so hard to figure out for a lot of folks. Get a NEX/FUJI/whatever if it's not important to you and save a bunch of cash. It's quite simple. It's been the same for decades. Don't buy a Leica body due to some kind of sensor magic. They used the same "sensor" (film) as other much cheaper cameras for years and years. The same quote you had could have been made about film cameras back in 1980. Time to move along and :deadhorse:
 

retow

Member
And that's the main reason to buy a Leica (if that's important to you). Not sure why it's so hard to figure out for a lot of folks. Get a NEX/FUJI/whatever if it's not important to you and save a bunch of cash. It's quite simple. It's been the same for decades. Don't buy a Leica body due to some kind of sensor magic. They used the same "sensor" (film) as other much cheaper cameras for years and years. The same quote you had could have been made about film cameras back in 1980. Time to move along and :deadhorse:
Exactly, in the film days, the "sensor playing field" was leveled. The M sensor does not look to play in the same league as today`s leading FF sensors do (without saying it`s not good). Film RF alternatives were available and the Leica price premium by no means as steep as it is today. I bought the M9 (and before the M8) among others because of IQ/size advantage and not only because of the RF experience (the latter alone I can enjoy with a film body).
 

jonoslack

Active member
As I said - pick your poison
Exactly, in the film days, the "sensor playing field" was leveled. The M sensor does not look to play in the same league as today`s leading FF sensors do (without saying it`s not good).
I think you have to define your terms of reference carefully here - if your yardstick is high ISO performance, then I agree, if it's edge performance with retro-focal lenses, then you're wrong, if it's colour out of the camera, then it's largely a matter of taste.

My contention (and what I personally construe from Sean's report) is that IQ isn't really a limiting factor for any of these cameras - which gives one the freedom to choose the one which suits your style best.
 
Comparison such as these will hopefully die out.

We've reached a watershed in sensor tech in small format. Don't forget with film every camera could have the same sensor, but people still bought Leicas, despite some very excellent alternatives (I have a Fuji Klasse W which is wonderful). In fact, you could put the same film and lens on a Nikon F75 as on a F5 (both outperform a D700 or D3) and people still chose their poison (as Jono says above).

Now I've got you reading this, it's pretty obvious that bodies are about functionality/ergonomics, lenses are about image quality (not sensors now they're no longer the weak link).

Finally we might start getting back to some kind normal review that touches on things that matter, if we're really lucky, marketing nonsense like DXOMark will die out.

My very opinionated post on this.
 

sven

New member
I am not sure why Sean compared these cameras. The sigma DP2M is the one I have tried. It's image quality is great at whatever mp it is supposed to be. That's the end of its positive attributes. Extremely slow start time, worst shot to shot time when shooting Raw (guess 8-10 sec). This is totally unusable in a lot of situations. Well of one is photographing mountains, then sure it may be a good option as mountains rarely move but Leica excels as a photo journalistic, documentary style camera. Even in a posed situation Sigma is worthless due it's slow speed and cumbersome interface. Before anyone asks, yes this is from personal experience.

Yes another opinionated post, as this seems to be a trend
 

jstaben

Member
Exactly, in the film days, the "sensor playing field" was leveled. The M sensor does not look to play in the same league as today`s leading FF sensors do (without saying it`s not good). Film RF alternatives were available and the Leica price premium by no means as steep as it is today. I bought the M9 (and before the M8) among others because of IQ/size advantage and not only because of the RF experience (the latter alone I can enjoy with a film body).
I agree with Jono this isn't true...except for maybe high ISO. I've got a D800E and my M9P is in the same league just not at high ISO. A lot of these new cams have ISO ratings that are a bit overrated too. RX1 at 12,800 should be called a push and 25,600 is not good at all. I could push the M images in post to that too and it would look bad too. Plus with the RX1 you are limited to f/2...get a lux on the M and the low light ability is equal. Anyway as many have said pick a cam that suits your style buying one based on the sensor is silly we are at a point where cameras are way beyond most people's skill level.

My MM goes to 10,000 and I find myself rarely needing that. Do you really want to shoot in the dark and have it look like daylight? Not sure what more people are hoping for...somehow ISO 400 film worked for decades. I wonder what people would have discussed back in the day if the Internet had been around.
 

ramosa

Member
Yeah, that's why Leica is still about essentially one thing to me: enjoying manual rangefinder photography. If one is into EVFs, AF, high ISO, etc., there are better options out there. That's why I'm not sure why Leica is trying to compete in some of these areas.
I couldn't agree more. I fear Leica is making a mistake by trying to make a camera that "does everything," but nothing exceptionally well :banghead:
 

retow

Member
I agree with Jono this isn't true...except for maybe high ISO. I've got a D800E and my M9P is in the same league just not at high ISO. A lot of these new cams have ISO ratings that are a bit overrated too. RX1 at 12,800 should be called a push and 25,600 is not good at all. I could push the M images in post to that too and it would look bad too. Plus with the RX1 you are limited to f/2...get a lux on the M and the low light ability is equal. Anyway as many have said pick a cam that suits your style buying one based on the sensor is silly ..............

.
My favorite cameras are the M9 and Sigma DP2M. So high(er) iso is not my thing, except sometimes to keep shutter speed up. However, exactly the Sigma one buys because of three reasons: the sensor, the sensor and the sensor (the lens is excellent too). Why else would one? How silly is that:lecture:
 
Top