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

barjohn

New member
Sean's is a paid review site. He just published his comparison of these cameras using LR 4.4 and C1. The resolution winner at low ISO was the DP2M followed by M followe by RX-1. The M and RX-1 were very close. The high ISO winner was the RX-1 easily besting the others to produce cleaner files that retained color and DR over the others. The Fuji did not compete well when using LR 4.4 but did better with C1.
 

barjohn

New member
My conclusion can be summed up as:

A couple of things are evident to me from this testing. Unless you require RF Manual focusing and interchangeable lenses, you can do better on the low end with three DPxMs and better on the high ISO end with the RX1 all for far less money. In fact you could have all four cameras for less than the M. The EVF won't compete with the EVF on the RX1 or the EM5 and the long shutter blcak out and shaky magnified image for focusing makes it less than a pleasure as anyone that has tried the older generation EVFs can attest. The M does not appear to offer the leap in IQ that the M9 did at its introduction; however, it is getting harder and harder to separate cameras by IQ as performance improves on the lowest models.
 

jstaben

Member
I thought the M held up pretty good with the RX1, but also has rangefinder focusing and can use any number of M lenses at all ISO ranges. The RX1 is limited to 35mm. The Sigmas are only good at very low ISO. How is RAW support for Sigma's cams? I'd buy the M in a heartbeat over all those others. You are basically saying you can put all these cameras together and by themselves they each have one advantage over the M. The M, however, has many advantages over each of those individual cameras and also even when you put them all together.

Horses for courses though...the Sigmas produce a nice image but I sure wouldn't want to live with one. Kind of like having a high maintenance mistress. Nice to look at...but would I want to live with one day in and day out?
 

barjohn

New member
Yes, but the Fuji held up pretty well against the M once he used C1 7.1 instead of LR 4.4 and it has interchangeable lenses and AF that the M doesn't have.

I guess it boils down to whether you prefer a camera that is pretty good at many things but master of none to a camera that is master of one but only so-so at everything.

Doesn't mean you get rid of the mistress does it? :)
 

lambert

New member
Sean's is a paid review site. He just published his comparison of these cameras using LR 4.4 and C1. The resolution winner at low ISO was the DP2M followed by M followe by RX-1. The M and RX-1 were very close. The high ISO winner was the RX-1 easily besting the others to produce cleaner files that retained color and DR over the others. The Fuji did not compete well when using LR 4.4 but did better with C1.
Was the M9 included in the comparison?
 

douglasf13

New member
Image quality has been good enough for me for a few years. At this point, buying a camera is about picking the one I enjoy using the most, which is still an all manual Leica M. That's why I don't plan on even moving up from my M9 to the M240, at least not for IQ's sake.

p.s. I have gone all in with a Lightroom workflow, so Lightroom compatibility is important to me. No camera is worth changing my entire workflow, at least at this point.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Now that I have an M and RX-1, for street and other 35mm use I vote for the RX-1 with ease of use, its terrific files, better EVF especially the auto detect and built-in macro .02 to 0.35 meters. Sure it has a fixed 35, but that 35 is a Zeiss/2.0 AND IT IS AUTO FOCUS. (Never had the Zeiss glass on my Hasselblad's left me for wanting) Love the spot AF. The first thing any M user says when I put the RX-1 in their hands is-It feels just like an M. That is no coincidence. Just leave it on Auto and shoot. I set the ISO to 6400 and go at night. Heck on the M after 3200 ISO, it says 4000push, 5000push and 6400push. OK, Jono says it is just fine in the push categories if you respect certain limitations, but frankly, 3200ISO is probably my limit. For high ISO again its the RX-1 and the 5D3.
 

douglasf13

New member
Now that I have an M and RX-1, for street and other 35mm use I vote for the RX-1 with ease of use, its terrific files, better EVF especially the auto detect and built-in macro .02 to 0.35 meters. Sure it has a fixed 35, but that 35 is a Zeiss/2.0 AND IT IS AUTO FOCUS. (Never had the Zeiss glass on my Hasselblad's left me for wanting) Love the spot AF. The first thing any M user says when I put the RX-1 in their hands is-It feels just like an M. That is no coincidence. Just leave it on Auto and shoot. I set the ISO to 6400 and go at night. Heck on the M after 3200 ISO, it says 4000push, 5000push and 6400push. OK, Jono says it is just fine in the push categories if you respect certain limitations, but frankly, 3200ISO is probably my limit. For high ISO again its the RX-1 and the 5D3.
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.
 

barjohn

New member
Agreed, for MF and zone focusing the Leica is still the best alternative but if you want or need AF then the RX-1 is hard to beat as an all around camera with a fixed FL.
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Maybe it's just me, but there's something about RX-1 images that seem rather ho-hum. They just don't wow me. I'm not sold on the new M's files yet either. But, for all of the accolades the RX-1 has gotten, it's still not grabbing me. How's that for an unscientific, unquantifiable opinion? ;)
 

barjohn

New member
Do you own one or have one to shoot with and make that judgement or just from looking at Internet images? Many on the Sony section of this web site are very very good. I don't have the M and can only judge by the images I have seen on the web and I don't see anything that great either. The one camera whose images are stunning at base ISO is the DP2M. Nothing else matches its micro contrast. I just wish the workflow wasn't so bad and the AF was better. I could even live with the high ISO limit of 800 as I would just rely on flash for when I needed more light.
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
That's why I said unscientific ... after all that's what anyone's opinions are worth on an internet forum. Internet opinions and internet images probably should have about the same amount of weight.

I did, however, spend a few hours with a friend's RX-1. Great functionality, but like I mentioned, the files just didn't do it for me. I also happened to not like the files from the X100 I had but do like the files from my OMD.

Not that it probably matters at all as, if possible, one should always try what you want to use before purchasing.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Having shot the M9, MM, and RX1, I must say that I really am enjoying the RX1 for what it is, and find IQ to be fantastic, capable of that elusive POP throughout its ISO range (well, at least through 6400), with malleable files. I find that the files are very robust, with great DR, but the bokeh is relatively tame for a sonnar design (close focus brings out more character)...

I think it's a fanastic companion alongsie the MM, which is how I am using it now...As said, the Zeiss lens is fantastic, and it will hold its ground with the M sensor, bettering it in some areas and maybe losing out in a few others...
 

W.Utsch

Member
Was waiting for the M. Have lenses and a M8.
But now, since you could see files in the forums etc i am quite disappointed.
Like KurtKamka misses something in RX1 i do miss the special quality in the M's files.
They are good, but nothing sets them apart of the rest (RX1, Canon, Nikon even NEX7) and the DP2M is better at low ISO.
Getting a M is certainly more than having exceptional IQ but without that its a hard decision.
 

algrove

Well-known member
I think as we all get better with manipulating images, the difference between A and B will diminish to a point where on the web we will not be able to tell what is what. Even today if EXIF were not available, we might be singing a different tune on certain files versus "our" own go-to first camera.

Frankly, that is why I print because to me that is where the proof of the pudding stands out.

Also, onto gear talk, not one non-photographer has ever asked me what camera lenses, etc were used in a certain shot while viewing a print. They do ask where it was taken and that's about it. They either like the print or not.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I think as we all get better with manipulating
Also, onto gear talk, not one non-photographer has ever asked me what camera lenses, etc were used in a certain shot while viewing a print. They do ask where it was taken and that's about it. They either like the print or not.
The only client who has ever asked me what equipment I use was a camera manufacturer who simply asked me to confirm that I used their equipment.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Having shot the M9, MM, and RX1, I must say that I really am enjoying the RX1 for what it is, and find IQ to be fantastic, capable of that elusive POP throughout its ISO range (well, at least through 6400), with malleable files. I find that the files are very robust, with great DR, but the bokeh is relatively tame for a sonnar design (close focus brings out more character)...

I think it's a fanastic companion alongsie the MM, which is how I am using it now...As said, the Zeiss lens is fantastic, and it will hold its ground with the M sensor, bettering it in some areas and maybe losing out in a few others...
For me, change that list to M9, and RX1 to X2.

Am M would be great. So would an MM. But not right away. Need to have my RoBoTs overhauled first. :)

G
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There
Well, lots of good points, but it seems to me that to make a decision between any of these cameras on the basis of image quality would be pretty odd.:loco:

I mean - they're all completely different beasts - it's perfectly clear that they all take decent enough images. In terms of image quality I want a camera that takes decent images.

If you want a fixed 35mm the RX-1 is obvious - if you like fovean and you want a pocket camera for low ISO only, then the Sigma is excellent. If you want an interchangeable lens AF camera then the Fuji might be your choice (me? I'd rather have an SLR). If you want a rangefinder which takes M lenses, then a Leica is really the only choice.

I can see that it might be interesting to read Sean's report, but it certainly hasn't taught me anything which would change my mind about which camera to buy.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
While the files are nice, I have found the communication factors in the new M lacking compared to my iPhone. Certainly I am getting better DoF out of my iPhone. And the M files I find wanting in terms of that iPhone look.
 

jonoslack

Active member
While the files are nice, I have found the communication factors in the new M lacking compared to my iPhone. Certainly I am getting better DoF out of my iPhone. And the M files I find wanting in terms of that iPhone look.
It's funny you should mention that - there is certainly a special kind of gleam in the iPhone 5 files which is missing from the 4gs, and certainly nowhere to be seen in the M files.

On the other hand I've found the pixel to pixel sharpness on the iphone 4gs to have just the edge over the newer phone, and there is an undeniable pop associated with this.
 
Top