honza_pl
Leading Member
disapointed ... even ISO 400 is noisy with bad colors and details ..
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
X1 preview samples up - what is your first impression?
- Thread starter Ingo Ronner
- Start date
Roland Schulz
Leading Member
DO !! what I described, compare and you´ll see! I´m about that sharpness till the outest edges, not about JPEG artifacts in the sky or so.
I do lots of landscape photography and print A2 or even larger. You always see some or heavy degration of sharpness there with Nikon glass. The stronger AA filter of the D3 gives the rest. Perhaps you can get that quality with that legendary 28 2.8D, but that´s nearly twice the price of the X1! So the X1 becomes very cheap!! You get a nice camera with the lens!
Ok, my fault: 24 x 1.5 is 36, not 35 (...) (14 or 16 is a big difference, but 35 and 36...) ...perhaps recheck the specs.As for using one's money, yes, no problem, but "own and use something special", really? It's not an M9. And about knowing how to shoot 35mm, well, not really, APS-C ....
A D80 CAN deliver outstanding photographs in the right hands, but no outstanding quality in regards of color response, noise, sharpness and by far not in dynamic range in todays surrounding! FORGET to reference to these little, tiny "stamps" on the websites. You can performs that or even better with a G11 (I would guess it outperforms the D80 in noise ;-) ). 100% is that what counts for me! How does it look in A2 or wider at the wall?!!
Roland.
M
mroy
Guest
They look disappointing
Blown higlights, noisy sky (have a look at the Tower Bridge shot) etc.
But I'm not sure how much of this is because of the frankly uninspired (I mean no offence here to the photographers) samples, the ACR conversion, wrong exposure, unfamiliarity with the camera etc.
From these samples alone I can't tell whether the X1 itself is disappointing or not.
I will wait for reviews and samples from (again not meant to offend) better photographers before I draw any conclusions.
Cheers
Blown higlights, noisy sky (have a look at the Tower Bridge shot) etc.
But I'm not sure how much of this is because of the frankly uninspired (I mean no offence here to the photographers) samples, the ACR conversion, wrong exposure, unfamiliarity with the camera etc.
From these samples alone I can't tell whether the X1 itself is disappointing or not.
I will wait for reviews and samples from (again not meant to offend) better photographers before I draw any conclusions.
Cheers
Eelco van Vliet
Well-known member
You can wait forever then,
Nikkon hasn't produced a proper (semi) compact in ages and it would be a miracle if they did. The P6000 is a perfect example.
Nikkon hasn't produced a proper (semi) compact in ages and it would be a miracle if they did. The P6000 is a perfect example.
J
Jozef M
Guest
The first impression that I had, looking at the branches of the trees at 100% was: this is horrible, how can they make a camera that gives such ugly jaggies? I thought that software put away those edges, but no .. The sensor, and photo quality, would be better off with a filter before it ..
Bad processing - even the lens construction can be (probably will be before release) be improved but look at the camera; set the aperture with a dial, set the shutter speed with a dial or set both and then take the photograph. Back to photography. The argument used to be whether photography was an art, now, with all the settings required, the argument is whether it is a science.
I can't see a problem with a lens which "pops out"; Leica started with collapsible lenses and that they are extended electronically rather than manually shouldn't be a problem. How many digital cameras have "pop out" lenses - millions and how many problems do you hear - few if any.
The brightside, if they are really bad - they won't sell and will be available next summer for £150.00 ono.
I can't see a problem with a lens which "pops out"; Leica started with collapsible lenses and that they are extended electronically rather than manually shouldn't be a problem. How many digital cameras have "pop out" lenses - millions and how many problems do you hear - few if any.
The brightside, if they are really bad - they won't sell and will be available next summer for £150.00 ono.
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
X1 is 24x16mm, 35mm is 36x24mm.Ok, my fault: 24 x 1.5 is 36, not 35 (...) (14 or 16 is a big difference, but 35 and 36...) ...perhaps recheck the specs.As for using one's money, yes, no problem, but "own and use something special", really? It's not an M9. And about knowing how to shoot 35mm, well, not really, APS-C ...
100%? Which viewing resolution? Monitor (
You print A2 from 12MP w/o problems at 300PPI? Or do you use a MF camera? Or do you use some expert upres'ing algorithm? Or maybe it's not relevant?
I have a G9, it's not even close in DR and noise compared to D80. You know that, don't be foolish, the G11 is a good p&s, but it won't match the IQ any dslr of any make, check DxOMark tests (or DPR tests), the G9 or G10 score half what the D80 scores, G11 won't be much different.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 247%7C0 (appareil2) 252%7C0 (appareil3) 201%7C0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Canon (brand2) Canon (brand3) Nikon
And all this ridiculous conversation across continents because of a little overpriced camera which neither you nor me have touched yet ...
-
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Peter, you said exactly what I was thinking: mainly, soft images and poor dynamic range. I'm not experienced enough to be able to recognize what it is that is causing the softness: a poor lens? poor AF? an over-aggressive anti-aliasing filter? When I first looked at the photos, I assumed they were out-of-camera JPGs. Now that I see they are converted from raw, I find them even less impressive. I was blown away by the sharpness of the photos from the M9, so I was expecting something good from this camera also. I guess I'll go ahead and get the GF1.
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
What do YOU think, overall, about the X1?
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
Ingo Ronner
Active member
I'm not Andy but let me guess what he's going to answer if he's going to give a reaction at all: "You can read that in the X1 review soon at dpreview.com". ;-)
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25143217@N05/
at that price, i'd buy it... maybe.
i don't know if i'd ever be able to handle that bokeh... still shaking my head that they didn't use a Cron.
Andrew Westlake
Senior Member
You can read that in the X1 review soon at dpreview.com.
--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews
M
mroy
Guest
or, wild spelling, this one.
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
Who would have guessed I would have got an answer like that!
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
first impression matters!
do we agree about that?
have you ever in you life bought from your money a 1600 ISO colour film? why?
because the results were useless, except perhaps if you weren’t in the process of affirming yourself in a new kind of art expression, which neither was photography nor was it painting.
why do we judge this camera after some 1600 ISO pictures, which were very, very, very unfortunately posted first in more or less the first series of photos? 1600ISO or higher is there in order to sale the camera to ignorants or perhaps to artists in some kind of new art expression, not to be used by photographs.
actually the more I look at the first picture of the series the more convince I am that I never ever saw a better portrait in terms of IQ took with 1600 ISO, defiantly not on film. and the more I look at the series, the more I wander why in the whole word, someone pretending to be in photo business, would take a portrait with a 1600 ISO and posting it first in the first series.
do we agree about that?
have you ever in you life bought from your money a 1600 ISO colour film? why?
because the results were useless, except perhaps if you weren’t in the process of affirming yourself in a new kind of art expression, which neither was photography nor was it painting.
why do we judge this camera after some 1600 ISO pictures, which were very, very, very unfortunately posted first in more or less the first series of photos? 1600ISO or higher is there in order to sale the camera to ignorants or perhaps to artists in some kind of new art expression, not to be used by photographs.
actually the more I look at the first picture of the series the more convince I am that I never ever saw a better portrait in terms of IQ took with 1600 ISO, defiantly not on film. and the more I look at the series, the more I wander why in the whole word, someone pretending to be in photo business, would take a portrait with a 1600 ISO and posting it first in the first series.
M
mroy
Guest
you should be able to find the answer to your question yourself:
ISO 1600, 1/60 sec at F2.8
This is one of the samples which I really like, by the way.
Cheers
ISO 1600, 1/60 sec at F2.8
This is one of the samples which I really like, by the way.
Cheers
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
You missed my point Yury: for 2,000USD one can have a better camera, similar lenses, similar sensor (D90 for example), and much more flexibility.With all due respect Sir, I merely pointed out rather inadequate methodology used by forum member which could lead to misleading conclusions.
..and I did leave my personal view on new compact Leica - I think it is going to be great. So you did get what you wanted
--
Y.V.
http://thepocketphoto.blogspot.com/
If size is a big deal, then you have m43, which will provide equally good quality.
There's nothing special about the X1, except, it seems, for some, the red badge on it. To me it costs too much, and I lerned to shoot with an M3 and used it for 30 years, still works perfectly. Digital cameras don't last even 1/3 of that time. The M3 cost me, correcting for inflation, about 700,00USD used in 1977, with a nice Summicoron 35 on it. Think of it again: 2,000USD for a fixed lens camera? This is not 2000 when a 2MP dslr cost 4,000USD.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
First - you are manipulating the statistics somewhat. Look at other threads.
Secod - you are right somewhat - but the distortion is a calculated part of the m43 and is autocorected.
Third - look at the results people have been getting.
Fourth - m43 takes Leica lenses if you can afford. No doubt Leica makes the bes lenses overall. Many people are using them with ep-1/gf1.
Five - I have nothing against you waiting for nikon. Could make sense. Just don't put oters down based on very little knowledge.
Secod - you are right somewhat - but the distortion is a calculated part of the m43 and is autocorected.
Third - look at the results people have been getting.
Fourth - m43 takes Leica lenses if you can afford. No doubt Leica makes the bes lenses overall. Many people are using them with ep-1/gf1.
Five - I have nothing against you waiting for nikon. Could make sense. Just don't put oters down based on very little knowledge.
i will go crawl into my corner now...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum