is nex5n better than leica?

[D Cox]

A camera and lenses are just tools. A good photographer can take good photos with any film or digital camera.

Yup.

There is a famous photo by Bert Hardy taken with a Box Brownie:



and the Leicas that Cartier-Bresson used in the 1930s would not be considered good enough by most people today.

On the other hand, if you have a specific job to do such as photographing a historic map to show all the small details, only the highest spec. digital cameras will do. And even they are not as good for this kind of work as 10x8 inch film.

 

[Cass_Rimportant]

I do appreciate B&W photography as much as the next person, but the prescriptive "shoulds" of this argument make me cringe a little bit. It rings a little too much of pretentious conservatism grounded in historical technology.

I guess a traditionally specific guideline can legitimately emerge from historic limitations, but let's not pretend there are any objective rules that can be universally applied.

Do you ever hear the argument that a painter should only use color if there is a very good reason for it? Is there a strong tradition for the rejection of color, even in mimimalist painting? There are some good examples of B&W painting, but do these artists require others to justify their use of color? No, because painting has never had the technological limitations on the use of color that photography has.

Art never has objective rules, only culturally and traditionally specific rules that apply only to that culture or tradition.

Contemporary art is especially defined by a tradition of breaking with tradition; doing something because it hasn't been done before. I guess, then, it's refreshing to read a little knee-jerk conservatism. Contradict myself? I reserve the right...

 

[petertan1959]

yes both sets are very nice. you could interchange them and i would not know the difference.

i have to agree the nex and leica x1 have same qualities. can't see the "signature" of leica.

 

[Mark K]

I have this banker friend, who can buy all cameras and leses.

Yes, Leica lenses are amazing and images from all their photographers are amazing, thanks to the unbelievable sharpness and colours from the optics

However, all curent Leica cameras, comparing to modern ones we are having, are less ergonomically designed and very slow in focusing and processing.

After collecting all lenses available to him, my friend started revising the best lenses he can have to other camera mounts, say Nikon and Canon FF bodies.

Nex5n has a wonderful body, great sensor and extremely anaemic in terms of quality prime lenses with native E mount.

If you don't mind manually focusing, you can do them.

i was just on this forum on leica talk OMG ive never seen such an amzing pictures before ever. amazing photograpghs i wonder if its the camera or photographers who tooks the pictures. i really want to start photography as hobby and checked out leica cameras they are very very expensive. is there any camera what you guys can recommend as good as leica around $1000?

--
Mark K

 

[DezM]

My X10 pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitsva/sets/72157628212966879/show/

MY Leica X1 Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitsva/sets/72157628200570651/show/

My NEX-5 Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitsva/sets/72157625233172431/show/

Nice sets
--
Dez

http://dezsantana.com

 

[Gary CG]

dnjake is correct, the camera isn't that important. However may I respectfully disagree on one point, I think that using a zoom and an automatic camera not only takes away from the fun but prevents the development of an eye - especially for perspective.

This is why these forums are filled with pixel-peepers who have no clue about the creative side of photography.

If you are really interested in photography buy a camera and start using it. How it compares with Leica is irrelevant. Any of the major brand DSLR's or large sensor mirrorless cameras is more than adequate for a beginner to explore their interest in photography. If you have some idea of what images you are particularly interested in, it may be worthwhile understanding what kind of lens is likely to suit you. But a mid range zoom is probably the best choice for most beginners.
--
David Jacobson
http://www.pbase.com/dnjake

 

[ennemkay]

hmm, i'm a total novice and i don't own a dslr (a couple point-and-shoots and a m43 cam). you can get decent photos with a low-end camera and no photographic skill if you have an awesome subject.

 

[twald]

I do appreciate B&W photography as much as the next person, but the prescriptive "shoulds" of this argument make me cringe a little bit. It rings a little too much of pretentious conservatism grounded in historical technology.

I guess a traditionally specific guideline can legitimately emerge from historic limitations, but let's not pretend there are any objective rules that can be universally applied.
...

Whew!

You make a good argument.

I did not communicate this in my original post here but my train of thought was "here's how I decide whether to use color" and not "here's how everyone Ishould decide whether to use color."

I replied to a comment about bw photos in the leica forum, which also happened to be mostly "good" photos by some metrics. The most basic element of a "good" photograph (or other 2D art) is composition. What I meant with that comment is that if color does not reinforce the composition and especially if it makes the composition weaker, the photo would be better without color. Thus it should be left out.

That said, please use color or BW to suit your own taste.

Ps. The nex-5n is my first camera but I do have experience as an artist, as it is one of my hobbies.

Cheers!

 

[nzmacro]

i was just on this forum on leica talk OMG ive never seen such an amzing pictures before ever. amazing photograpghs i wonder if its the camera or photographers who tooks the pictures. i really want to start photography as hobby and checked out leica cameras they are very very expensive. is there any camera what you guys can recommend as good as leica around $1000?

First of all I don't use a NEX. So I went and took a look at the Leica forum to see what the fuss was. After seeing a lot of images posted here in the NEX forum, the answer is no. Many in here can take just as good shots...if not better. Depends who is behind it really.

I can assure you that you can take as many rubbish shots on a Leica as you can on any other camera.

Make a print from most cameras, place them side by side and try and guess what camera took what. Who knows really.

Danny.
...........................

m4/3 Small birds and legacy teles
http://www.macrophotos.com/avian/avian.html

m4/3 macro
http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[nzmacro]

Should have posted....

"is nex5n better than leica?"

No

and is the Leica better than a nex5n

No
...........................

m4/3 Small birds and legacy teles
http://www.macrophotos.com/avian/avian.html

m4/3 macro
http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[Sosua]

The Leica Rangefinders are a unique and powerful tool for composing and focussing images.

They are however as you noted, very expensive, they are also very different to use and do have significant limitations.

Any modern APSC camera with excellent glass can produce similar image quality, it really depends on how much time and effort you are committed to dedicating to get those results.

It is always the photographer who captures the images - the equipment merely makes it easier or harder to get the desired results.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

 

[Thirsty_Fox]

Make a print from most cameras, place them side by side and try and guess what camera took what. Who knows really.

Very true. Add this to the fact that pretty much any little amount of post-production erodes the differences between cameras away even further.

Leica is good if you're the type who has the ability to pay for it, and enjoys the different experience of using a retro-styled rangefinder.

As for the car analogy posted above, it isn't like comparing a Ferrari to a Honda Civic. It's like comparing a 1970s Porsche 911 to a new WRX STi. The Porsche is more classic, and offers a whole different perspective on your driving experience, whereas the STi is roughly just as quick, but a different experience altogether. Ultimately, a decent 70s 911 costs quite a bit more than an STi.

As for the B&W business, I think that there are photos that warrant it and others that don't. There are some photos on this page ^^^ that have nice colours, even in the background, while foreground is relatively colourless. There are times when B&W looks nicer but colour can add tremendously possibilities to a photo.

Lots of Leica shots are "street photography", where there is a lot going on. Sometimes all the colours in the background can be distracting in such a scene, which I suspect is why lots of the photos are B&W.

 

[starwolfy]

My best friend has a D7000, a X100. I have a NX10 and a Leica M8. My uncle has a 60d. My wife has a Nex3 and I have a Nex5n at my workplace.

What is the biggest different with the Leica?
The way you use it. That's all.

Rangefinder cameras are really special to use. the way of composing is so different from mirror less cameras and DSLR.

Everything is a mater of taste and you cannot know if it is good or bad for you UNTIL you do try it for a couple of days.

Handling a Leica is a really special feeling. The camera is really well made, simple, solid and heavy. The shutter sound is special and attractive.

It takes time to master the camera and get something from it. This camera is challenging for sure.

The OVF is really big, clear, you can see a lot of your scene...it is so different from DSLR. Really just another type of approach.

Moreover, this camera is of course dedicated to manual focusing and provide 2frames/seconds in continuous shooting. The screen is outdated, low detailed, laggy and the buffer is slow.

There are plenty of limitations, no bright zooms, you need additional finders for more special lenses like ultra wide one. There is no matrix metering. This is a really raw approach of photography.

Would I trade this camera for a high Iso capable, 7FPS, brand new D7000? Never.

If you are a geek and only specs are important to you...don't buy it...you just won't understand what this camera is made for and you are not the target.

Am I a rich and snob man living in luxury and waiting for my wife coming back from Hermes shop? no...I am just normal, with normal salary, with normal life.

What attracted me in Leica and why did I chose Leica over other brands?

Well...easy...I like old things and I am not found of all the electronic crap out there.

I like to get my daily life pictures in a comfortable way...for me! And a Leica body is what makes me comfortable for MY way of shooting.

I am fond of manual focusing, I like items which are well made and will last long, I am in quest of learning more about photography...but doing it in a more traditional way. That is why I chose Leica. But...I also do live in my time, film cameras are not for me despite I am interested in it and would like to try it one day.

A digital Leica M8 is well...a Leica...but digital!

It is just like using a film SLR...but with a digital output. That's all what I have and all I wanted...and Only Leica could provide this experience to me (with the Epson RD-1).

Yes...here is the point, finally. If you want a digital but traditional body with the same feeling of older film SLR's...your only choice is M8, M9 and RD1.

You do the maths.

--
Starwolfy
------------
NX10 + legacy lenses on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51235083@N05/

 

[britho]

Well, "better" is subjective.

The Leica M9 has a full frame sensor, while the NEX 5N has an APS-C crop sensor, roughly half the size of a full frame sensor.

A camera with a full frame sensor has the advantage of covering a wider view than an APS-C camera, using the same lens. There is no multiplier for the focal length of lenses on the Leica, but on a NEX, a 21mm lens becomes a 32mm equivalent, meaning that the 21mm wide angle lens isn't especially wide on NEX.

Therefore the NEX (or any APS-C camera) isn't really suitable for extreme wide angle photography imho. The NEX has the 16mm lens, which becomes a 24mm equivalent. Anything wider than that is near impossible, or much too expensive on NEX.

On the other hand, image quality of the NEX 5N is far superior to the image quality of the Leica M9. This is because the Leica spreads its 18 million available pixels over its large full frame sensor, resulting in a very low resolution by today's standards. The NEX 5N spreads its 16 million available pixels over an area that is less than half the size, resulting in much higher resolution. With the 24 megapixels of the NEX 7, this improves even further.

A higher resolution results in better sharpness and contrast, and more detailed photos. A lower resolution generally has the advantage of better high ISO performance, since the pixels are larger, and therefore absorbs more photons. This isn't the case however, when comparing the NEX and the Leica M9, as the NEX has far superior high ISO performance. This is perhaps because the Leica's sensor is of much older technology than that of the NEX 5N.

To summarize, if you want to do extreme wide angle photography the M9 is the better choice. However, a medium format camera is even better in this respect, so I would skip full frame alltogether. The NEX 5N is the better camera for everything else.

NEX 5N is also "better" for your economy

 

[zenfr2009]

I'm using two cameras (Nex5N and X1) during my last holidays :
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/zenfr/album/258314

My X1 is better in IQ, day and night.
But my Nex is very quick and helps me a lot when I need a longer focale.

PS : If I must keep only one camera, I'll take my X1.

 

[britho]

I'm using two cameras (Nex5N and X1) during my last holidays :
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/zenfr/album/258314

My X1 is better in IQ, day and night.
But my Nex is very quick and helps me a lot when I need a longer focale.

PS : If I must keep only one camera, I'll take my X1.

The better X1 IQ is the result of the better prime lens on that camera compared to the NEX-kit zoom lens which you used. It has nothing to do with the camera. Buy a similar prime lens for your NEX, and your X1 becomes superfluous.

 

[zenfr2009]

I'll replace my zoom lens by the new Sony E50mm prime lens and I'll continue to use two cameras avoiding to have to change lens.

 

[fad]

The M9 and leica glass are outliers in today's world. Film is fading fast.

But I just got my D3s back after a long stint of being repaired, and it is just an amazing piece of equipment. The entire system is so powerful. There are f2.8 zooms that are as good as primes. There are primes that are pretty darn good. There are f4 zooms with wide zoom ranges. There are specialty lenses for macro, t/s, ultrawide, ultra-tele. The sensor is just superior, especially at high iso. The AF is world class. There are vertical controls as well as horizontal, the battery is good for about 1800 pictures. There is protection from weather. The flash system has no competition among proprietary systems. The customizability is mind boggling.

And the thing to bear in mind is that the current FF dslr's are a generation behind. We know the specs of the next Canon, a D3s incrementally improved. We don't know what Nikon will unleash, but the technology in the 1 series gives hope for something quite surpassing.

There is room for, and a need for, serious smaller size cameras. And Leica will have its devotees. But if you are looking for the best performing digital cameras today, in every different way except size, look at the pro level FF dslr's.

There
--
Frank

All photos shot in downtown Manhattan unless otherwise noted.
Thanks in advance for the kindness of your comments or critiques.

 

[Sosua]

At lower ISO any day.

Although no one can deny a D3S is a spectacular speed machine for challenging conditions.

Different tools for different jobs, really.

Fortunately there is so much choice in high quality gear.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

 

[Steven-T]

A soldier with a big heavy machine gun vs a man with a small light golden pistol for a duel? Well, don't be so sure about the result . . .

At lower ISO any day.

Although no one can deny a D3S is a spectacular speed machine for challenging conditions.

Different tools for different jobs, really.

Fortunately there is so much choice in high quality gear.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz