M8 and XP1 side-by-side (it's totally subjective, dude)

[noimmunity]

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the XP1 and the M8.

Handheld. Auto WB. Manual Exposure. EXIF info is on the XP1 frames only, but the shutter speeds and aperture for the M8 frames are analogous, if not exactly the same.

M8 frames were PP'ed with RPP in K64 (with sharpening, saturation and local contrast added), then converted via LR3.
XP1 frames were in-camera jpegs "Velvia" mode, with additional sharpening added in post via Nik Raw Sharpener 3.0.

Not an "objective" test by any means, this comparison highlights subjective differences, limited of course by the very different processing to which the different cameras were subjected. Until there is LR support (not to mention RPP) for the XP1, this is the way it is going to be for now, for me.


Inside - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr


Within - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr


Brokedown Palace - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr


Brokedown Palace - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr

Lastly, at f/1.4:


"Dualing" Ducatis - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr


"Dualing" Ducatis - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr

Saône Two - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr

Saône Two - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr

Starting with the obvious, we can see the difference in FOV between the 1.33x crop sensor and the 1.5x one.

The next most obvious point is that processing makes all the difference. Unfortunately, it is still not possible for me to subject files from the two cameras to roughly the same process; I did not even try. Even though this side-by-side shootout tells me more about processing than anything, it is perhaps not without merit.

The M8 files look sharper, but the XP1 files have much higher resolution.

Both cameras render color in unique and appealing ways. Neither looks consistently and overwhelmingly "better". I agree that in general I prefer the M8 color (to be fair, the "Velvia" setting accentuates the reds), but the XP1 has a wider "band" or palette in some instances.

Saône - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr


Saône - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr

The band or range of the palette on the XP1 photo is impressive (look particularly at the vegetation on the escarpment in the background), wouldn't you agree?

DOF on the CV 35/1.2 is thinner at f/1.4 than it is on the Fuji XF 35/1.4, as expected due to the crop difference.

If this comparison does not meet your expectations or standards, I thank you for your indulgence.

What do y'all think?

 

[randomm]

Wonderful testing, thank you. Just a quick question: in the first pair, it looks like the cameras were not focused on the same thing (aside from very different DOF). If you look through the window on the door there is stuff still relatively sharp on the wall at the back of the room in the M8 version, when in the X-Pro1 version there isn't (but at the same time the x-pro1 version has the left side of the image very sharp and M8 doesn't). At what f stop were these shot at?

 

[noimmunity]

Wonderful testing, thank you. Just a quick question: in the first pair, it looks like the cameras were not focused on the same thing (aside from very different DOF). If you look through the window on the door there is stuff still relatively sharp on the wall at the back of the room in the M8 version, when in the X-Pro1 version there isn't (but at the same time the x-pro1 version has the left side of the image very sharp and M8 doesn't). At what f stop were these shot at?

They were both shot at f/1.4
Sharpening was added to both.
Hope this helps.

 

[Keith]

Interesting comparison ... the colours look a little more 'real' from the M8 IMO. Possibly just post processing considering your current limited options with the Xpro.

 

[dexdog]

Interesting comparison, thanks for posting. The M8 images look a lot more "film-like" than the XP1 (good K64 emulation), but also somewhat underexposed by half a stop or so. Not sure that I like the velvia mode, but the images are impressive in terms of resolution and tonal contrast. I would be very happy with results from either camera.

 

[sevo]

Both cameras render color in unique and appealing ways.

"Render" indeed, as that will be almost entirely a matter of the white balancing and internal post-processing. A raw against raw comparison with the same conversion software would be more revealing than a comparison of a quite undefined stack of softwares (LR3 might be Lightroom 3, but what the heck are RPP and K64?) against JPEGs processed with an internal "film" preset.

 

[Rob-F]

I like the warmer color balance of the XP1, but I'd like to see them compared at a more neutral color setting on the XP1 so we could see how its "native" color (if there is such a thing) looks without enhancement.

 

[porktaco]

wow. you are making my life a living hell, as i contemplate an x1

 

[Benjamin Marks]

It looks like the output of either camera could be tweaked to match the other in PS or LR. Bump up the exposure and saturation a smidge on the M8 files, tweak the saturation. What I am interested in seeing is comparisons between images from the same lens/aperture on both cameras (e.g. Leica lenses w/adapter . . .). But the M8 at base ISO is no slouch, and the X1 results are impressive.

Ben

 

[jsrockit]

The bottom line is that both appear to be great cameras.

 

[Steve M.]

They look like night and day to me. The film is so much better looking AND sharper (wonder why it looks sharper?). The motorcycle in the foreground of the film shot looks so 3D and sharp it seems to come out of the frame. I don't understand how anyone can see them as similar in any way, yet people seem to. Guess we all see differently. Thanks for posting this. Normally I would copy the images and go into PS to fix them the way I like them, then compare, but no need in this case. It's all in front of me.

 

[dexdog]

none of the images are on film, both M8 and XP1 are digital cameras.

 

[David_Manning]

Steve...um, there was no film.

Maybe I just didn't understand...

 

[jsrockit]

They look like night and day to me. The film is so much better looking AND sharper (wonder why it looks sharper?). .

Where's the film? Placebo effect perhaps? 😉

 

[noimmunity]

The bottom line is that both appear to be great cameras.

At base ISO, yes.

In fact, the release of the D800E has essentially validated Leica's no-AA filter approach. The M8 should hold its own (at base ISO) for many more years to come, and may even be recognized some day as an extremely innovative camera.

 

[noimmunity]

It looks like the output of either camera could be tweaked to match the other in PS or LR. Bump up the exposure and saturation a smidge on the M8 files, tweak the saturation. What I am interested in seeing is comparisons between images from the same lens/aperture on both cameras (e.g. Leica lenses w/adapter . . .). But the M8 at base ISO is no slouch, and the X1 results are impressive.

Ben

The funny thing is, a high amount of saturation level was added to the M8 files in processing in RPP (Raw Photo Processor).

I am breaking out the Silypix RAW converter that was included with the XP1. In the name of 'science'!

Seeing the results (I did not chimp) back home, I do think it would have been more interesting for comparison purposes to set the XP1 film simulation to "ProNegHi".

 

[jsrockit]

At base ISO, yes.

I happily used the M8 to 640 and sometimes beyond. Sure, the Fuji has better high ISO, but that's not nearly as important as many make it out to be. That said, I use my Fuji X100 in low light...so, the X-Pro1 will be used in a similar fashion with the M9 as my sunnyday camera.

 

[noimmunity]

I happily used the M8 to 640 and sometimes beyond. Sure, the Fuji has better high ISO, but that's not nearly as important as many make it out to be. That said, I use my Fuji X100 in low light...so, the X-Pro1 will be used in a similar fashion with the M9 as my sunnyday camera.

Yes, the M8 up to ISO640 is completely fine for me, but I was hitting up against that limit all the time after dark.

Worthy of note, too, is the fact that the XP1 with 35/1.4 weighs about 1/3 of the M8 with 35/1.2 .

 

[sojournerphoto]

The funny thing is, a high amount of saturation level was added to the M8 files in processing in RPP (Raw Photo Processor).

I am breaking out the Silypix RAW converter that was included with the XP1. In the name of 'science'!

Seeing the results (I did not chimp) back home, I do think it would have been more interesting for comparison purposes to set the XP1 film simulation to "ProNegHi".

You could try the Provia setting. I've seen a picture from that that looked very nice.

 

[BobYIL]

Somehow the M8 samples look like having less DR than the XP1. I have a rather practical way of comparing DR, under the same lighting conditions the one with lower DR usually looks like being shot "at later hours" of the day or under a more cloudy sky, exhibiting less vividness, less seperation of hues of colors. Actually such details could be better answered by the poster as he only knows what happened during PP.