M9 or Xpro1 file?

[ShinX414]

oh, i forgot to mention that all the settings have been left at default. That means no custom WB or Filters or internal Saturation, Sharpness or Contrast.
Of course all of them have been shot on a tripod, just to make sure no one complains about that xP

 

[doncraig]

Don’t know if is this too late to the party, but I have posted samples from both the M9 and XP1 on my website:
http://www.doncraigdesign.com/M9_XP1/

Specs are on the page.

Bottom line, we will always use the camera that we can afford that provides us with best images and shooting experience and with which we have an emotional connection.

Regarding landscape photography, I use the XP1 for long-exposure work as well as street and my work (see samples), I find that the dynamic range of the X-Trans files are excellent. And, although I wish that the LR team would fully realize the X-RAW files’ potential, I still feel like I’m getting good quality from LR.

 

[willie_901]

...
I don't follow. f/1.8 is 2/3EV slower than f/1.4, which implies a 2/3 slower shutter speed to maintain equivalent exposures. Given the same light and the same shutter speed and ISO settings, if f/1.8 on the D700 is giving you the same noise as f/1.4 on the XP1, that implies that the D700 is 2/3EV better than the XP1, since the image is underexposed by 2/3EV but retains the same noise.

Not saying this isn't true (I don't have a D700, so I have no way of knowing), but I've not heard noise comparisons put this way before. If you stop the 35 1.4 down to 1.8, and shoot both cameras the same, which one has lower noise?

Some of the noise is determined by quantum mechanics which is constant for all cameras (except Leica Ms which have a dispensation from the Creator... JUST JOKING). Contemporary high-quality sensors have essentially the same electronic noise levels and ADC noise. This means any CMOS sensor based camera sold in the past 18 months or so has similar electronic noise levels.

The signal, which is what we want and the only thing we can control, depends on how many photons are detected when the shutter is open. We can either let more light in (increase aperture) or increase the sensor area. Both increase the signal while the noise stays constant. This assumes the exposure is set such that the most intense light we care about completely fills some of the sensors. It is reasonable to assign a 1 stop advantage to a 24 x 36 mm sensor over an identical APS-C sensor. This means the XP1 lens has to let one stop more light hit the sensor to overcome the advantage of the larger sensor area.

I mis-stated the lens' aperture differences by 1/3 of a stop. But the point remains: a wide open fast lens with a small sensor has the same signal to noise ratio as a wide open slow lens with large sensor. Now lenses also have differences in transmission efficiency (T factor). But a first generation m4/3 camera with a fast lens will have the same signal to noise ratio (SNR) as a 24 x 36 mm camera with a much slower lens when both lenses are wide open. But a 25mm m4/3 lens has to have a f 0.7 lens compared to a less expensive 1.4 50mm lens for the 24 x 36 mm camera.

You asked what happens when the APS-C lens is stopped down. Both cameras have essentially the same noise. The D700 records more signal due to the sensor area. But note the D700 has less DOF (unless we move the camera). This does not affect the SNR, but it does affect the photograph. When the exposure, DOF and perspective are similar, both cameras have similar SNRs.

I was shocked when I learned well-purposed exposure can be more important than sensor size if SNR is your highest priority.

These ideas are presented much more completely and rigorously here:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/

 

[willie_901]

I thank all those who responded to my question. The dynamic range of the D700 and other cameras I'm not interested but thanks anyway.

Sorry to hijack the thread with regard to dynamic range.

 

[nicography]

I have both xpro1 and m9 and i must say the noise control on the xpro1 is much better than the m9. However, the shooting experience with the m9 is much more fun than the xpro1. Not to compare the price difference, but having a rangefinder viewfinder is a lot more fun to shoot with.

 

[albertospa]

I have both xpro1 and m9 and i must say the noise control on the xpro1 is much better than the m9. However, the shooting experience with the m9 is much more fun than the xpro1. Not to compare the price difference, but having a rangefinder viewfinder is a lot more fun to shoot with.

I agree completely. In fact, I was wondering how it would do in the Xpro 1 autofocus with OVF?

 

[edge100]

I agree completely. In fact, I was wondering how it would do in the Xpro 1 autofocus with OVF?

The XP1 AF is fine in the OVF. That is my standard mode of operation.

 

[edge100]

Some of the noise is determined by quantum mechanics which is constant for all cameras (except Leica Ms which have a dispensation from the Creator... JUST JOKING). Contemporary high-quality sensors have essentially the same electronic noise levels and ADC noise. This means any CMOS sensor based camera sold in the past 18 months or so has similar electronic noise levels.

The signal, which is what we want and the only thing we can control, depends on how many photons are detected when the shutter is open. We can either let more light in (increase aperture) or increase the sensor area. Both increase the signal while the noise stays constant. This assumes the exposure is set such that the most intense light we care about completely fills some of the sensors. It is reasonable to assign a 1 stop advantage to a 24 x 36 mm sensor over an identical APS-C sensor. This means the XP1 lens has to let one stop more light hit the sensor to overcome the advantage of the larger sensor area.

I mis-stated the lens' aperture differences by 1/3 of a stop. But the point remains: a wide open fast lens with a small sensor has the same signal to noise ratio as a wide open slow lens with large sensor. Now lenses also have differences in transmission efficiency (T factor). But a first generation m4/3 camera with a fast lens will have the same signal to noise ratio (SNR) as a 24 x 36 mm camera with a much slower lens when both lenses are wide open. But a 25mm m4/3 lens has to have a f 0.7 lens compared to a less expensive 1.4 50mm lens for the 24 x 36 mm camera.

You asked what happens when the APS-C lens is stopped down. Both cameras have essentially the same noise. The D700 records more signal due to the sensor area. But note the D700 has less DOF (unless we move the camera). This does not affect the SNR, but it does affect the photograph. When the exposure, DOF and perspective are similar, both cameras have similar SNRs.

I was shocked when I learned well-purposed exposure can be more important than sensor size if SNR is your highest priority.

These ideas are presented much more completely and rigorously here:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/

Thanks for the clarification.

In essence, then, when the exposures are identical (but not necessarily the images, given the differences in DoF with different sensors), the noise performance between the D700 and the X-Pro1 are similar, in your experience.

That's impressive, given that the X-Pro1 starts off with a handicap due to the lower SNR intrinsic to smaller sensors.

 

[hepcat]

I agree completely. In fact, I was wondering how it would do in the Xpro 1 autofocus with OVF?

And I'm sorry, but I'm REALLY late to the party. I sold my X-Pro1 to Cosmo a few weeks ago. I have an M8 and an M9.

I am not a technical guy, and i seldom shoot with an ISO higher than about 640, so noise isn't an issue for me. I'll give you my subjective thoughts regarding the two cameras and why I'm back in the Leica camp.

As Cosmo said above, I prefer the file output of the M9 from a perspective of color richness. The X-Pro1 is no slouch and it does fine, but I just prefer the M9's colors. The X-Trans sensor's RAW files still don't really have an elegant processing solution. I'm sure there will be one, but so far Adobe isn't it. The Silkypix solution for the X-Pro1 does a nice job but is kinda clunky IMHO. And I'm a LR/CS-5 user.

Last, and the deal breaker for me, is the contrast-detect autofocus system on the X-Pro1. I like things to be simple. REALLY simple. I just had too many instances where autofocus missed completely, and shooting strictly OVF, and not pixel-peeping, you don't know that it missed it. I may have been expecting too much of the system, but what's worse then is that there's no way to focus the camera manually through the OVF. You to switch to EVF and then you have to hit either the 3x or 10x magnification. NOT simple. And I really dislike EVFs. If you can live with the machinations necessary to do what needs to be done to make the camera perform, its really a solid camera. It just didn't operate the way I do, and I wasn't willing to conform to what it needs.

I find, the older I get, the less tolerant I've become of making a simple task like focusing into something complex. So, Cosmo has my X-Pro1 now.