ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
---
I am first trying to figure out whether some of the cameras with APS-C sensor would suit my needs. I am eagerly waiting for the X100 to come out. Also it is about the time for Leica to think about X2 (keep the size, faster lens and faster AF). I would even be willing to pay that much if the camera would bring some improvements and (finally) updated sensor. I mean - it looks like all APS-C compact cameras introduced over last 2 years all use the (nearly) identical sensors - rumors say that even the X100. I know it is a good one but the development goes on I guess.
Rollei 35 - you first ask me whether I can handle cameras with poor MF capabilities and then propose one that has none at all! Hey!
If you are considering small-sensor compacts, you needn't complain that the APS-C offerings don't have state of the art sensors. My experience with the GRD is as follows: in perfect conditions it is capable of producing very similar amount of detail as my Canon 40D (an older APS-C design, also 10MP) BUT it never achieves as smooth transitions at a given ISO, dynamic range is smaller, highlights and darks drop off more abruptly.
It is a matter of what to expect. In its own right, the GRD-s image quality is excellent and it has a quite distinct look, especially in B&W. On the other hand, modern APS-C sensors will easily outperform it in less than perfect light. Area matters more than one or two sensor generations can hide.
The lenses are another matter. A 28mm-equivalent f/1.9 that folds flat and focusses down to 1cm from the front element at the same time is something you don't get in the larger formats. For me, this outweighs the disadvantages of the tiny sensor. I think Sigma blew it big time with the DP-s f/4 lens. They could have built the camera with a big, noncollapsible 28mm-equivalent f/2, a decent grip and control dials. A solid platform capable of showing off the Foveon sensor at base ISO in normal handheld use. Not as compact but way more practical.
The 28mm perspective lends it very well to pointing and shooting but it might need a change of habits coming from 35mm. It feels more dynamic to me, forcing me to get closer to your subjects. I often find myself using unusual angles to "manage" backgrounds. When I shot film, my standard combination was a small AF SLR with a 28/2.8 and 50/2.5 macro. In retrospect, that was a very good kit. This sounds an awful lot like a pile of money towards a GXR set, I know...
SteveM
Established
When I travel, space and weight are major considerations, and also time - there's not always much of it, and I know I'll be in a variety of conditions (inside, outside, light, dark..). I used to travel with my trusty Rollei 35SE, which size-wise is hard to beat. However much I like film, digital is just so much more flexible for compact high quality travel. I now use a Panasonic GF1 with the 20/1.7 and a more recently acquired 14/2.8. The latter is very small and weights almost nothing in a briefcase. There are smaller cameras, but this combo works great for travel. For film, the Contax T3 sounds good, as to the Ricoh compacts, but I'm happy with the Rollei 35.
Steve
Steve
pacco
Established
So far I don't miss the EVF. I really like that you can tilt the screen and use the camera like a TLR at waist level. You can also use a 7x/14x magnification, that works more than well. But to be honest, direct sunlight can sometimes be a problem. However, using a manual lens on that body is quite a pleasure. Setting the aperture directly at the lens and the shutter speed by the camera dial, is working great.
Matus
Well-known
OK - I am back from my first testing session, here are my impressions:
Leica X1
- size is just right - though a small grip would be nice (I know Leica makes one)
- the LCD display is good enough for me
- the AF seems accurate. It is indeed slow - takes about twice as long to fix focus as the Canon S95 in a reasonably well lit shop (still much darker than outside)
- the body is VERY light and feels a bit ... cheap. I would prefer a bit more sturdy feel. I am wondering how long will it take to get scratches on the top/bottom plates and how long will the leatherette last. I personally would happily "pay" 50 - 100 gram more for more sturdy feel.
- the layout is great and intuitive
- the MF focus is emergency only - you have to rotate the little back wheel a lot to get the focus moving. Leica could use a small ring around thelens for focusing instead.
Canon S95
- very compact
- feels very solid in hand - very good surface finish (feels better than X1)
- very good controls - very fast access to exposure compensation
- the adjustment ring around the lens is nice but clicks a bit too loud
- AF is very reasoble
Olympus XZ-1
- AF seems faster than S95
- controls less intuitive than S95, but OK
- finish is a bit plasticky (I had the white model in hand)
- nice display
All in all - for a camera to fit a pocket on your suit the S95 is the way to go. XZ-1 is considerably larger (not for jeans pocket anymore). The Leica looks great (especially in black). I would need to play more with it. AF could indeed be faster, but results I have seen are close to amazing. The body is simple with good layout, but the "feel" is not what I have hoped for.
I really NEED to get my hands on Ricoh GXR, but none of the (two ..) shops here around carry it. The body finish is supposed to be great and the IQ from the A12 module is excellent too. I would just love to hear that Ricoh plans to bring 35mm (and 21 and 75 if possible) module.
Anybody in north Germany or around Frankfurt having one and willing to let me have a look? I can indeed order it with 14 days return warranty from some online shop, but do not consider that a fair play as the probability that I will keep it is low (simply because I did not decide yet).
Leica X1
- size is just right - though a small grip would be nice (I know Leica makes one)
- the LCD display is good enough for me
- the AF seems accurate. It is indeed slow - takes about twice as long to fix focus as the Canon S95 in a reasonably well lit shop (still much darker than outside)
- the body is VERY light and feels a bit ... cheap. I would prefer a bit more sturdy feel. I am wondering how long will it take to get scratches on the top/bottom plates and how long will the leatherette last. I personally would happily "pay" 50 - 100 gram more for more sturdy feel.
- the layout is great and intuitive
- the MF focus is emergency only - you have to rotate the little back wheel a lot to get the focus moving. Leica could use a small ring around thelens for focusing instead.
Canon S95
- very compact
- feels very solid in hand - very good surface finish (feels better than X1)
- very good controls - very fast access to exposure compensation
- the adjustment ring around the lens is nice but clicks a bit too loud
- AF is very reasoble
Olympus XZ-1
- AF seems faster than S95
- controls less intuitive than S95, but OK
- finish is a bit plasticky (I had the white model in hand)
- nice display
All in all - for a camera to fit a pocket on your suit the S95 is the way to go. XZ-1 is considerably larger (not for jeans pocket anymore). The Leica looks great (especially in black). I would need to play more with it. AF could indeed be faster, but results I have seen are close to amazing. The body is simple with good layout, but the "feel" is not what I have hoped for.
I really NEED to get my hands on Ricoh GXR, but none of the (two ..) shops here around carry it. The body finish is supposed to be great and the IQ from the A12 module is excellent too. I would just love to hear that Ricoh plans to bring 35mm (and 21 and 75 if possible
) module. Anybody in north Germany or around Frankfurt having one and willing to let me have a look? I can indeed order it with 14 days return warranty from some online shop, but do not consider that a fair play as the probability that I will keep it is low (simply because I did not decide yet).
pacco
Established
I really NEED to get my hands on Ricoh GXR, but none of the (two ..) shops here around carry it. The body finish is supposed to be great and the IQ from the A12 module is excellent too. I would just love to hear that Ricoh plans to bring 35mm (and 21 and 75 if possible
Anybody in north Germany or around Frankfurt having one and willing to let me have a look? I can indeed order it with 14 days return warranty from some online shop, but do not consider that a fair play as the probability that I will keep it is low (simply because I did not decide yet).
Try Fotogena in Darmstadt, at least they have two GXRs in their shop windows.
Matus
Well-known
Great! I am traveling to Darmstadt quite often (business trips) and have worked there for 4 years. Fotogena is indeed one of the better photo shops I have seen in Germany - I have bought my only DSLR there (what a sentiment
). I will probably give them a call next time I will be coming to make sure they have one at hand.Actually - once we are at it. Are there any decent shops in Frankfurt? I was never able to find one ...
jbrodie
Newbie
My s95 is ABSOLUTELY tiny. I forgot it was even in my pocket several times. It has to be less than 3cm deep. The IQ is fantastic and the camera is fully manual, even focusing if you choose. The video is very nice too, but not very controllable. I haven't used any of the other cameras you listed, but I definitely recommend the s95.
pacco
Established
You can try GM Foto close to the main railwaystation at Frankfurt. Don't know if they have the Ricoh GXR, but at least you can find some film-related stuff. There are a couple of photo shops around Hauptwache (and, of course, Foto Rahn, a Leica store).
Matus
Well-known
OK - as mentioned HERE I had the chance to compare X1 and GXR side by side (click on the link to see my impressions)
As in this game I did not only consider APS-C cameras but also P&S I decided to have a few test photos (studio shots from dpreview) printed to see how these camera compare on photo-paper.
Cameras selected:
- Olympux XZ-1, Leica X1, Ricoh GXR with A12 (50 mm) and Sigma DP2.
Prints:
- when possible I tried to get RAW files from dpreview at base ISO and higher ISO (3200 for X1 and GXR and 400 for XZ-1).
- I kept the native resolution such that I printed it at 360 dpi. This yielded about A4 prints for X1 and GXR, slightly smaller for XZ-1 and considerably smaller for DP2 (which I may have scaled up a bit as it is a Foveon sensor)
Post Processing:
-> LOW ISO:
- for X1, GXR, SD2 - direct conversion with no sharpening or color adjustments with CS3 and subsequesntly applying Smart Sharpening with amount of 100 and radius 0.3, settings: Lens Blur
- for XZ-1 - Used JPEG from DPreview (I was not able to open correctly the RAW - the camera is too new for CS3). I did apply additional Smart Sharpen of amount 100 and radius 0.5. I probably should not have doe this as on the DPreview the image was already sharpened. Followed by a noise suppression with CS3.
-> HIGH ISO: 3200 for X1 and GXR and 400 for XZ-1 on top of what I have done for LOW ISO I also applied noise suppression in PS (pretty much the default settings of CS3) what does a reasonable job. Of course the XZ-1 did NOT get the noise suppression twice.
LOW ISO impressions: (I ignore color differences here)
- X1 and GXR look pretty much indistinguishable. Any faint differences would be easy to shift to one or other side with PP
- DP2- clean and very detailed. While the detail per pixel is very high - it can barely be seen at this 360 spi print. It would be more fair to print at 240 dpi. I did this comparison on screen and at that point the image file was not as clean and sharp as X1 or GXR. The DP2 could match some 8 Mpix Bayer sensor, but not 12 Mpix.
- XZ-1 - as mentioned above - it got double sharpening. This yielded print that is definitely sharper that the one from X1 or GXR - but it still does not look oversharpened! Without any doubt I can see in the print finer detail than I do with either X1 or GXR (both at abse ISO) !!! That is to me hard to understand.
** Sanity check ** (Attachment Nr. 1, 2, 3)
So - before going to HIGH ISO I went back to DPreview and check the files. Indeed if you open the review of XZ-1 and go to JPEG and then to RAW comparison - it can be clearly seen that while the XZ-1 RAW output shows noise at base ISO - the image simply shows more detail. Now that IS puzzling to me. Now - I would not make too strong conclusion on this as one should indeed compare him/her self. My only point would be - the XZ-1 is capable of VERY detailed images at low ISO and with some more advanced noise suppression nice prints beyond A4 should be no problem.
HIGH ISO impressions (again, color aside):
- X1 and GXR - very similar again - X1 files may look very slightly better with fine detail, but this is hair splitting. Noise and shadow detail is pretty much the same for both.
- DP2 - I did not print. Up to ISO 400 the digital files look good and then the color starts to shift. So - no info here
- XZ-1 - the same story as above - the RAW file is very detailed. It is not possible to suppress the noise without destroying the details, so the print shows the noise. Again - the fine detail is VERY good - still rivals both X1 and GXR at thei base ISOs !!!
** Sanity check II ** (Attachment No. 4 - separate post)
So I went back to DPreview and in the page for the review of XZ-1 (RAW comparisons) and selected ISO 400 for XZ-1 and the base iso for rest of the cameras. Again - the XZ-1 while noisy delivers unbeatable detail.
My conclusions:
- X1 and GXR offer image wise nearly the same performance. Probably not a surprise as the sensor is with good probability the same (or at least very similar)
- DP2 - produces very natural images, but the upper limit for prints will probably be around A4 (8x10").
- XZ-1 - is a small camera with very high potential. Delivers good JPEGs and very detailed RAW files. It produced the best looking prints at low ISO from this small group, but this I also assign to over-saturated images from X1 and GXR. But I invested NO time to prcess the RAW files properly - so take that into account. Still - It was very nice to see that compact cameras are capable of such output. Still - this particular scene does not show possible problems like highlight clipping or aberrations. It does not replace real life photos.
Outcome:
- I will have a few more photos printed - for the future I will slightly upsize the XZ-1 files to mach the X1 and GXR (basically the difference between 10 and 12 Mpix). I will also try the same with DP2.
- What concerns the camera selection - I will anyhow wait for the X100, but now I fear less to try it with compact camera - the XZ-1.
As in this game I did not only consider APS-C cameras but also P&S I decided to have a few test photos (studio shots from dpreview) printed to see how these camera compare on photo-paper.
Cameras selected:
- Olympux XZ-1, Leica X1, Ricoh GXR with A12 (50 mm) and Sigma DP2.
Prints:
- when possible I tried to get RAW files from dpreview at base ISO and higher ISO (3200 for X1 and GXR and 400 for XZ-1).
- I kept the native resolution such that I printed it at 360 dpi. This yielded about A4 prints for X1 and GXR, slightly smaller for XZ-1 and considerably smaller for DP2 (which I may have scaled up a bit as it is a Foveon sensor)
Post Processing:
-> LOW ISO:
- for X1, GXR, SD2 - direct conversion with no sharpening or color adjustments with CS3 and subsequesntly applying Smart Sharpening with amount of 100 and radius 0.3, settings: Lens Blur
- for XZ-1 - Used JPEG from DPreview (I was not able to open correctly the RAW - the camera is too new for CS3). I did apply additional Smart Sharpen of amount 100 and radius 0.5. I probably should not have doe this as on the DPreview the image was already sharpened. Followed by a noise suppression with CS3.
-> HIGH ISO: 3200 for X1 and GXR and 400 for XZ-1 on top of what I have done for LOW ISO I also applied noise suppression in PS (pretty much the default settings of CS3) what does a reasonable job. Of course the XZ-1 did NOT get the noise suppression twice.
LOW ISO impressions: (I ignore color differences here)
- X1 and GXR look pretty much indistinguishable. Any faint differences would be easy to shift to one or other side with PP
- DP2- clean and very detailed. While the detail per pixel is very high - it can barely be seen at this 360 spi print. It would be more fair to print at 240 dpi. I did this comparison on screen and at that point the image file was not as clean and sharp as X1 or GXR. The DP2 could match some 8 Mpix Bayer sensor, but not 12 Mpix.
- XZ-1 - as mentioned above - it got double sharpening. This yielded print that is definitely sharper that the one from X1 or GXR - but it still does not look oversharpened! Without any doubt I can see in the print finer detail than I do with either X1 or GXR (both at abse ISO) !!! That is to me hard to understand.
** Sanity check ** (Attachment Nr. 1, 2, 3)
So - before going to HIGH ISO I went back to DPreview and check the files. Indeed if you open the review of XZ-1 and go to JPEG and then to RAW comparison - it can be clearly seen that while the XZ-1 RAW output shows noise at base ISO - the image simply shows more detail. Now that IS puzzling to me. Now - I would not make too strong conclusion on this as one should indeed compare him/her self. My only point would be - the XZ-1 is capable of VERY detailed images at low ISO and with some more advanced noise suppression nice prints beyond A4 should be no problem.
HIGH ISO impressions (again, color aside):
- X1 and GXR - very similar again - X1 files may look very slightly better with fine detail, but this is hair splitting. Noise and shadow detail is pretty much the same for both.
- DP2 - I did not print. Up to ISO 400 the digital files look good and then the color starts to shift. So - no info here
- XZ-1 - the same story as above - the RAW file is very detailed. It is not possible to suppress the noise without destroying the details, so the print shows the noise. Again - the fine detail is VERY good - still rivals both X1 and GXR at thei base ISOs !!!
** Sanity check II ** (Attachment No. 4 - separate post)
So I went back to DPreview and in the page for the review of XZ-1 (RAW comparisons) and selected ISO 400 for XZ-1 and the base iso for rest of the cameras. Again - the XZ-1 while noisy delivers unbeatable detail.
My conclusions:
- X1 and GXR offer image wise nearly the same performance. Probably not a surprise as the sensor is with good probability the same (or at least very similar)
- DP2 - produces very natural images, but the upper limit for prints will probably be around A4 (8x10").
- XZ-1 - is a small camera with very high potential. Delivers good JPEGs and very detailed RAW files. It produced the best looking prints at low ISO from this small group, but this I also assign to over-saturated images from X1 and GXR. But I invested NO time to prcess the RAW files properly - so take that into account. Still - It was very nice to see that compact cameras are capable of such output. Still - this particular scene does not show possible problems like highlight clipping or aberrations. It does not replace real life photos.
Outcome:
- I will have a few more photos printed - for the future I will slightly upsize the XZ-1 files to mach the X1 and GXR (basically the difference between 10 and 12 Mpix). I will also try the same with DP2.
- What concerns the camera selection - I will anyhow wait for the X100, but now I fear less to try it with compact camera - the XZ-1.
Attachments
Matus
Well-known
Matus
Well-known
I should have posted these over at Leica forum - would have been eaten alive I guess
Anyhow - I should mention that based on the advice I got over at DPreview forums I tried a different raw converter - RawTherapee and got MUCH better results for X1 and GXR and a little bit better results for XZ-1. Still - the XZ-1 output is very good detail-wise, not question about that.
Anyhow - I should mention that based on the advice I got over at DPreview forums I tried a different raw converter - RawTherapee and got MUCH better results for X1 and GXR and a little bit better results for XZ-1. Still - the XZ-1 output is very good detail-wise, not question about that.
Jani_from_Finland
Well-known
With a T3 you are not needing to think about chargers etc, superb camera with great lens and some basic film you can get anywhere. Just get a fresh battery in it and some rolls of film, minumum weight and space needed and the camera always performs well. I've shot in dark nightclubs with no flash on 400 slide film and the exposure was perfect and shake free and the lens is extremely sharp.
Also you dont have to think about software immeadiatly when shooting on film.
Also you dont have to think about software immeadiatly when shooting on film.
acheyj
Well-known
G11 or G12
ron
ron
hausen
Well-known
I have been looking through some photos taken by a Film friend of mine's D-lux 5 and I was stunned by how good they were. I am exiting my Canon DSLR gear because of my recent M9 purchase and I think a D-Lux 5 could be my AF option. Understand it is basically an LX-5 but it will look better in my bag with M9 if it is a Leica. Can't go wrong with either D-Lux 5 or LX-5 in my book.
Last edited:
What does it matter if it'll be a in a bag though?
Matus
Well-known
The point about T3 is well taken. But while it may look like it saves post processing - it actually does not. It needs development & scanning & post processing after the scanning. But I would love to try the T3 out so see whether it would work for me. I have turned down a few fixed lens 35 mm film cameras already, but these were/are not it the same league.
I have checked the DLux-5 -vs- LX5 and my understanding is that Leica comes with Adobe Light Room what actually makes the price difference - and I do not really need it as I am CS3 user. Comparing both to Olympus XZ-1 I find the Olympus more interesting (the raw files are excellent).
I have to admit I did not consider G11 or G12 too seriously - the size is pretty much comparable to m4/3 or APS-C candidates (not with a zoom lens of course) and I think I do not need the extras compared to XZ-1 or LX5.
Right now I am waiting for X100 to be introduced so I can try it out in a shop and side to side with X1 and GXR.
I have checked the DLux-5 -vs- LX5 and my understanding is that Leica comes with Adobe Light Room what actually makes the price difference - and I do not really need it as I am CS3 user. Comparing both to Olympus XZ-1 I find the Olympus more interesting (the raw files are excellent).
I have to admit I did not consider G11 or G12 too seriously - the size is pretty much comparable to m4/3 or APS-C candidates (not with a zoom lens of course) and I think I do not need the extras compared to XZ-1 or LX5.
Right now I am waiting for X100 to be introduced so I can try it out in a shop and side to side with X1 and GXR.
thegman
Veteran
What does it do better than a T3? Likely nothing, I've never used a T3, they look like great cameras though. Browsing the specs, they're very similar cameras. The Klasse ( and indeed the Natura) appealed to me because I like to support Fujifilm's camera efforts (who brings out a medium format folder in this day and age?). It also looks and feels very nice, the lens is as sharp as my Summicron and features you just don't expect from a compact like Bulb mode and a real cable release socket.
They are a touch bulky though, yes, I still like it though!
As for the GXR, looks like a great camera, and I admire Ricoh's efforts to do something a bit different, even if I feel they got it wrong on this occasion. I do still have a lot of time for it though, simply they're a bit of an underdog, and I like to see companies have an original thought, not just copy the competition.
valdas
Veteran
It's not a suggestion - just sharing my own experience... Business trips is also a part of my professional life, so I usually take two fims cameras - Contax T2 and Yashica T4 (one for color, another for BW). If digital is OK for you (I still prefer film), I'd probably buy LX3 or 5...
Archiver
Veteran
I often carry two compact cameras. Sometimes it's two digital cameras. Other times it's one digital, one film. Sometimes two small sensor cameras, sometimes one small sensor and one large sensor.
Canon S70 + Contax T3
Canon G7 + Fuji Natura Black f1.9
Canon G7 + Zeiss Ikon ZM and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton
Canon G10 + Sigma DP1
Canon S90 + Sigma DP2
Ricoh GRD III + Sigma DP1/2
Ricoh GRD III + Ricoh GXR/50mm module
Ricoh GRD III + Leica M9/35mm f1.4 Nokton
One of my most photographically enjoyable trips was with the Canon G7 and the Fuji Natura Black f1.9. The G7 handled most shooting and was great for zoom and video. The Natura Black, loaded with XTRA400, Pro400H, Pro160C or Velvia, was fantastic for wide angle, landscape and some low light work. Both cameras together weighed far less than my DSLR or even less than a rangefinder like the Zeiss Ikon.
For the kind of money you are thinking of spending, you could easily get a Ricoh GXR + 28mm module and a travel zoom like the Sony HX9V. You'll have great aps-c image quality in a very sturdy package, and all the benefits of zoom and avchd video in the Sony. The Sony is also very quiet and light.
When photography was not my occupation, I would take one digital and one film compact with me on trips. I always seek to account for wide angle, low light, stealth and some video capabilties, so these days I might take the Ricoh GXR + 28mm module and the Canon S90.
I should add that since getting the GXR and two aps-c modules, it has become my favourite camera next to the M9. I even use it more than the M9, which surprises me. It has almost replaced my GRD III, which is also surprising given how much I love and use that camera. The GRD III still beats the GXR for stealth and quietness, though.
Canon S70 + Contax T3
Canon G7 + Fuji Natura Black f1.9
Canon G7 + Zeiss Ikon ZM and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton
Canon G10 + Sigma DP1
Canon S90 + Sigma DP2
Ricoh GRD III + Sigma DP1/2
Ricoh GRD III + Ricoh GXR/50mm module
Ricoh GRD III + Leica M9/35mm f1.4 Nokton
One of my most photographically enjoyable trips was with the Canon G7 and the Fuji Natura Black f1.9. The G7 handled most shooting and was great for zoom and video. The Natura Black, loaded with XTRA400, Pro400H, Pro160C or Velvia, was fantastic for wide angle, landscape and some low light work. Both cameras together weighed far less than my DSLR or even less than a rangefinder like the Zeiss Ikon.
For the kind of money you are thinking of spending, you could easily get a Ricoh GXR + 28mm module and a travel zoom like the Sony HX9V. You'll have great aps-c image quality in a very sturdy package, and all the benefits of zoom and avchd video in the Sony. The Sony is also very quiet and light.
When photography was not my occupation, I would take one digital and one film compact with me on trips. I always seek to account for wide angle, low light, stealth and some video capabilties, so these days I might take the Ricoh GXR + 28mm module and the Canon S90.
I should add that since getting the GXR and two aps-c modules, it has become my favourite camera next to the M9. I even use it more than the M9, which surprises me. It has almost replaced my GRD III, which is also surprising given how much I love and use that camera. The GRD III still beats the GXR for stealth and quietness, though.