Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I haven't been doing much RF photography for almost a year, partially due to a lack of opportunity but also because I just seem to have lost my passion for working in film. So… rather than fight it, I'm thinking I'll change my spots and give a digital RF-ish replacement a try.
My ideal would be an M9; that's about as likely to happen as my waking up tomorrow as the new King of England. I gave a lot of consideration to the Leica X-1 but I feel it's prohibitively expensive for what it is and I strongly disagree with several design features (namely the lack of an OVF or eyelevel EVF and the motorized lens mount.)
A few challenges with this approach will be getting good low light performance and a decent eye-level VF. I need decent quality out to at least ISO 800 and also refuse to function with a camera held out in front of me like a newspaper. I have played with a few EVFs in store and am not impressed - they tend to give me a headache. I have no need or desire for IS of any kind - I want a *camera*, not a gadget. (You kids get offa my lawn!) Built-in flash is not attractive to me, but I can ignore it. I would shoot in color but most of my stuff would probably end up converted to B&W.
I am willing to try relying on modern AF performance rather than forcing myself to MF everything. This is the reason the Oly isn't on the table - everything I've read says the Panasonic is far superior in AF performance to the Olympuses. I shoot something approaching street - I think of it more as urban landscape, I don't fixate on people but rather patterns and interesting architectural details. Not much of a challenge for a modern AF system, I think.
So, I'm thinking about selling a few little-used lenses and picking up either a Panasonic GF-1 with the 20mm and a shoe mount OVF or the new Samsung NX100 with their 30mm and a shoe mount OVF.
The GF-1 has a track record; much of what I've seen has been impressive but I keep seeing comments from owners about how the images run out of steam in low light.
The NX100 is brand new, of course; I haven't read much about how the NX10 does in low light.
Anyone care to lend me your thoughts?
My ideal would be an M9; that's about as likely to happen as my waking up tomorrow as the new King of England. I gave a lot of consideration to the Leica X-1 but I feel it's prohibitively expensive for what it is and I strongly disagree with several design features (namely the lack of an OVF or eyelevel EVF and the motorized lens mount.)
A few challenges with this approach will be getting good low light performance and a decent eye-level VF. I need decent quality out to at least ISO 800 and also refuse to function with a camera held out in front of me like a newspaper. I have played with a few EVFs in store and am not impressed - they tend to give me a headache. I have no need or desire for IS of any kind - I want a *camera*, not a gadget. (You kids get offa my lawn!) Built-in flash is not attractive to me, but I can ignore it. I would shoot in color but most of my stuff would probably end up converted to B&W.
I am willing to try relying on modern AF performance rather than forcing myself to MF everything. This is the reason the Oly isn't on the table - everything I've read says the Panasonic is far superior in AF performance to the Olympuses. I shoot something approaching street - I think of it more as urban landscape, I don't fixate on people but rather patterns and interesting architectural details. Not much of a challenge for a modern AF system, I think.
So, I'm thinking about selling a few little-used lenses and picking up either a Panasonic GF-1 with the 20mm and a shoe mount OVF or the new Samsung NX100 with their 30mm and a shoe mount OVF.
The GF-1 has a track record; much of what I've seen has been impressive but I keep seeing comments from owners about how the images run out of steam in low light.
The NX100 is brand new, of course; I haven't read much about how the NX10 does in low light.
Anyone care to lend me your thoughts?
Matus
Well-known
You will get ton answers from Panasonic and Olympus users I guess. My impression was that the Samsung was rather weak with the image quality. In your place I would have a look at the Sony NEX cameras. A bit P&S design, but deliver very nice image quality - and you get APS-C instead of m4/3 what works much better with M lenses (1.5 crop factor instead of 2)
EDIT: check out the image samples at www.dpreview.com
EDIT: check out the image samples at www.dpreview.com
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
How about the recently unveiled Nikon P7000? It's a kind of retro-style camera that would probably meet your needs... Except that it doesn't have interchangeable lenses.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Hi, Francisco!
I considered a G12 or P7000, but I think I'd ultimately be disappointed with the smaller sensor. That, and the OVFs seem rather dismal.
Matus, I don't get along well with Sony products. That, and the NEX series doesn't have a hotshoe I could use with a brightline. As I said I refuse to be limited to an LCD.
I considered a G12 or P7000, but I think I'd ultimately be disappointed with the smaller sensor. That, and the OVFs seem rather dismal.
Matus, I don't get along well with Sony products. That, and the NEX series doesn't have a hotshoe I could use with a brightline. As I said I refuse to be limited to an LCD.
historicist
Well-known
I can't speak for the NX100 but I've got a NX10 and I think the image quality is very good, including in low light (of course it's not a D700 but for what it is it's as good as I would expect).
The 30mm is an excellent lens, I would really recommend it highly.
AF is fine except in very low light and some situations such as large areas of flat colour (as I found out when photographing my old Thinkpad for ebay today..) and reflective surfaces, in which you have to use manual focus. In good light it's quite quick, about the same speed as my old Pentax K100D. I've not used the GF1 or Pen extensively but when I was thinking about which camera to buy I tried them both and my impression was that the NX10 and GF1 are the same speed.
In the end, however, the main reason I got the NX10 was price - either the GF1 or the EP1 with the Panasonic 20mm would have been more expensive than the NX10 with the Samsung 30mm, and much more so if I'd had to buy an external viewfinder (the NX10 has a good EVF), plus on the GF1 a lot of optical finders block the flash.
Wheter the price difference in the US is as much as in the UK I don't know, but in general I would certainly recommend the NX cameras, especially the lens - which I think is really special.
The 30mm is an excellent lens, I would really recommend it highly.
AF is fine except in very low light and some situations such as large areas of flat colour (as I found out when photographing my old Thinkpad for ebay today..) and reflective surfaces, in which you have to use manual focus. In good light it's quite quick, about the same speed as my old Pentax K100D. I've not used the GF1 or Pen extensively but when I was thinking about which camera to buy I tried them both and my impression was that the NX10 and GF1 are the same speed.
In the end, however, the main reason I got the NX10 was price - either the GF1 or the EP1 with the Panasonic 20mm would have been more expensive than the NX10 with the Samsung 30mm, and much more so if I'd had to buy an external viewfinder (the NX10 has a good EVF), plus on the GF1 a lot of optical finders block the flash.
Wheter the price difference in the US is as much as in the UK I don't know, but in general I would certainly recommend the NX cameras, especially the lens - which I think is really special.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Wonderful information, historicist - thank you! What do you consider your maximum ISO to be without significant image degradation? Are you happy with your low-light results at (say) ISO 800? 1000? 1600?
historicist
Well-known
I'd definitely be happy at 800, 1600 is borderline - it doesn't disappoint me but perhaps would those who are used the the kind of output full frame digital gives - 3200 is for optimists. I don't have a lot of experience with digital cameras, so others are probably better qualified to judge it's relative merits but the camera certainly meets the standard I would expect for the price and size.
Here's a couple of quick and dirty samples:
800iso
1600iso
3200iso
Here's a couple of quick and dirty samples:
800iso
1600iso
3200iso
bwcolor
Veteran
Supposedly, the NX10 and NX100 are the same image quality, but I'm wondering if this is so. Have only seen a couple of images from the NX100 and they looked rather nice. I'm interested in the NX100/20mm combination. What concerns me is kit lens quality. Sensors are used in many cameras and only the processing and lens makes for better or worse image quality. I have yet to see images from the just announced 20mm lens. Maybe Leica will mix things up on Monday and I will break the bank on my next camera, but so far, waiting for NX100/20mm images. I really like the manual control features of their new lenses.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
FWIW. I bought the GF1 with kit zoom and EVF thinking if I had to resort to using a digital camera sometimes then this was as close to useful as I was likely to get.
The body is OK but the over-complicated bells and whistles menus annoy me and I shoot jpegs on auto-everything. The results are good, I have to say. But at normal viewing on a 20 inch Mac monitor or printing to A4 size my daughter's LX3 is every bit as good.
The zoom lens on the GF1 is so big it rather defeats the idea of a compact camera, even though the body is compact.
The EVF is just adequate but better than the arm's reach view of the LCD.
If I were contemplating the same decision today I would get the new LX5, keep the EVF I have and sell the GF1 body and zoom. In fact I keep prevaricating about making that trade. The only thing stopping me is that I'd lose 50% of the value (now that's a loose term!) of the GF1 and only get for it what it would cost the buy the LX5. I could put a CV 21 or 25 on the GF1 but I lose the facility of the zoom which I'd retain in the LX5 in a very compact package.
The body is OK but the over-complicated bells and whistles menus annoy me and I shoot jpegs on auto-everything. The results are good, I have to say. But at normal viewing on a 20 inch Mac monitor or printing to A4 size my daughter's LX3 is every bit as good.
The zoom lens on the GF1 is so big it rather defeats the idea of a compact camera, even though the body is compact.
The EVF is just adequate but better than the arm's reach view of the LCD.
If I were contemplating the same decision today I would get the new LX5, keep the EVF I have and sell the GF1 body and zoom. In fact I keep prevaricating about making that trade. The only thing stopping me is that I'd lose 50% of the value (now that's a loose term!) of the GF1 and only get for it what it would cost the buy the LX5. I could put a CV 21 or 25 on the GF1 but I lose the facility of the zoom which I'd retain in the LX5 in a very compact package.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Based on the samples, I'd have no issue with ISO 1600...
bwcolor
Veteran
Except, the samples here are not really adequate for judging high ISO. There is some shadow within which you can see the noise, but not much color. I really can't say one way or another with this subject matter, at this size and viewed on my monitor. I can say that most digital cameras are handling noise better than a few years ago.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
The Sony NEX cameras do take an OVF (check the Sony website), but what about the M8? It has a larger sensor than most, a viewfinder and can take lenses you already own. Shoot RAW and remove noise in post processing. Lightroom 3 is now very good for this and will only improve. I happily shoot ISO 640 and I imagine the Leica lenses you own will be faster than the system lenses for most of 4/3rds cameras so the performance gap will be closed.
I spent a while considering all the cameras you listed for a backup to my M8 but, for the reasons you stated, nothing came close. I love shooting digital but in the end I bought a Fuji medium format camera as my backup; it was the only thing I could find that was affordable and offered both the image quality and handling characteristics I wanted.
YMMV.
Bob.
I spent a while considering all the cameras you listed for a backup to my M8 but, for the reasons you stated, nothing came close. I love shooting digital but in the end I bought a Fuji medium format camera as my backup; it was the only thing I could find that was affordable and offered both the image quality and handling characteristics I wanted.
YMMV.
Bob.
PCB_RF
Established
(much snipped...)
Try before you buy, if at all possible. Subtle interface diffs can matter a lot, and you never know how until you try.
Some randomish thoughts....
1. There may be some interesting/useful cameras/lenses announced over the next week at Photokina. Even if nothing new interests you, used prices will likely decline over the next 1-2 months as the bleeding-edgers trade/sell their old gear for new.
2. I don't think LX3/LX5/P7000 files will please you at ISO800 & above; m4/3 will be 1-2 stops better, APS-C another 1-2 stops above m4/3. If you don't mind post-processing every high-ISO image, maybe, LR3 and other noice-reduction software works well. But the bigger sensors will always outperform at high ISO.
3. P&S OVF aren't nearly as nice as a Leica-type shoe-mount OVF.
4. Samsung NX will not accept your Leica M-mount lenses, but Sony NEX and all m4/3 will. Even if you don't think you're interested at the moment, understand that Samsung removes that option.
5. General opinion seems to be that Samsung NX10 makes some unfortunate jpg processing choices and does best shot raw plus post. Hopefully the NX100 does better, or maybe NX10 output is fine for you. Again, try b4 buy.
6. GF1 with 20/1.7 and a 35-40mm OVF can make a great street shooting rig w/AF. Prefocus/hyperfocal use isn't quick/easy but can be done, you'll find lots of forum posts about this.
7. NEX has exc high-ISO performance, good jpg output, but 16/2.8 isn't as sharp or fast as Pany 20/1.7. No hot shoe, so you can only use whatever OVF Sony offers, currently only for the 16. Again, this could change at Photokina.
8. NEX/NX 1.5 crop is better than M4/3 2x crop if you favor wide angle. But neither NEX/NX have an equivalent of the 20/1.7.
9. Some either like or have no issues with NEX interface, but there are also those who actively dislike it. I hate it passionately, wouldn't keep one if you gave it to me. I understand we're all different, and have no quarrels with those who like it. But I know more people who dislike current NEX interface than dislike Pany, Oly or NX. Maybe a NEX 7 with more buttons at Photokina?
10. In bright light, for what you're doing, I don't think Oly vs. Pany AF speed diffs will matter much, but Oly has no lowlight focus aid, and hunts much more in low light.
That's all I can think of for now.
Try before you buy, if at all possible. Subtle interface diffs can matter a lot, and you never know how until you try.
Some randomish thoughts....
1. There may be some interesting/useful cameras/lenses announced over the next week at Photokina. Even if nothing new interests you, used prices will likely decline over the next 1-2 months as the bleeding-edgers trade/sell their old gear for new.
2. I don't think LX3/LX5/P7000 files will please you at ISO800 & above; m4/3 will be 1-2 stops better, APS-C another 1-2 stops above m4/3. If you don't mind post-processing every high-ISO image, maybe, LR3 and other noice-reduction software works well. But the bigger sensors will always outperform at high ISO.
3. P&S OVF aren't nearly as nice as a Leica-type shoe-mount OVF.
4. Samsung NX will not accept your Leica M-mount lenses, but Sony NEX and all m4/3 will. Even if you don't think you're interested at the moment, understand that Samsung removes that option.
5. General opinion seems to be that Samsung NX10 makes some unfortunate jpg processing choices and does best shot raw plus post. Hopefully the NX100 does better, or maybe NX10 output is fine for you. Again, try b4 buy.
6. GF1 with 20/1.7 and a 35-40mm OVF can make a great street shooting rig w/AF. Prefocus/hyperfocal use isn't quick/easy but can be done, you'll find lots of forum posts about this.
7. NEX has exc high-ISO performance, good jpg output, but 16/2.8 isn't as sharp or fast as Pany 20/1.7. No hot shoe, so you can only use whatever OVF Sony offers, currently only for the 16. Again, this could change at Photokina.
8. NEX/NX 1.5 crop is better than M4/3 2x crop if you favor wide angle. But neither NEX/NX have an equivalent of the 20/1.7.
9. Some either like or have no issues with NEX interface, but there are also those who actively dislike it. I hate it passionately, wouldn't keep one if you gave it to me. I understand we're all different, and have no quarrels with those who like it. But I know more people who dislike current NEX interface than dislike Pany, Oly or NX. Maybe a NEX 7 with more buttons at Photokina?
10. In bright light, for what you're doing, I don't think Oly vs. Pany AF speed diffs will matter much, but Oly has no lowlight focus aid, and hunts much more in low light.
That's all I can think of for now.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I've been fence sitting on a similar decision for about a year now.
Nothing has yet to really scream "buy me" so I've continued on shooting my ZI loaded with Tri-X and everything is, on the whole, pretty good. I actually think the urge has subdued substantially.
Having said that, a photographer (artist, not a hobbyist) that I know, loves his Panny G1 with the 20mm. And he's used in his lifetime everything from Ms to 8x10s. This is now his Leica so to speak. I didn't care for the EVF on it when I thought about buying one but perhaps you just get into it and grow used to it?
Over at Steve Huff photo there was an article comparing the Olympus E-PL1 with the NX10. Might be some good info there for you.
gavinlg
Veteran
The samsung nx10 is a seriously good effort at this type of camera - It's very well made, AF is very quick, UI is very intuitive and straightforward, it can be used at iso1600, and the 30mm f2 lens is superb.
Otherwise, an e-p2/e-pl1 or a gf1. The e-p2/e-pl1 has the best EVF, plus in body IS, the e-pl1 has the best IQ (noise is equal to APSC dslrs) GF1 has slightly faster AF but the worst noise performance of the 3, and no IS.
The e-pl1 and e-p2 AF is really quite good - a lot of people just don't know how to use it. Camera up, half press, once it's locked (fraction of a second - about the same as a regular dslr) full press and there's 0 shutter lag. Using center point helps with predictability. Focus and recompose.
Otherwise, an e-p2/e-pl1 or a gf1. The e-p2/e-pl1 has the best EVF, plus in body IS, the e-pl1 has the best IQ (noise is equal to APSC dslrs) GF1 has slightly faster AF but the worst noise performance of the 3, and no IS.
The e-pl1 and e-p2 AF is really quite good - a lot of people just don't know how to use it. Camera up, half press, once it's locked (fraction of a second - about the same as a regular dslr) full press and there's 0 shutter lag. Using center point helps with predictability. Focus and recompose.
bwcolor
Veteran
January-February may show the Sony NEX-7. Supposedly, Sony has developed the camera but is waiting to see how the NEX series is receive. Also, Zeiss is suppose to be close to announcing five E-Mount lenses from the ZM series. If true, and if the NEX-7 meet expectation of greater manual control, the NEX series might become a camera of great interest for those that lurk here. Lots of ifs...
NickTrop
Veteran
I was right there with you on the whole film thing... I haven't lost my passion, I just wanted to shoot more and be free of the consumable constraint. My thinking was, initially, that I was going to get the Samsung NX 10 with the 30mm pancake. I wouldn't consider 4/3. I think it's silly to go with a smaller sensor kit that costs more than APS-C. I got tired of waiting for Samsung to release the NX in the US, and bought a refurbished Nikon D5000 body with the 35/1.8 prime. Total cost, $670 w/ lens. I'm glad I did, as (and don't quote me) it looked like the NX10 with prime I wanted is a lot more in the US than it was when it was 1st released in Europe. (I think I saw B&H wanted around $1000 for this combo - again, don't quote me...) My other camera is a used Fuji F20, which I have a growing admiration for. Good low light, decent IQ, nice macro function, great flash, pocketable, cheap. I wouldn't go with a high-end small sensor compact - ever. They all have the same IQ, broadly speaking... a constraint of the tiny sensors they all use, no matter how many bells, whistles, unnecessary features, or how cool the body looks or what lens manufacturer they pay to use their name on the lens...
To my way of thinking:
1. Get an APS-C camera, forget the 4/3'rds.
2. I'd get the Samsung. The NX 1000 looks very interesting.
3. Don't discount the smaller DSLRs. It's what I ended up with... worth looking at.
- No IQ compromises. Built-in flash, viewfinder. Nikon D5000 has articulated screen, an effective quiet mode, great 1600 ISO/useable 3200, an articulated screen, and an available good, fast, reasonably priced prime lens. It also was the cheapest if you don't mind refurbed.
To my way of thinking:
1. Get an APS-C camera, forget the 4/3'rds.
2. I'd get the Samsung. The NX 1000 looks very interesting.
3. Don't discount the smaller DSLRs. It's what I ended up with... worth looking at.
- No IQ compromises. Built-in flash, viewfinder. Nikon D5000 has articulated screen, an effective quiet mode, great 1600 ISO/useable 3200, an articulated screen, and an available good, fast, reasonably priced prime lens. It also was the cheapest if you don't mind refurbed.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
FYI - the m4/3 sensor in the e-p2 and e-pl1 are pretty much on par with the samsung nx10 sensor as far as noise performance goes, and actually have higher resolution. Not much difference between them though.
Keep in mind that the panasonic 14mm (28mm) f2.5 is due out in the next few weeks and will pair really well with the superb 20mm (40mm) f1.7 that's already out. If small primes are your thing anyway.
Keep in mind that the panasonic 14mm (28mm) f2.5 is due out in the next few weeks and will pair really well with the superb 20mm (40mm) f1.7 that's already out. If small primes are your thing anyway.
chrisso
Established
For me one huge factor in the decision would be ability to use M lenses.
Who wants to carry a whole second set of lenses for an auxiliary camera?
I'm kind of amazed a few people are recommending a separate system as a second camera when really good camera systems are available that accept M lenses.
I have an M6, an RD1s and a Panasonic GH1. Whichever cameras I want to use, I only ever need my M lenses.
Carrying your M6 and a NEX or m4/3rds with a couple of M lenses would be a no brainer in my opinion.
Who wants to carry a whole second set of lenses for an auxiliary camera?
I'm kind of amazed a few people are recommending a separate system as a second camera when really good camera systems are available that accept M lenses.
I have an M6, an RD1s and a Panasonic GH1. Whichever cameras I want to use, I only ever need my M lenses.
Carrying your M6 and a NEX or m4/3rds with a couple of M lenses would be a no brainer in my opinion.
mugent
Well-known
I have a NEX-5 with the Sony OVF, I don't use the OVF much, but it's nice to know it's there if I find myself in very bright sunlight. I used to own the GF-1 and it's OK, but the EVF is rubbish, the 20mm 1.7 is great though, much better than the Sony pancake.
The tipping point for me was the m43 crop factor, it makes most M lenses turn into telephotos, and super wides almost impossible.
Also, if using manual focus lenses, the screen on the Sony is much clearer, and focus seems to 'snap' like it didn't on the GF-1, and zoom-in function on the Sony is much easier to access, and less of an after-thought like it is on the GF-1.
I liked the GF-1, but for me it was a few niggly flaws that annoyed me. Shame, if the EVF was better, I'd probably still own it.
MT
The tipping point for me was the m43 crop factor, it makes most M lenses turn into telephotos, and super wides almost impossible.
Also, if using manual focus lenses, the screen on the Sony is much clearer, and focus seems to 'snap' like it didn't on the GF-1, and zoom-in function on the Sony is much easier to access, and less of an after-thought like it is on the GF-1.
I liked the GF-1, but for me it was a few niggly flaws that annoyed me. Shame, if the EVF was better, I'd probably still own it.
MT