Leica X1: How's the high-ISO noise?

Rob-F

Rob-F

Likes Leicas
Local time
11:58 PM
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
7,470
This might be the right forum for this, since it's about Leica digital. Note: our search engine rejected "Leica X1" on the grounds that "X!" has not got enough characters. (Moderators please look into that. It means not only that we can't search for Leica X1; but also "Leica M2"; "Leica MP"; well, you get the idea.)

dp review showed some sample images comparing with various cameras, including the D300 and the Pannie GF1. They concluded the X1 has the best hi-ISO noise performance of any pocket size camera. But then they equivocated by saying that the Pannie is really just as good because the extra speed of the 20/1.7 makes up for the difference in noise.

Hmmmm. I think i'd rather have 35mm lens than 40mm. But then again, the Pannie takes interchangeable lenses. And it's a lot cheaper.

I like the images I get from my D-Lux 3 and D-Lux 4, except at High-ISO, where they are too noisy. My D300 is Great (note the capital G) at high ISO. But I might not want to lug my D300 all over France (for example) just for that.

Thoughts on the matter?
 
I can't offer any thoughts on your question, not owning an X1 but it's pretty amazing that Leica was able to get an APS-C sized sensor into that small of a body. Very interesting camera, but like all red dot items they're beyond my budget and (personally) think there's better price/performance options out there. Very interesting camera though. Wish the Japanese would come out with something like this at a more reasonable price point.
 
I don't own one. But I was very intrigued. So much so that I bought a subscription to Reid Reviews. He has two lengthy articles/reviews on the X1. I think you would find all the information you need there. And given the size of the purchase, $30 for the subscription is probably not a bad idea (if you can't come to a conclusion through other sources).

He concluded that the X1 has about a 1.5 stop advantage, where noise is concerned, over the GF1.

The crops in his review clearly show the superiority of the X1 over the GF1 and the DP1/2. And it's not just noise, but shadow detail etc. However, to my eyes, some of the GF1 crops seemed to show more detail and nicer contrast (ie I would have picked them as the better image despite the other issues).

Really hard to justify the price of the X1 vs the GF1 + 20mm IMO.
 
The simple answer is that this is in effect a D300 sensor inside a point and shoot. After 2 months, I'm quite happy using it at 1600 and 3200 - in a different class from the GF1 (which I also own).
The first picture is at 3200 and the second (on the Berlin subway) is at 1600.

Lots more (larger) pictures at http://farnesworth.com/
 

Attachments

  • L1000774.jpg
    L1000774.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 0
  • L1000930.jpg
    L1000930.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
X1 at ISO1600:

4484563655_0e7449d618_b.jpg
 
Rob-F said:
Note: our search engine rejected "Leica X1" on the grounds that "X!" has not got enough characters. (Moderators please look into that. It means not only that we can't search for Leica X1; but also "Leica M2"; "Leica MP"; well, you get the idea.)
Click to expand...

I don't know about the X1, but as for the search engine, you can type that kind of questions between quotes, so search for "Leica X1" (with the quotes typed also).

Stefan.
 
The high ISO in the X1 is best in class. ISO 3200 (its highest setting) is very usable. Believe the hype about this camera's IQ. However, the GF1 is also a good camera. You cannot go wrong either way here.
 
NickTrop said:
I can't offer any thoughts on your question, not owning an X1 but it's pretty amazing that Leica was able to get an APS-C sized sensor into that small of a body.
Click to expand...

It is indeed pricey, but the photos I've seen from it look unique. If they did a Mark 2, with fast infra red autofocus, as opposed to crappy contrast detection (ever, for instance, tried focusing on an area of grass, like I did this morning?), it would be a world-beating camera and would sell huge numbers despite the price.
 
Despite what dpreview and LL said about high iso noise I'm finding the image quality MUCH better on the X1...not just good enough to make up for the lens speed, but way better because of the flexibility of the files for adding fill light and highlight recovery.

The files on my GF1 were always ragged and not tolerant of overexposure at all. Above 800 iso the color rendition was pretty bad. The files from the X1 even at 3200 have rich color and you can recover both darks and blowouts better.

One peeve I had with the GF1 was the heavy internal processing of the RAW files to add artificial sharpness....I posted some examples elsewhere of shots that have a very artificial looking level of sharpening in selected areas of a scene. Panasonic has since "debuted" this algorithm as a "feature" on it's cameras but I want my images to look naturally sharp or blurry, not both in the same frame!

Best wishes
Dan

PS there are some iso 3200 shots in my photostream here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dstate1/
 
Thanks for the helpful comments and photos! Now, let's see, what am I not using, and could sell . . .
 
I'm giving it a lot of consideration right now. The main limitation that I can see is being limited to the one 36mm focal length. Many of my shots have been done around 28mm or even 24mm. I can already do this with my D-Lux 3 (28mm) and my D-Lux 4 (24mm); as well as with my D300. The latter is really my best camera at the moment, but also too bulky for some uses, like travel. The two small Leica models have been wonderful for travel, but I would like better high-ISO performance, and the X1 looks like a killer for that; though they can't be any better than my D300 for low noise.

I remember a time when I had only an M2 with 35mm Summaron, though; and I got along fine when it was all I had.

Maybe I should just take the D300, along with a D-Lux, on trips and forget the X1?
 
Last edited:
Well, 35mm is my favorite focal length, so the X1 was perfect for me. I love the camera, so I am biased. Really, none of us who already own equipment need an X1. However, you can still sell your DL4 for a decent amount of cash and use that towards the X1. However, if you don't like the 36mm equiv focal length, then I'd stick with your DL4. YOu have all you need to take great photos already... but the X1 would be a step up in the compact department.
 
Last edited:
jsrockit said:
Well, 35mm is my favorite focal length, so the X1 was perfect for me. I love the camera, so I am biased. Really, none of us who already own equipment need an X1. However, you can still sell your DL4 for a decent amount of cash and use that towards the X1. However, if you don't like the 36mm equiv focal length, then I'd stick with your DL4. YOu have all you need to take great photos already... but the X1 would be a step up in the compact department.
Click to expand...

Yes, that exactly sums it up! There isn't much I could do with it that I can't already do with what I have, except for one thing: take really fine fine pictures in low light with a pocketable camera that I can always have with me. Yes I could sell a few things I don't use much and get the cash together. I have two Hasselblad PCP-80 projectors, for instance, and only need one, really. And now that I have a D300, I could sell the D200. And maybe the 15mm f/3.5 Nikkor. It flares badly, though it is a great architectural lens. Hmm. Sell the D-Lux 4? Well, there goes my handy little camera with the 24mm wide-angle capability. I could make do with the D-Lux 3, but I would miss the 4. Hmm, again.

My wife and I just got back from a university colloquium on the role of emotions vs. reason in decision-making. Kind of applies here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top