What's the best image quality?

[Perry Way]

I'm pretty sure the hands-down best image quality will not be found in any DSLR no matter the price or the pixel size. However if I am wrong, please educate me.

I'm considering entering the digital world (unless you consider previous crappy digital cameras and cell phones as having already entered me) and I'm concerned primarily about glass and image quality. Not pixels. Not yet. That's a secondary thing for me. I want the BEST image quality or I'll wait for another few lifetimes before the digital world finally rests on a format that won't be obsolete a month from now.

I've been looking around and here's what my take is after reading some reviews. Best to worse:

Leica M9
Fuji XPro-1
Leica M8
Fuji X100

That 35mm f1.2 prime lens for the Fuji XPro-1 seems to me to be enough reason to take the plunge and start buying Fuji. The Fuji sensor is written up as being the best low-light sensor on the market right now and I plan to night photograph in the wilderness, starry skies, sunsets, dim redwood forest floors and the like.

Price limits me to the Fuji line. However it would be nice to have that Leica M9. I can afford an M8 but why? The Fuji XPro-1 is better, no?

I just want to make sure I'm not making some stupid, rather obvious mistake by investing in Fuji. If anyone has some input on this please share!

 

[jimcollum]

I'm not sure how to quantify 'BEST' for you. As an example, take the Leica 50mm Lux lens. The newest Aspheric lens is sharper, higher contrast resolves more detail, but I'd consider the 50mm preapsh to be better... and that's based on my desires in what I want in my images. I'd prefer a 1930 vintage Cooke portrait lens over the sharpest modern day large format lens.

You need to be a lot more specific in what you want out of your 'best' camera system

 

[Alan Klein]

Perry: Digital cameras are as important as lenses unlike film cameras where the lens is paramount. How the camera captures and processes the image differs from digital camera to digital camera unlike film cameras where the film is the same.

Regarding f/1.2 lenses, they may be great but as a landscape photographerer, I always use smaller apertures for DOF. If you'll be shooting landscape on a tripod, what's the purpose of such a wide lens opening? Shouldn't you match the equipment to your needs first before looking into "quality" lens just for "quality" sake? Good luck on whatever you decide. Alan.

 

[Perry Way]

Perry: Digital cameras are as important as lenses unlike film cameras where the lens is paramount. How the camera captures and processes the image differs from digital camera to digital camera unlike film cameras where the film is the same.

Regarding f/1.2 lenses, they may be great but as a landscape photographerer, I always use smaller apertures for DOF. If you'll be shooting landscape on a tripod, what's the purpose of such a wide lens opening? Shouldn't you match the equipment to your needs first before looking into "quality" lens just for "quality" sake? Good luck on whatever you decide. Alan.

By the way I was wrong, it's f1.4 not 1.2. Woops! It just so happens they don't offer a slower lens so it's not like one could save money buying one of them instead of the fast one. Anyway, I actually want a fast lens for specific applications like for example shooting in natural light in a redwood forest floor without a tripod. I've seen the image quality of that lens and that camera, and it is astounding actually. Particularly the low light shots I've seen. WOW is a good word. There are many purposes for shooting wide open, even in a landscape shot. A starry sky for instance. Everything's infinity there. Plus some landscape shots are meant to be purposefully out of focus some people chase bokeh. It turns out this lens has a really great bokeh. Everything's looking towards the Fuji X-Pro1 I think.

I just happened to run across someone a few hours from where I live thanks to Craigslist, and who's selling an X-Pro1 with the 35mm f1.4 lens plus goodies and he's willing to trade +cash for medium format gear of which I have several items he has an interest in. We'll find out soon enough if that deal will work out.

 

[Perry Way]

I'm not sure how to quantify 'BEST' for you. As an example, take the Leica 50mm Lux lens. The newest Aspheric lens is sharper, higher contrast resolves more detail, but I'd consider the 50mm preapsh to be better... and that's based on my desires in what I want in my images. I'd prefer a 1930 vintage Cooke portrait lens over the sharpest modern day large format lens.

You need to be a lot more specific in what you want out of your 'best' camera system

Hmm.. How's this for more specific: If you take a DSLR full frame that is 20 or so megapixels but the sensor and software and lens are inferior to the Fuji, the image may be larger than the Fuji but who cares? I want superior image. Not bigger image. From whatever I'm looking at, it looks like the Fuji and the Leica M9 are the top of the pyramid.

I've seen shots taken with some mighty pricey DSLR's that looked like Holga quality to me, compared to some of the photos I've seen shot from the Fuji X-Pro1. I'm not looking for Holga quality in a huge huge size. I am looking for super sharp exact perfect gradations and smooth tonality, everything perfect, colors blending nicely. The difference in image size is marginal between 16mp and 22mp if you have to shrink the 22mp one and play with it in photoshop until it looks right. I've seen quite a number of shots straight out of the Fuji X-Pro1 that look like someone really spent time to fancy the image up but it came straight out of the camera that way. The same thing can be said about the Leica M8 and M9's from what I've seen.

 

[jimcollum]

Hmm.. How's this for more specific: If you take a DSLR full frame that is 20 or so megapixels but the sensor and software and lens are inferior to the Fuji, the image may be larger than the Fuji but who cares? I want superior image. Not bigger image. From whatever I'm looking at, it looks like the Fuji and the Leica M9 are the top of the pyramid.

I've seen shots taken with some mighty pricey DSLR's that looked like Holga quality to me, compared to some of the photos I've seen shot from the Fuji X-Pro1. I'm not looking for Holga quality in a huge huge size. I am looking for super sharp exact perfect gradations and smooth tonality, everything perfect, colors blending nicely. The difference in image size is marginal between 16mp and 22mp if you have to shrink the 22mp one and play with it in photoshop until it looks right. I've seen quite a number of shots straight out of the Fuji X-Pro1 that look like someone really spent time to fancy the image up but it came straight out of the camera that way. The same thing can be said about the Leica M8 and M9's from what I've seen.

If High ISO isn't a concern, I've found the CCD sensor's I've shot give better, 'thicker' files than that of CMOS (M9, M8, Aptus 75s, Betterlight scanning back). I'm shooting with a Nikon 800E right now (along with the M8, M9 & Betterlight), and although it gives close to that 'thickness', the color and tonal gradation is still better from the CCD. The 800E does exceed the resolving ability of the M9. I haven't tested it against the 75s (i no longer have it).. but it still doesn't come close to the Betterlight.

(and btw, Cooke soft focus lenses aren't Holga, and are about as close in comparison as the M9, M8 would be to a Holga.)

 

[federico9001]

Leica M7 is certainly better

 

[ann]

The results I am getting from the OMD-Em5 are shocking good. Along with the size and weight, i rarely use my D700 anymore.

 

[Perry Way]

Interesting opinions! Thanks for all the feedback folks! I just read this review and I think this sealed the deal for me. Perhaps others might take an interest in this article which is from the light traveler's point of view. Most of my weekends I wear a backpack. Ultimately I think the image quality and small size of the Fuji outweighs the megapixels of the latest DSLR offerings from Nikon and Canon.

Fuji XPro1 : Best Travel Camera Ever - Abandoned Building Shoot

I'm trading +cash next week for a X-Pro1 with someone who is just now getting romanced by medium format film.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Why not save some money and get the XE1 over the XPro1? It will let you buy some more lenses, which seems like a better deal than the optical finder most people seem to stop using after a short time.

I seriously considered the XPro1. But, for my needs I went with the D800E for the best image quality. It has amazingly clean images at base ISO which respond very well to bringing up the shadows. Not a great travel camera because of the size, but the image quality is better than the cameras you have listed for medium to large sized prints from what I have seen. I don't know how it compares to the Fuji for low light shooting as I don't shoot much at night (though I frequently think I should start).

 

[jimcollum]

Just as valid as any other method of scoring.. taking a multitude of factors into account.. DxOMark gives the following scores (and rankings)

XPro-1 hasn't been measured yet.. but given where everything else is placed, i'd expect it to be close the the X100

this doesn't take lens systems, ease of use of the camera, etc into account.. just sensor performance (which i'd consider in camera purchase.. but definitely not the top factor for me)


DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings
Leica M9: 69 (52nd)
Fuji XPro-1
Leica M8: 59 (109th)
Fuji X100: 73 (37th)


Nikon D800E: 96 (1st)
Nikon D800: 95 (2nd)
Nikon D600: 94 (3rd)

 

[CGW]

Bang for the buck king might be the Nikon D7000. These are slipping to around C$875 now and might go lower as the holidays and possible discontinuation approach.

 

[Amrit]

I've settled on a Nikon D5100, relatively light and small and considerably better image quality then my previous dslr, a Nikon D300. Digital camera's get obsolete very quickly, surpassed by new generations, so I'd rather not spend to much money on body's. 3.000 euro ore more on a body, rather a stretch, unless if one is a pro.

And in the end it is my impression that with digital, quality depends a lot on knowledge of Lightroom/Photoshop & Co.

Besides, does a D800e makes sense if you do not own a professional Eizo/NEC monitor? Can you actually see the difference on mid-prized monitors? When looking at examples on dpreview I wonder ... And does it show on prints?

 

[L Gebhardt]

Besides, does a D800e makes sense if you do not own a professional Eizo/NEC monitor? Can you actually see the difference on mid-prized monitors? When looking at examples on dpreview I wonder ... And does it show on prints?

Yes it can still make sense. The monitor doesn't make any difference in how good the camera is. On a decent consumer monitor that is calibrated you can have a high assurance that the on screen image will match your prints. The print may show more subtlety of color in the out of gamut colors, but most will match. On prints I can see the difference in resolution between the D800 and the D7000 once the print gets large, or the image gets cropped. If you aren't printing then you don't need a quarter the resolution even the base systems provide. But a high quality sensor will still show benefits in small prints and web display.

Likewise I can still see a resolution difference in drum scanning 4x5 film over using the D800E, but it's at a level larger than I have ever printed. Maybe someday it will matter to me.

 

[desertfotog]

There is no best. Who has the best wife, husband, automobile or hound dog? I had the use of a Leica SLR with a Leitz macro lens and the results were fabulous. But the camera was so big and clunky I wouldn't buy one on a bet. You need to figure out for yourself what is best for you.
I had the best hound dog in the world....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm very impressed with my new Nikon D800; not missing anything in the quality department there, an it works with all my old Nikon film gearand a huge2nd hand market.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm pretty sure the hands-down best image quality will not be found in any DSLR no matter the price or the pixel size. However if I am wrong, please educate me.

I'm considering entering the digital world (unless you consider previous crappy digital cameras and cell phones as having already entered me) and I'm concerned primarily about glass and image quality. Not pixels. Not yet. That's a secondary thing for me. I want the BEST image quality or I'll wait for another few lifetimes before the digital world finally rests on a format that won't be obsolete a month from now.

I've been looking around and here's what my take is after reading some reviews. Best to worse:

Leica M9
Fuji XPro-1
Leica M8
Fuji X100

That 35mm f1.2 prime lens for the Fuji XPro-1 seems to me to be enough reason to take the plunge and start buying Fuji. The Fuji sensor is written up as being the best low-light sensor on the market right now and I plan to night photograph in the wilderness, starry skies, sunsets, dim redwood forest floors and the like.

Price limits me to the Fuji line. However it would be nice to have that Leica M9. I can afford an M8 but why? The Fuji XPro-1 is better, no?

I just want to make sure I'm not making some stupid, rather obvious mistake by investing in Fuji. If anyone has some input on this please share!

what is your definition of image quality?

 

[Alan Klein]

Image quality is so good today, any of those cameras would provide it. It comes down to how heavy you want to go and which feels best in your hands and cost. Except for pixel peepers, quality of photos really comes down to content.

 

[Eric Rose]

The best image quality if the one that produces an image that moves the viewer.

 

[Pioneer]

Image quality? I have all the image quality I can use.

Its the pictures I'm still having trouble with.

 

[Felinik]

The Leica cameras are full frame, the other two APS-C, you will find some quite classic amazing pieces of glass for the Leica cameras. Then the question, "best image quality", if I put it this way instead; for the cash you need to invest in the Leicas you'll probably be in debt for the rest of your life.

I'd picked the X-Pro1, or waited for an X-Pro FF …

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Image quality? I have all the image quality I can use.

Its the pictures I'm still having trouble with.

me too,
as long as my cameras outperform my creativity,I'll stick to what I already own.

 

[indigo]

me too,
as long as my cameras outperform my creativity,I'll stick to what I already own.

Me too. I never upgrade.