My Review of the X VARIO

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My review of the Leica X-VARIO

 

I have only had the camera a few weeks (about 600 shots) now and my opinion on some aspects may change once I have more time with the camera.

 

Initial Impression On Announcement

My initial impression on Leica’s announcement was very negative. I thought it would be too heavy, too slow (AF), and too slow a lens and I felt it was over priced for what it had to offer. In general, I have always been impressed with Leica glass but not so impressed with their ability in electronics and in particular in firmware development. It seems to me that they were and still are way too slow to address issues that were either missed or in the rush to get a product shipping, they decided to ignore for a future date fix. A really big negative was the lack of a built in view finder.

 

Nonetheless, I decided to purchase the camera and see how it performed in the real world. I had read Sean Reid’s, Jonathan Slack’s, and Steve Huff’s reviews and several others. Consistently, among all of the reviews was the theme that the lens quality was excellent, perhaps approaching that of prime lenses. Secondly, was build quality that felt solid in the hand and like a quality built product. Lastly, image IQ was also rated as excellent. I owned an X100s that I sold just prior to buying the X-VARIO and I also owned a Sony RX-1 that I sold earlier.

 

Given this background you are probably wondering why I purchased the X-VARIO. The reasons are as follows:

First, I wanted a zoom lens covering wide angle to portraiture. My preference would have been 24mm to 120mm with an f2 to f4.5 that was high enough quality to rate a 26-30 on DXO mark’s lens review. While this lens lacks the range and I don’t know how well it will rate, my guess is that it will perform very well based on my observations. Most kit lenses perform at the 11-12 rating and that just isn’t good enough. The Sony RX-1 Zeiss lens rated a 33, which is really outstanding, but it is a prime lens fixed at 35mm. My choices would have been to carry three excellent primes or an excellent zoom. I really dislike carrying anything extra so my preference was to find an excellent zoom and live with its limitations. The only other choice would have been the 18-55mm zoom for the Fuji XE-1 with the XE-1. I gave it serious consideration as the lens is very highly rated and it has a built in EVF.

 

I decided against the Fuji, primarily because of the MF and AF. It is probably as fast as the X-VARIO but my experience with the X100s led me to question how frequently it would misbehave unexpectedly causing me to lose too many shots and the MF using focus peaking or magnification is just a very poor implementation of fly-by-wire, even the new improved implementation. It doesn’t feel like a MF lens and there are no stops. The magnified view does not snap into focus making it difficult to tell when optimum focus has been found.

 

The third factor was build quality. I wanted at least RX-1 build quality and the X-VARIO appeared to have that and maybe more.

 

Lastly, I considered how the implementation of the overall ergonomics felt to me. This is a subjective judgment based on things like ease of use of menus, button placement, speed of operation, focus and zoom action, etc.

The bottom line was that I decided to take the plunge and give the X-VARIO a try. In the worst case, I would send the camera back or sell it at what I hoped would be a small loss.

 

So how does the X-VARIO stack up and compare?

Build Quality appears to be excellent. Knobs turn with positive and firm clicks, buttons feel solid and provide tactile feedback, the lens focus ring operates smoothly and with just the right amount of resistance. The Zoom ring is equally responsive and smooth and the size of each makes them easy to use. The body feels solid and the top and bottom plates also feel well made. The battery door and the door to the cable connectors have a solid and high quality feel. The skin provides a nice feel with some grip so it doesn’t feel slippery. For comparison, the RX-1 feels very close to the same quality but the focus ring is not as nice and the battery and cable connector coverings aren’t as nice either. The Fuji X100s does not match this quality and is a clear step or two down in the quality scale. The lens is super sharp throughout the zoom and aperture range.

 

There is a pop and micro contrast that the X_VARIO offers in its images that makes it the equal or slightly better as far as IQ goes compared to the RX-1 and considerably better than the Fuji X100s. Where the Fuji and the RX-1 exceed the X_VARIO is when ISO goes above 1600. While the images are perfectly usable at 3200 and sometimes 6400, they aren’t as clean as the X100s or the RX-1. The grain is fine and if you want to give up some detail, you can smooth it out in LR and have a perfectly usable image.

 

Where the X-VARIO falls Short

The biggest disappointment is in the auto focus. While it is about the same as the RX-1, it is still slower than it should be, especially compared to the Panasonic and Olympus cameras. Given that Leica had to know after the X-1 and the X-2 how important this would be (their literature touts its fast AF they failed to meet their advertising hype. Whether this can be improved in a subsequent firmware update remains to be seen, especially given how long it takes Leica to get out firmware updates. Small software development teams should be able to perform more quickly than big teams in big companies. Usually, this is an area where small companies have the advantage. Its low light AF varies from sometimes working pretty well to not being able to find focus at all. I was out shooting at night on the streets of Newport RI and shooting in bars, etc. where ISO 6400 was required to keep to 1/30 sec exposure and AF, while slow worked well with only a few miss focused shots. Other times in similar conditions I have seen the camera unable to find focus. I have no idea why the difference. In very bright light conditions it can be reasonably quick, but not quick enough indoors to shoot moving children. AF accuracy is another area that needs to be addressed. On more than a few occasions I have seen the green confirmation box lit to indicate that AF was acquired and locked only to discover on later review that the image was not focused. Surprisingly, point AF seems to be the worst culprit of the various AF modes.

 

If there were only one thing I could get fixed on a firmware release it would be to improve the performance of the AF system both in speed and accuracy.

 

Auto ISO needs a few minor fixes. First it needs to have high shutter speeds as the minimum shutter speed setting. The current 1/30th sec. is not adequate for many situations. Secondly, Auto ISO does not work in manual mode. It defaults to ISO 100 and must be changed manually. There are times when one would like to be able to select Auto ISO and have the camera boost up ISO as needed to allow the aperture and shutter speed to have a range that will allow properly exposed images. The latter is not a critical fault but rather an improvement.

 

In manual mode one can obtain an exposure preview by ½ pressing the shutter button, looking at the histogram or the scale at the bottom of the screen and adjusting shutter speed, ISO or aperture (exposure compensation does not work). This display feature is disabled in any other mode. Aperture priority or shutter priority disables the preview display feature but enables exposure compensation when the circular silver button is pressed up. One can then use the dial to select exposure compensation. A ½ press will provide exposure compensation.

 

Another irritation is the inability to scroll through images at magnification in order to compare images for focus. In order to select a different image one must first reduce magnification to minimum and then go forward or backwards to select another image and re-magnify to compare. It is slow and awkward and makes it difficult.

 

There does not appear to be anyway to display the ISO selected by the camera prior to shooting a shot and performing a playback when auto ISO is selected. As a result, one can’t make a decision prior to shooting whether to accept the ISO selected by the camera or to manually intervene.

 

A problem with manual focus is the lack of a depth of field display for the focus distance selected on the lens. The calculation is based on focal length selected and aperture, all information the camera’s computer has, so it would be easy for the camera to display the information at the bottom of the screen as a bar with the focus point and end-points clearly marked and displayed against a distance scale. Another helpful assist would be to display the distance to the focus point during autofocus. Then one could quickly get a distance reading to an object to set up for zone focusing in MF. Additionally, one could see if the selected focus point was being properly selected. For example, if the distance should 9 feet but you knew the distance should be less than 9 feet, you would know the camera is not focusing where you think it should be.

 

Continued...

[barjohn]

Continuation Part 2

For various reasons, the slow lens, need for fill light, etc., one might want to use the flash. The flash has to be one of the most challenging to use because it is not predictable in its behavior. In most cameras when flash is selected and enabled the flash automatically sets the shutter speed to a minimum shutter speed of 1/30th or higher. With the Leica, whatever shutter speed would be required for the exposure without flash is the shutter speed used. This works OK in a fill flash situation because you would normally have a high shutter speed. But in a low light situation, where the camera meters a very slow shutter speed, and you have maxed your aperture, it shoots at the low shutter speed resulting in blurred and under exposed images. Similar results can occur when using manually set shutter speeds and auto aperture. It is all too easy to obtain a bad flash exposure. Compared to the Fuji or the RX-1 that seem to read your mind and produce properly exposed flash images under nearly any condition imaginable it is a bit of a disappointment.

 

I will be updating this review once I have had more time and learn more about the cameras operation and idiosyncrasies. The last item I will discuss is the DNG files.

 

The DNG files as produced out of the camera and interpreted in LR 5.2RC and to a lesser degree in Iridient Developer are way too soft and too low in contrast. For LR I found I needed to create a preset with contrast at +32 and sharpening set to +95. A similar preset was required for Iridient Developer. I will show before and after images side by side to demonstrate what I am saying. On the other hand, the files can withstand even higher levels of sharpening before breaking down. The built in profile seems to be incorrect and the default LR profile is also incorrect. The camera will sometimes overexpose but it corrects easily. On the other hand the JPGs only require minor tweaks depending on individual taste to be usable right out of the camera. Comparison images are included.

 

Bottom Line

Despite the negatives outlined above, this is an excellent camera and one I would not hesitate to recommend. In fact, I think the camera is way underrated and had Leica not botched its introduction it would have been a very good seller. As it sits right now, it is an undiscovered gem. Many people will not give this camera a try because of all of the negative publicity. I know I almost didn’t. I’m glad now that I took the chance. Once people discover how good the images are from this camera and that the slow lens is not as big a detriment as first imagined, its popularity will increase. If Leica makes a major improvement to the AF and fixes the few other small niggles this will be a fantastic camera!

 

Below are snap shots to illustrate the DNG issue:

 

First, DNG Before & After

Second, JPG Before & After

Third, DNG Adjusted vs JPG Adjusted

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 18, 2013 by barjohn

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[barjohn]

Below is a link to larger size images to help you more clearly see the differences.

 

Link

[Ecaton]

My review of the Leica X-VARIO

 

There is a pop and micro contrast that the X_VARIO offers in its images that makes it the equal or slightly better as far as IQ goes compared to the RX-1 and considerably better than the Fuji X100s.

 

Continued...

 

Comparisons, please. So the usual Sony 16MP aps-c sensor mated with the X Vario zoom beats the currently best FF sensor (a Sony btw) with a zeiss prime designed for it in IQ. With that logic, a NEX6 (same aps-c sensor) with a Leica m-lens would be even better, shouldn`t it? And don`t tell me the one that NEX 6 has not beed designed for m-lenses as "pop and micro contrast" would not suffer from this, at least not in the center of the frame.

[firoze]

A very well considered review John, my compliments!

 

This is the first review I have read that addresses issues with the camera's flash, and that information is most useful.

 

I am intrigued by your comments regarding the XV's image quality vs the RX1. Could you please elaborate

[barjohn]

Look in the above link for some comparisons between the Sony and the Leica. I think the Leica lens is better but you may not.

[michaelbrenner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What an informative review. Thank you so much for sharing your experience with the Leica X Vario. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the Leica X Vario as you have more time to become familiar with it. It's a bummer you still don't have the RX1 as we could then see additional direct comparison images. Just curious - why did you sell the Sony RX1?

Edited August 18, 2013 by michaelbrenner
grammar

[spylaw4]

An excellent review, John, many thanks for taking the time and trouble to do so.

Let us hope that Leica read and note your comments and act on them. I would guess that most can be fixed in firmware updates, but it might take at least two to cover them all.

[firoze]

I took a look at the photos. I cant really see much difference in sharpness between the XV and the RX1, at least not on my 17" MacBook Pro - both are very sharp.

 

But what I do notice is the difference in "pop" (for want of a better word) between the two. The XV photos seem to "project" more, the RX1 photos seem flat by comparison. This is not because of exposure or colour balance etc... its something more that that. I don't know what it is, but I have seen this quality in many other comparisons online, not of the XV, but other Leica cameras as well.

[colonel]

Pretty much my conclusion.

I think there need to be software changes, chiefly:

1. Exposure lock button

2. Auto ISO configurable

 

AF is not a big issue for me. The lens is quite big and heavy so not expecting it to speed up much, but the accuracy could improve.

 

The colours out of the box are simply outstanding and he definition is very good for 16mp.

[Thomv]

did you ever consider a DLux 6?

[brill64]

Very detailed review. Thank you, John. One thing about one of your findings, namely the dng's being low contrast & needing a fair bit of contrast boost when converting. I've actually found a somewhat flat toned file to be advantageous when converting to b&w using silvereffex pro in that I can get more out of it..

[barjohn]

Thank you all for the comments. I am curious whether I am the only one seeing the DNG files requiring sharpening and contrast boost?

 

I have played with the flash some more and I find that if I set the shutter speed and leave the aperture on A, or set to a value, the flash will try to produce a proper exposure. However, the trick is you must hold the shutter button half pressed for almost a second. You will see the LCD change from a dark display to a brighter one approximating the exposure with the flash. In my tests last night I found the flash tends to be too bright by about .75 stop and one needs to then adjust the flash compensation. If you don't you get that harsh flash look with everything closest to the flash over exposed.

 

OK, I have played some more today and discovered that part of my problem with flash may have been my selecting forced flash instead of auto. With auto, I am seeing a much better flash result. Part of the learning curve. It works very well up to 1000th of a sec. At 2000th of a second there is a noticeable light fall off at any zoom range.

 

As an aside, the manual focus on this camera is really excellent and implemented exactly the way it should be. The closest I have found to this is the OMD and it is still quite distant from the MF action. A manual lens is what it feels like. It is clear that this is where Leica really has there strongest expertise.

 

If they could just get the AF algorithm form their partner Panasonic this camera would be near perfect for a wide range of users.

 

While I don't have exact scenes shot with both cameras side by side with the same lighting, etc. I can tell you that in looking at many images there is definitely something better about the Leica shots provided ISO does not exceed 1600. Above 1600, the larger sensor and cleaner files come into play and the RX-1 wins out. The RX-1R may be a different story as it does away with the AA filter. I am guessing that the AA filter in the Sony is stronger than the AA filter in the Leica. I added a side by side beach shot comparing the Leica and the RX-1 and if you look at the sand and the stones you can see a difference. Not huge but a difference.

 

The RX-1 is an excellent camera but I found that the AF was too slow, the MF was not easy enough to use and I really missed having a wider range of focal lengths. I especially missed having a wide angle view to shoot interiors. I would have preferred 24mm or even 21mm on the wide end but I can make do with 28mm. This lens is so good throughout the range that it's like having a bag full of lenses. A 28, a 35, a 50 and a 70. Four great lenses and only one to carry. Yes, I know I could have bought a second camera to cover other ranges but I am not likely to ever carry around two cameras except if one is a pocket camera for underwater and get wet photography. I bought the Fuji X100s because I had owned the X100 and thought they had fixed the things that were wrong with the X100 but I didn't find that they were fixed enough to overcome the Trans-X sensor which I couldn't bond with.

 

I have to say that the images from this camera in JPG mode really look like Kodachrome 25 that I used to love shooting so maybe that is part of why I like the images.

[Leicafanatics]

Awesome reviews.. much appreciated..

[Guest badbob]

I seem to remember the Leica X Vario design guy saying the lens is controlled electronically, but made to feel like a real manual focus.

[Ecaton]

Soundimageplus who owns the XV and Fuji XE and seems to really like the Leica. He wrote on July 14th on his blog:

"So for me this takes my X-E1 into another league. It is pretty much like I suddenly have a new camera. In terms of image quality, I thought that my X Vario just shaded the X-E1, but now I'm not so sure. The X Vario files can be processed via Iridient Developer, and they are very good, but not quite as spectacular as the X-E1 files."

 

I own the RX1 and the Fuji (yes the one with files bettering the XV ones according to the source above), and the XE-1 files can`t touch the ones produced by the RX1, there is simply no contest among the two.

[barjohn]

I owned the Fuji X100s just before purchasing the XV and its files are better than the XE-1's according to my friend that owns both. In the worst case, one could say they are the same. The RX-1 files are definitely superior to the X100s files in my opinion. I have read other reviews and blogs that said the XV files are better than the RX-1 files and other bogs claiming the opposite. My experience says that with the exception of high ISO the XV's are slightly better. I did not have the RX-1R and I might form a different opinion if I had tried the Sony without an AA filter. However, I think the Sony AA filter is slightly stronger that the XV's and that may be the difference I am seeing. Additionally, as good as the Zeiss lens is, it require correction for barrel distortion and color shifting and those corrections mean resampling and reduced acutance in the image. I have uploaded to the site above two images of a grey wall shot with the RX-1, first the uncorrected image and then the corrected image with LR providing the corrections. I have included the smaller versions here.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[tpkoester]

John, thanks for the posts and excellent review. It brings to light what a lot of people think, fear or hope. The XV has its limitations but it is definitely an excellent tool for the fotographer. It might lack some specs but you can and will have fun with it and the IQ in my opinion is excellent.

 

I have never used the mentioned Sonys and Fujis but from the few weeks I spent with the XV im satisfied in the confines the camera as received. Hopefully some limits can be adjusted by FW updates.

[jaapv]

I see red edge here?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Nice review. I also told Leica about the need to modify auto iso shortest exp time.

 

However there is a very good workaround for autosio and also for flash:

the auto iso "problem"

 

1) choose auto iso

2) set exp to the time you like (I often choose 1/125 or 1/250 depending on the speed of the subject)

3) set f-stop to A; here the advantage of the slow lens - if you set f-stop to A normally the camera will first go to the widest f-stop when light goes down, and when it has reached the lens full open it will start cranking up ISO; this works quite well for me

 

 

your flash problem:

When I use flash I often select exp time to 1/125 or 1/250, and f-stop to either A (or set both manually); Here I often set ISO manually to 800 or 1600 to avoid too much noise

 

By the way I agree with other that I do not believe the IQ is better than the RX1; However the IQ seems very good to me, nice neutral color, balanced tones and sharp into the corners

 

Happy shooting;