Jump to content

I need advice please (X 113)


2kuu

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, I wanted to seek some help before dipping into my savings and buying an X 113.

Currently, I own an Olympus OM-D E-M5 (mark 1). I've been quite happy with it but lately I've been tempted to dive into the Leica pool. If I'm going to buy an X, it would be to replace my E-M5 so I can give my new X my full attention when going out and about to take shots.

So far, the lens of the X 113 and over-all quality of shots attracts me (I'm comfortable with using a 35mm equivalent focal length), but there are some concerns I have which I've been reading from various reviews.

 

Some reviewers go on to say that the AF is slow. It's a bit unclear on what they are comparing that speed with, but I do value performance in this area, more notably in street photography/candids. If anyone can give me a better understanding of the performance of the AF (in comparison to other cameras or in general), that would be great.

 

The other concern I have is that other reviewers have explained that the RAW files produced by the X 113 are largely over-saturated and in some cases the highlights are blown (compared to the in-camera JPGs). I do process all my photos just to give them my own touch of personal flavor and I'd love to play around with the RAWs from the X 113, but from what I've read, I could be in for a little more work than I'm used to, or in a worse case scenario I could have to deal with unrecoverable detail from large highlight values.

 

It has been a bit hard for me to get more insight on this as there seems to be very little in the way of reviews and actual photos out there (compared with the X2 and X Vario for example, which seem more popular) and I sometimes wonder if the X 113 can safely replace my E-M5 or not.

 

Any advice would be highly appreciated and hopefully I'll be joining the Leica ranks free of concerns :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - hopefully I can provide some additional information.

 

AF - The autofocus is reasonably good and hasn't caused missed photos, having said that it is single servo - AF-S only, no continuous focusing and the speed does not come close to DSLR nor is it as quick as my Panasonic GM1 mft in good light. The manual focus is excellent, particularly with the EVF and so for street photography / candid work that you have indicated interest in, zone focussing with an aperture of 5.6 or narrower gives another option and a very comfortable working range given the lens is pretty wide at 23mm.

 

RAW files - I find them very easy to work with, needing only very minor adjustment. They do appear different to JPEGs out of the camera (depending on the settings used) but providing exposure is accurate, I have never had an issue with clipping of highlights or shadows. In fact I would say the excellent DNG / RAW files is one of the key differentiators in favour of the X.

 

Replacing your OMD - OK, this is a tricky one, depending on the lenses and use of your OMD, you may or may not have issues here. My X in no way replaces my Nikon D750 or for that matter my Panasonic GM1. It is a superb camera, excellent in most lighting scenarios, relatively compact and handles superbly, image quality is great BUT it will never be anything like as good as a DSLR for action photography and of course has a single focal length, albeit a fairly versatile one.

 

I am happy to send you a couple of DNGs to play with if you send me a PM, if this helps.

 

Best - Dan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey danmitch, thanks for the info.

 

Replacing your OMD - OK, this is a tricky one, depending on the lenses and use of your OMD, you may or may not have issues here. My X in no way replaces my Nikon D750 or for that matter my Panasonic GM1. It is a superb camera, excellent in most lighting scenarios, relatively compact and handles superbly, image quality is great BUT it will never be anything like as good as a DSLR for action photography and of course has a single focal length, albeit a fairly versatile one.

 

As far as my EM-5 goes, I only shoot with primes but over time I've narrowed my lenses down to just a couple (their 24mm and 50mm equivalent lenses). 35mm is ultimately my length of choice but I haven't found one that performs as well as other m4/3rd lenses I've used in other focal lengths. They're either painfully slow to focus with (like the Lumix 20mm f/1.7) or they're not very sharp. If you've used the 20mm f/1.7 then that might be a good grounds to compare AF speed as I'm familiar with that.

 
Thank you for the offer to send your RAWs. I've actually spent some time searching for some. I'm confident that I won't have any issues in this area.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot with an X2. If anything, it should be slower than the X113.

But even with X2 I am quite happy. For street I use zone focus with aperture F5.6 and higher. e.g I put it on 3m and then almost everything from 2 to 10m is sharp.

 

My advice:

Put the X2 on manual focus and snap away for street.

No AF will ever be able to match that speed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't currently have a 20 1.7, but I have used one and it is certainly one of the slower mft lenses, I would say the X is noticeably quicker. The AF is easily quick enough for most street / people photography, but is challenging for subjects that are moving quickly, particularly moving towards or away at speed.

 

As with any camera purchase, if at all possible you should try thoroughly before you buy - also seriously consider the EVF, it is expensive but some people, myself included, would not do without it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't currently have a 20 1.7, but I have used one and it is certainly one of the slower mft lenses, I would say the X is noticeably quicker. The AF is easily quick enough for most street / people photography, but is challenging for subjects that are moving quickly, particularly moving towards or away at speed.

 

As with any camera purchase, if at all possible you should try thoroughly before you buy - also seriously consider the EVF, it is expensive but some people, myself included, would not do without it.

 

That helps a lot danmitch, thank you!

I'd love to hold one in my hands before the big decision though unfortunately it would be at the cost of a plane ticket. None of my local camera stores carry anything in the Leica range :(

 

 

I shoot with an X2. If anything, it should be slower than the X113.

But even with X2 I am quite happy. For street I use zone focus with aperture F5.6 and higher. e.g I put it on 3m and then almost everything from 2 to 10m is sharp.

 

My advice:

Put the X2 on manual focus and snap away for street.

No AF will ever be able to match that speed!

 

Thanks dpitt. The X2 seems to be very popular and I'm sure the 113 can only be a step up from that.  I'll certainly take your advice into consideration!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DrPix

I`d compare the X113 with the Sony RX1r before buying, it has a better lens and a much better sensor.

You´re comparing apples to oranges. Sony is a full frame camera (sensor) and costs much more. And dng files, produced by X113, are "easier accessible" than RAW (which have converted to dng for development in some applications). And if the Zeiss lens is really "better" can be disputed... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually quite an inaccurate statement on the Sony RX1 vs. Leica X 113.

 

The sensor in the RX1 is simply full frame. Both sensors are from the same manufacturer: Sony.

 

The Zeiss lens in the RX1 is far from "better" or class leading. It exhibits just about the same distortion as the Leica Summilux 1.7 on the X (113). The Zeiss is not sharp across the frame wide open and neither is the Leica, but the Leica would be f1.7.

Both lenses have visible CA. 

From a camera point of view, they are both just about equally annoying or pleasing depending on your point of view. Both need an external viewfinder and neither is cheap. The Sony's build quality is quite good (compared to e.g. other Sonys or Olympus), but the Leica is significantly better. The Sony comes with a ton of features for those, who need a Playstation experience on their camera.

 

In Europe, the Sony sells for EUR 2799,- and the Leica sells for 1850,- That's almost a grant difference. Full frame comes at a price.

 

 

Coming back to the Olympus. The MFT mount actually has a 17/f1.8 (note: f1.8, not the older abysmal f2.8 lens) from Olympus and a 15/1.7 lens from Panasonic that was designed by Leica. Both are around 34mm or 30mm equivalents.

 

While AF speed on the Leica X 113 is not bad, the Olympus is class leading and depending on lens it may be dramatically faster (i.e. 75/1.8 or 12-40/2.8).

 

The statement on RAW is false. The JPEG is developed out of the RAW in camera - how can the RAW have blown highlights while preserving them in JPEG? Furthermore, oversaturated colors in RAW are a problem of the computer rather than the camera. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny answers, always amazing how insecure Leica owners react if other makes simply are better says this Leica owner. Both cams  are compact and have fixed 35mm equivalent focal length lenses, don`t they. So quite comparable. Yes both sensors are from Sony. But the one in the Leica is an old in the tooth last generation 16MP aps-c sensor with ok DR and iso performance. The FF 24MP sensor in the RX1r is class leading with exemplary DR and about 2 stops better high iso performance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny answers, always amazing how insecure Leica owners react if other makes simply are better says this Leica owner. 

 

It's a rather boring strategy to drag people down to an emotional level the moment one's arguments and "facts" are challenged or proven wrong.

 

The Zeiss lens on the RX1® is not exactly a bad lens, but certainly not better than the Summilux on the Leica X. Neither is class leading; both have similar weaknesses.

 

You are paying the EUR 1000 (USD 1150) premium for the sensor, not the lens and certainly not build quality.

Edited by bernie.lcf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DrPix

That's actually quite an inaccurate statement on the Sony RX1 vs. Leica X 113.

 

The sensor in the RX1 is simply full frame. Both sensors are from the same manufacturer: Sony.

 

The Zeiss lens in the RX1 is far from "better" or class leading. It exhibits just about the same distortion as the Leica Summilux 1.7 on the X (113). The Zeiss is not sharp across the frame wide open and neither is the Leica, but the Leica would be f1.7.

Both lenses have visible CA. 

From a camera point of view, they are both just about equally annoying or pleasing depending on your point of view. Both need an external viewfinder and neither is cheap. The Sony's build quality is quite good (compared to e.g. other Sonys or Olympus), but the Leica is significantly better. The Sony comes with a ton of features for those, who need a Playstation experience on their camera.

 

In Europe, the Sony sells for EUR 2799,- and the Leica sells for 1850,- That's almost a grant difference. Full frame comes at a price.

 

 

Coming back to the Olympus. The MFT mount actually has a 17/f1.8 (note: f1.8, not the older abysmal f2.8 lens) from Olympus and a 15/1.7 lens from Panasonic that was designed by Leica. Both are around 34mm or 30mm equivalents.

 

While AF speed on the Leica X 113 is not bad, the Olympus is class leading and depending on lens it may be dramatically faster (i.e. 75/1.8 or 12-40/2.8).

 

The statement on RAW is false. The JPEG is developed out of the RAW in camera - how can the RAW have blown highlights while preserving them in JPEG? Furthermore, oversaturated colors in RAW are a problem of the computer rather than the camera. 

Great reply! Exactly!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, on the 2nd hand market the X 113 currently sells for EUR 1349,-

I have not seen an RX1 below 1700,-/1800,- because it still sells for north of 2600,- new

 

Your question cannot be answered because there is always something else you can buy for less money than a Leica with a compareable feature set. Why bother with an M (240) if the same money gets you the high end Nikon or Canon etc.

 

When in doubt, don't buy the Leica - get something cheaper or save the money

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the used market, the RX 1 is probably a tad less expensive than the X 113.

All things considered why would one not opt for the full frame Sony RX1?

The key "bit" is "all things considered" - I think any camera choice ends up being a compromise, some things are measurable like dimensions, weight, sensor size, some open to interpretation, like image quality or characteristics and some completely personal, like handling preferences, brand loyalty and so on. There are lots of good reasons why people choose the excellent RX1, the X makes some different compromises so for some is a "better" choice. For me the key factor was handling which is very different between the two cameras, even if that meant compromising on size and MAYBE image quality due to the smaller sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to used market pricing in the U.S,. the RX1 can be found for less than $1500 USD and the Leica X 113 still hovers in the $1500-1700 range. 

 

Heck, I love the X2 . . . but at the end of the day I think the versatility of the RX1 and the image quality is superior. The X2's simplicity and size are nonetheless terrific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently faced with the same decision and opted for the X113, mainly because it shares batteries with the X Vario, each is my primary camera for noun-photography travel.  I didn't expect it to, but the X113 has quickly become my favorite and most U.S. Ed camera, even displacing my M-E and M Monochrom on many outings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Leica Typ 113. It is true about what you've read. Here are my conclusions:

 

DNG files are unprocessed files (hence RAW), and jpgs are images processed from raw data captured by the camera, inside the camera. Lightroom is one of the 3rd party programs that processes DNG files into an image, but Lightroom's profile on the Leica X 113 overexposes and saturates the colors when it makes those images. This is not Leica's fault. Lightroom is simply making its best guess on how to make raw data into an image, and its guess completely sucks. JPGs are the images processed in-camera from the 0's and 1's with the camera's image processor, which is fined tuned with Leica's own algorithms for that specific sensor and lens. This means they come out perfectly exposed, sharper, and with their intended "leica look". Since it is Jpg (lossy format), they don't retain superfluous data, like extreme highlights that can be brought back in DNG files. People tend to focus on the lens and sensor, but forget about the image processor. You have to process the light info you capture with the lens and sensor, and make it into an image. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc brag about their DIGIC, Expeed, BIONZ etc processors. This is why they have all their own looks. But we forget about their importance because you cannot sum up the qualitative look of the processor into a simple spec sheet number like f/1.7. You either like it or you don't. And since every camera captures data differently, Lightroom has to make its own guess for each camera, hence camera profiles. So your Olympus software that came with the camera might actually get better RAW results than Lightroom's. Everybody uses Lightroom because you can make edits to RAW, so basically, you are the image processor. The only thing you have to worry about is what you like and getting there. 

 

Using Lightroom with the Leica X 113 DNGS will add to the workload, but you can edit the files back to proper exposure. It will take a good eye to get it to look objectively right rather than what looks subjectively appealing to you. Once you have the exposure corrections down, you can create a custom preset so you can batch apply it to your DNGs and decrease your workload. The colors however are much harder to fix into something "natural". But any DNG has this problem, because the brain doesn't see colors objectively anyways. Color is created by context. Humans will see the same objective color as two different colors depending on the context. (which explains that viral white blue dress photo...people's brains interpreted the context and the color simply followed from that subjective context) So if the Lightroom color interpretation bothers you, and you are unable to fix it to your liking, then you are screwed if you don't like the Leica X JPGs either. Knowing all this about color makes me want to shoot in black and white, since it is about pure shades of light and dark, not the subjective world of color, which is subject to psychological associations and subjective interpretation (like how the color red tends to inspire hunger, which is why the fast food restaurants are all red.) Black and White photography is about light's pure beauty, simplicity, and form.

Edited by rchrd
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand your problem. All the technical aspects have been mentioned before. But letting aside this stuff I can say that there is no ideal camera for each and evefry purpose.

I use both: an X1 and the Olympus OMD EM 5 MKII with two Leica/Panasonic prime lenses. These are both superb. The AF is very quick and with its versatile display the EM5 is ideal for fast street shots. TheX1 one has a slow AF but when profocussed it is as good for street as you can imagine. I aslo use a FF Canon system. Then I always take also a backup camera. Each time I take the X1 I am still amazed about the IQ. This is not only a matter of sensor but always to be regarded in combination with the lens. I can imagine the new X has even more potential than the first edition of this series. If I had to decide for one single camera I would choose the X. Compared to all features and purposes it the the most versatile light gear. For me I would aslo never sell the OMD MK I but buy the MKII also and have fun shooting the superb Leica primes and all your other stuff that may have been assembled during the years. You can adapt anything on the MFT system.

So my advice is one the one hand  to keep the OMD MKI, use it with excellent lenses ( I admit that all my other MFT lenses from Pansonic are no match for my idea of IQ. This meets your experience I think)

On the other hand you should buy a Leica X. Sensor and lens are much better than the X1. Wherever can you get a Summilux lens for that price?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DrPix

Sorry but I totally disagree with most of your "conclusions" (as "scientific" as they may sound/look). Something must be wring either with your X11, your screen (calibration) or LR version you´re using. LR "overexposes/saturates the colours"??? What LR profile are you talking about? Calibration: Embedded vs Adobe, or what? Strange you find Jpegs "properly" processed.. I find them (in default positon", dull, colourless and oversharpened! Still... we all have different tastes (and skills):)

I have a Leica Typ 113. It is true about what you've read. Here are my conclusions:

 

DNG files are unprocessed files (hence RAW), and jpgs are images processed from raw data captured by the camera, inside the camera. Lightroom is one of the 3rd party programs that processes DNG files into an image, but Lightroom's profile on the Leica X 113 overexposes and saturates the colors when it makes those images. This is not Leica's fault. Lightroom is simply making its best guess on how to make raw data into an image, and its guess completely sucks. JPGs are the images processed in-camera from the 0's and 1's with the camera's image processor, which is fined tuned with Leica's own algorithms for that specific sensor and lens. This means they come out perfectly exposed, sharper, and with their intended "leica look". Since it is Jpg (lossy format), they don't retain superfluous data, like extreme highlights that can be brought back in DNG files. People tend to focus on the lens and sensor, but forget about the image processor. You have to process the light info you capture with the lens and sensor, and make it into an image. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc brag about their DIGIC, Expeed, BIONZ etc processors. This is why they have all their own looks. But we forget about their importance because you cannot sum up the qualitative look of the processor into a simple spec sheet number like f/1.7. You either like it or you don't. And since every camera captures data differently, Lightroom has to make its own guess for each camera, hence camera profiles. So your Olympus software that came with the camera might actually get better RAW results than Lightroom's. Everybody uses Lightroom because you can make edits to RAW, so basically, you are the image processor. The only thing you have to worry about is what you like and getting there. 

 

Using Lightroom with the Leica X 113 DNGS will add to the workload, but you can edit the files back to proper exposure. It will take a good eye to get it to look objectively right rather than what looks subjectively appealing to you. Once you have the exposure corrections down, you can create a custom preset so you can batch apply it to your DNGs and decrease your workload. The colors however are much harder to fix into something "natural". But any DNG has this problem, because the brain doesn't see colors objectively anyways. Color is created by context. Humans will see the same objective color as two different colors depending on the context. (which explains that viral white blue dress photo...people's brains interpreted the context and the color simply followed from that subjective context) So if the Lightroom color interpretation bothers you, and you are unable to fix it to your liking, then you are screwed if you don't like the Leica X JPGs either. Knowing all this about color makes me want to shoot in black and white, since it is about pure shades of light and dark, not the subjective world of color, which is subject to psychological associations and subjective interpretation (like how the color red tends to inspire hunger, which is why the fast food restaurants are all red.) Black and White photography is about light's pure beauty, simplicity, and form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...