Jump to content

X2,Image Quality


richfx

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Received an X2 yesterday and have shot appr. 100 frames with it. Early to form an opinion, but to be honest, I'm not terribly impressed with the image quality. It's not bad, but the images don't appear to be much better than my D-Lux 6, which of course cost much less.

I guess I shouldn't in fairness compare it to my M9, but it's not in the same galaxy in terms of clarity, colors and pop.

BTW, I'm shooting and PP strictly RAW files.

Edited by rcerick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the RAW files can be pretty unexciting, but where you will see the X2 shine is in the latitude of the files. The highlights and shadows will hold more data than the DLUX, and most other parameters can be changed without degrading the image. Give it some time and get used to the camera, the X series takes a little getting used to before finding the sweet spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received an X2 yesterday and have shot appr. 100 frames with it. Early to form an opinion, but to be honest, I'm not terribly impressed with the image quality. It's not bad, but the images don't appear to be much better than my D-Lux 6, which of course cost much less.

I guess I shouldn't in fairness compare it to my M9, but it's not in the same galaxy in terms of clarity, colors and pop.

BTW, I'm shooting and PP strictly RAW files.

 

I owned the X2 for two years before I switched to X Vario. The X2 is capable of producing jaw-dropping images! Although I love my X Vario, I sometimes look at the X2 files, and I think, it produced "better" images. I was actually thinking of selling the XV and getting the XE, but I probably won't do it as I'll loose quite bit of money... It did take me a while, but when I leaned how to use the X2 it rewarded me with excellent images. I have few recommendation that will help you get the best from the camera. Get a view-finder and a grip, try not to shoot in harsh light, don't  shoot below 125th handheld. Of course this is subjective but it made a huge difference for me. Here you can see some portraits I had taken with the X2 https://500px.com/photo/49807336/-by-tallahassee?from=user https://500px.com/photo/49778170/-by-tallahassee?from=user, https://500px.com/photo/49807402/-by-tallahassee?from=user, https://500px.com/photo/106619117/-by-tallahassee?from=user

Edited by s38
Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing photos. I suspect that you could make iPhone photos sing as well with your eye.

I'm just not seeing high quality yet from the X2's files. In fact, many of the JPEGs look better than the RAW files, both before and after processing, and they (the JPEGs) are not particularly high image quality to me. The X2 also hunts annoyingly for correct focus in Aperture priority mode with infinity shots and often mis-focuses on these, particularly in low light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing photos. I suspect that you could make iPhone photos sing as well with your eye.

I'm just not seeing high quality yet from the X2's files. In fact, many of the JPEGs look better than the RAW files, both before and after processing, and they (the JPEGs) are not particularly high image quality to me. The X2 also hunts annoyingly for correct focus in Aperture priority mode with infinity shots and often mis-focuses on these, particularly in low light.

 

IQ is a subjective evaluation. There is a certain smoothness (lack of incisiveness) in the X2 images,

which may be due to the AA filter. This can be overcome, to some extent, in PP.

 

The MF mode is there for the purpose of things like zone, hyperfocal, and infinity focus. (Not even a Leica camera has a human brain.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

rcerick, why not post a typical picture for us to see and offer help based on that measure? I have the X1 which has the same lens as the X2 and the files are hard to tell apart when compared with my old M9. Do you know the history of your camera? Was it new old stock from a dealer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

See attached file, shot at ISO 100, f/4 and 1/80. It is to me blurry, soft and in general less than mediocre in IQ.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

and another, shot at ISO 100, f/5 and 1/250.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This X2 was purchased from an authorized Leica dealer and presumably taken in a trade or on consignment. Condition is very clean - no signs of mistreatment or abuse. It just doesn't do anything at all for me in terms of its output, either in RAW or JPEG file format (I only shoot RAW, but of course cannot eliminate the JPEG files, which is just silly). How can Leica not resolve this through a software update?

 

My take on the X2 is that it does nothing that my D-Lux 6 or Fuji X100S does not do at appr. twice the price of both. It's a toy, so to speak, not a serious tool, IMHO. In short, I'm completely disappointed with it.

Edited by rcerick
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first picture shows evidence of focus failure. The shutter speed is only 1/80th, longer than I would use outdoors in good light. But it is difficult to tell if there is an element of camera shake. The second also lacks typical clarity. If these two picture are typical of your output, I would take the camera back to the dealer for a service check. Your pictures should be many times better than those posted. Don't judge the X2 on your experience with this used camera. Many users continue to use their X1 and X2 cameras because of their reliability and enduring high performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The shots were taken late afternoon. The X2 chose aperture and shutter speed, which I assume it is able to properly do.

I'm able to consistently shoot as slow a 1/15 without camera shake, so I don't think that was in play.

I'm sending it back for either service / repair by Leica or a refund. It is clearly a dud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The shots were taken late afternoon. The X2 chose aperture and shutter speed, which I assume it is able to properly do.

I'm able to consistently shoot as slow a 1/15 without camera shake, so I don't think that was in play.

I'm sending it back for either service / repair by Leica or a refund. It is clearly a dud.

If late afternoon light is low light, be prepared to raise the ISO. If the camera chose f/4, I guess you had the camera on Programme setting. In that case, also apply focus shift to raise the shutter speed even if the aperture falls to f/2.8 I trust you also use manual settings to get the best from your camera?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Took the plunge and bought a used X2. It was running 1.0 firmware so I upgraded. Images seemed to be a bit blurry. Thought it was me. I read somewhere else that reflashing the firmware helps. So I did and it does seem to be better. At 1/60 they now "seem" to clearer. Will do some more testing

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there could be focus problems. I don't trust 11 point and always use 1 point, spot, or manual. Also, my X2 has some extra mass with a lens tube, hood, handgrip, and EVF; so it's a little easier to keep steady when hand holding. The few blurry shots I get are entirely my fault. Sometimes I'm almost blown away by the apparent sharpness.  It compares favorably with the ultra sharp Summicron 50/2 with film on an M2 or M6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached file, shot at ISO 100, f/4 and 1/80. It is to me blurry, soft and in general less than mediocre in IQ.

 

Oh come on. This isn't 'mediocre' IQ, it's totally apparent that focus is either faulty or not working - anyone can tell that.

 

The X2's focus is sloooooooooow but it's not incapable of focusing as is evident in the image. Assuming you're not doing something dumb yourself in a case of over-expectation, it's definitely faulty.

Edited by wacka
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first shot it appears to have focused on the frame at the far left, which is weird. It may be that the focus was still hunting when it fired, The second shot appears to have used the center point, as the waves in the exact center seem to be in focus, a common failing of AF. Do you have further examples? (sorry to be late to the party, this thread was running whilst I was away, hence I missed it.)

In general I am underwhelmed with AF, except on very sophisticated cameras, I must confess, but with some awareness, I tend to get things right on the X2. Most of the time :(

Question to  rcerick: Did you solve the AF problems?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...