Jump to content

X Vario Mk II ?


miro

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank god Leica M is not full frame - look at all those tiny lenses that hardly have filter sizes > 46mm, mostly 39mm

 

oh wait...

 

If you look at the Leica M series of cameras, they are a type of camera called a "rangefinder" camera.

A rangefinder camera is a type of manual focus camera where the user focuses the lens by overlapping two images.

Since this is a manual focus camera, there is no motor in the lens, which makes the lens smaller.

 

The Leica X Vario is an autofocus camera. With an autofocus camera, it is necessary to have a focus motor somewhere.

In older autofocus cameras, the motor was in the body, however this is not used in modern cameras.

The problem I've noticed with in-body motors is the mechanical linkages between the motor and the lens introduce

mechanical slop, and reduce the precision of the lens focusing.

 

In modern autofocus cameras, the autofocus motor is incorporated into the lens.

This is usually done using some type of ultrasonic motor built into a ring around the lens.

More information here: https://magazine.zonerama.com/how-your-autofocus-moves-the-lens/

However, this ring (which contains the motor) makes the lens larger.

 

So your comparison is invalid because you are presenting a manual focus lens as a counterexample.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god Leica M is not full frame - look at all those tiny lenses that hardly have filter sizes > 46mm, mostly 39mm

 

oh wait...

 

Also, the comparison is invalid for yet another reason.

If you look at the Leica M lenses, they are all fixed focal length lenses.

However, if you look at the Leica X Vario, it has an 28-70mm equivalent zoom lens.

Zoom lenses are inherently larger than fixed focal length lenses due to the extra complexity.

 

So mentioning the Leica M lenses are small is not meaningful in this context because none of the Leica M lenses are zoom lenses like the X Vario lens.

 

A more fair comparison would be against the Leica SL 24-90mm lens.

This has a bit more zoom range than the Leica X Vario 28-70mm lens, but is similar.

The Leica SL 24-90mm lens weighs 1140 grams (2.51 lbs) and uses an 82mm filter.

It is much larger than the Leica M lenses.

Edited by TMorita
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring up Leica M lenses (by the way: the Tri Elmar is a zoom design) in this discussion is equally relevant as all the other comparisons so far: not at all

 

The mechanical link between camera and lens is a nice tidbit, but the X Vario is not an interchangeable lens camera. Therefore, this discussions is beyond the point. In a fixed lens setup, there is no link (electrical or mechanical) that requires frequent changing. If a rod is one inch or two inches, does not matter in terms of reliability.

 

X series cameras are leaf shutter cameras vs. focal plane shutters for the rest of the gang including SL and M. Different design.

 

Lens is fixed; there is no need to build in a bayonet (2mm for the visible metal cover, let alone the rest of the construction). There is no coupling, part of the lens can be "designed in the body".

 

X series rely quite substantially on digital correction as do all the other X series cameras.

 

There is no aperture ring, not even a digital one as in the Q (or Leica branded lenses for MFT).

 

... and of course there is no mirror box to take care of.

 

It's a back and forth in terms of size requirements. You save a little here, you loose a little there. And this does not even take into account any design decisions or compromises of whatever sort (including those Leica is willing to make despite or because of their aspiration to excellence) that have a meaningful impact on lens size.

 

 

The bottom line is: an X series lens can only be compared to another X series lens and nothing else. For that matter, you can draw your conclusions from the design of the X1/X2 and X (113) if at all. Comparing SLR lenses or lenses for cameras with substantially different mechanical and electrical design is not very useful.

 

If you compare the two extremes of full frame 50mm/f1.4 lenses, the Zeiss Otus and the Leica Summilux, it should be clear that full frame, uncorrected optical excellence can be achieved resulting in lenses with substantially different size while serving the same size sensor. Granted, M and SLR are different camera concepts, but a lot 50/1.4 exist for full frame SLR and not all of them are bad or so much worse than the Otus.

 

Peter Karbe has said in one of the interviews that the X Vario compromises on aperture range in order to achieve the size. That's all he said and everything else is a lot of interpretation on our side. We do not know the parameters or the options he had and we do not know the expectations he had on the output of the lens (we do know that it's a real gem, however). We also need to consider the fact that Leica has been criticized for the size of the X (113) lens which will have impacted a lot of design decisions for the X Vario.

 

What do we know for sure?

All recent Leica optical designs (including Leica branded lenses for various other devices including cell phones) are at the very minimum well above average if not excellent and most of them show unique characteristics (i.e. there just is something special about that X Vario lens and also the X lenses).

Leica is increasingly relying on digital correction in addition to optical correction or should I say: Leica is increasingly basing their optical design on the inclusion of digital correction (thereby picking the best correction, optical or digital, for a given problem).

Leica has kept the lens while increasing sensor resolution before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring up Leica M lenses (by the way: the Tri Elmar is a zoom design) in this discussion is equally relevant as all the other comparisons so far: not at all

 

The mechanical link between camera and lens is a nice tidbit, but the X Vario is not an interchangeable lens camera. Therefore, this discussions is beyond the point. In a fixed lens setup, there is no link (electrical or mechanical) that requires frequent changing. If a rod is one inch or two inches, does not matter in terms of reliability.

 

X series cameras are leaf shutter cameras vs. focal plane shutters for the rest of the gang including SL and M. Different design.

 

Lens is fixed; there is no need to build in a bayonet (2mm for the visible metal cover, let alone the rest of the construction). There is no coupling, part of the lens can be "designed in the body".

 

X series rely quite substantially on digital correction as do all the other X series cameras.

 

There is no aperture ring, not even a digital one as in the Q (or Leica branded lenses for MFT).

 

... and of course there is no mirror box to take care of.

 

It's a back and forth in terms of size requirements. You save a little here, you loose a little there. And this does not even take into account any design decisions or compromises of whatever sort (including those Leica is willing to make despite or because of their aspiration to excellence) that have a meaningful impact on lens size.

 

 

The bottom line is: an X series lens can only be compared to another X series lens and nothing else. For that matter, you can draw your conclusions from the design of the X1/X2 and X (113) if at all. Comparing SLR lenses or lenses for cameras with substantially different mechanical and electrical design is not very useful.

 

If you compare the two extremes of full frame 50mm/f1.4 lenses, the Zeiss Otus and the Leica Summilux, it should be clear that full frame, uncorrected optical excellence can be achieved resulting in lenses with substantially different size while serving the same size sensor. Granted, M and SLR are different camera concepts, but a lot 50/1.4 exist for full frame SLR and not all of them are bad or so much worse than the Otus.

 

Peter Karbe has said in one of the interviews that the X Vario compromises on aperture range in order to achieve the size. That's all he said and everything else is a lot of interpretation on our side. We do not know the parameters or the options he had and we do not know the expectations he had on the output of the lens (we do know that it's a real gem, however). We also need to consider the fact that Leica has been criticized for the size of the X (113) lens which will have impacted a lot of design decisions for the X Vario.

 

What do we know for sure?

All recent Leica optical designs (including Leica branded lenses for various other devices including cell phones) are at the very minimum well above average if not excellent and most of them show unique characteristics (i.e. there just is something special about that X Vario lens and also the X lenses).

Leica is increasingly relying on digital correction in addition to optical correction or should I say: Leica is increasingly basing their optical design on the inclusion of digital correction (thereby picking the best correction, optical or digital, for a given problem).

Leica has kept the lens while increasing sensor resolution before.

 

The Leica Tri Elmar is not remotely similar to a full-frame version of the Leica X Vario lens.

 

1. The Tri Elmar is only selectable between 16, 18, and 21mm. It is not a zoom lens.

2. It does not cover the 28-70mm focal length range (35mm equivalent) of the X Vario

 

So therefore, they are not remotely similar.

 

You missed the point of why I mentioned the in-body motor lens design.

The reason I mentioned it is to point out that it is obsolete, so therefore the motor must be in the lens, which increases the lens size.

 

As mentioned before, the closest full-frame Leica lens to the X Vario lens is the Leica SL 24-90mm f/2.8-f4.

Also as mentioned before, the Leica SL 24-90mm f/2.8-f4 is fairly hefty at 1140 grams (2.51 lbs).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one important factor that people are overlooking is that a full-frame lens must generate a much larger image circle than an APS-C lens.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

 

The APS-C sensor size is 370 mm^2.

The full-frame sensor size is 864 mm^2.

 

So a full-frame sensor is 2.34x larger than an APS-C sensor. That's a nontrivial size difference.

A full-frame lens must generate an image circle which is 2.34x larger than an APS-C lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica Tri Elmar is not remotely similar to a full-frame version of the Leica X Vario lens.

 

1. The Tri Elmar is only selectable between 16, 18, and 21mm. It is not a zoom lens.

2. It does not cover the 28-70mm focal length range (35mm equivalent) of the X Vario

 

.

1. There are two Tri Elmar lenses

2. I said that the Tri Elmar is a zoom design and it is. It is limited to three steps due to frameline availability

3. I also said that it is just as irrelevant as all your other comparisons, but you probably stopped reading after Tri Elmar

 

In any case, it has been mildly entertaining for a while, but this discussions is actually rather meaningless

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. There are two Tri Elmar lenses

2. I said that the Tri Elmar is a zoom design and it is. It is limited to three steps due to frameline availability

3. I also said that it is just as irrelevant as all your other comparisons, but you probably stopped reading after Tri Elmar

 

In any case, it has been mildly entertaining for a while, but this discussions is actually rather meaningless

 

No, it's meaningful.

 

The Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is about the same size as the X Vario lens.

It's a little larger, since the long end is a bit faster (f/5.6 vs f/6.3).

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003U8Q7TC/ref=sr_ph_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471588721&sr=sr-1&keywords=sony+18-55mm+f3.5-5.6

 

I would post a pic, but my X Vario is currently being repaired.

When I get my X Vario back, I'll try to borrow my friend's Sony lens and post a comparison shot.

 

Anyway, lenses with similar specifications  tend to be a similar size across manufacturers.

 

Toshi

Edited by TMorita
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...It's a little larger, since the long end is a bit faster (f/5.6 vs f/6.3)...

 

Toshi

 

Hello Toshi,

 

Yes, simply a third of diaphragm !

But figure 6 strikes the spirits more figure 5...  ;)

 

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Toshi,

 

Yes, simply a third of diaphragm !

But figure 6 strikes the spirits more figure 5...  ;)

 

Guy

 

Ya, slightly faster would be nice.

 

BTW there is a similar thread on the German side:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/250731-x-vario-update/

 

I found one interesting quote:

 

"A Leica representative at the end of 2015 that no new X-Vario is planned. Too bad, I think."

 

Toshi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Toshi,

 

If it were faster, it would be certainly larger and perhaps less qualitative.

Moreover, it profits from an excellent rise in ISO.

 

But such as it is currently, it is appropriate to me perfectly well !   :)

 

Guy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Toshi,

 

If it were faster, it would be certainly larger and perhaps less qualitative.

Moreover, it profits from an excellent rise in ISO.

 

But such as it is currently, it is appropriate to me perfectly well !   :)

 

Guy

 

Yah, I am perfectly okay with the APS-C sensor size and the lens specs.

IMHO the only important thing missing is effective image stabilization.

If Leica made a X Vario 2 with either in-body or in-lens image stabilization, I would probably get it.

 

Toshi

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two Leica models were registered.

 

The most reliable assumption is that Leica will introduce a Leica branded successor to the Panasonic LX100/D-Lux 109 as it is fairly certain that a successor will be introduced by Panasonic at Photokina.

 

Regarding the X series: there are rumors questioning the future of the X series

There are also rumors about a new crop sensor camera for the SL/TL mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks 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.

×
×
  • Create New...