Search the Community

The Khasi Hills Archery Sports Association in Shillong holds an archery contest, popularly known as Teer, every afternoon in a small semi-circular clearing near the Polo Ground. The archery contest is in reality a betting game with fairly simple rules. There are two rounds played — in the first round 50 archers shoot 30 arrows each and in the second round 20 arrows are shot. Bets are placed on the last two digits of the total number of arrows that land on the target. For example, of the 1500 arrows shot in the first round suppose 70 per cent or 1050 arrows hit the target. The winning number then would be 50. If the thinking went that the archers were not very skillful then you could hedge your bet and predict about 825 arrows would find the target. The winning number then would be 25. Determining archers skill levels is one way to predict a winning number. Another more interesting way is to interpret your dream from the night before. The presence of a man or woman in the dream can direct you to bet on a particular number, say 6 or 5 and even 37 if the man and woman were fighting. In any case, bets are placed on any number from 0 to 99.

The X1 was, if I recall, the first true compact, fixed lens APSC camera. The X2 improved upon that and the X113 was a dream. But that was in 2014, and its ISO performance and AF speed could do with what would be a much update. Leica has mentioned that the CL is an effective replacement for the X series. The beautiful sensor produces images very close to that of the M; its AF speed is now reasonably fast; and the size and dimensions - especially when used with the 18mm - is certainly X sized. And let's not forget that beautiful viewfinder. However, I would argue that the CL does not offer the same straightforward, no nonsense manual simplicity of the X series, which is what set the X apart from everything else. Those beautifully engraved and dedicated aperture and shutter speed dials made its operation effortless. While I did try the CL, and was impressed by the image quality, I did find the non-labelled, multi functional top dials something of a pain, and often found that, while in busy areas, the dials could inadvertently change the settings, which was a constant source of frustration. In this respect, I personally hope that we will see either a CL 2 that adopts the X operational philosophy, or alternatively, a new X3. I would be fine with the return of the 2.8 Elmarit, the 1.7 Summilux, or if they somehow managed to cram a collapsible Summicron into an X2 sized body, then that that would be wonderful. Make that collapsible Summicron a manual pull out and you have something that would probably be more robust and nostalgically charming. In a recent interview, Leica did say that they were not ruling out the possibility of a fixed lens APSC compact camera, but it would depend on whether or not there is clamour for it. What say you?

These are some pictures I took with the X Vario in low to no light. DNG file first, after processing next. f/4.8, 1/40, ISO 1600, 43mm, handheld

Hello, I am being offered a mint condition TL + T 18-56mm lens at a very attractive price. I already have a X Vario which I have enjoyed using for several years, but the slow & unreliable autofocus has frustrated me. Is the autofocus on the TL better than on the X Vario? I know both have a 16mp sensor, but are they the same sensor? How do the JPEGS & DNG files of the two cameras compare? Would I see an improvement from the TL over the X Vario, especially in the jpegs? Finally, is the auto white balance on the TL better than the XV? I’d be most grateful for your thoughts. Thanks in advance. Regards, Firoze

Hello. I have been using a X Vario for the past four years, and have enjoyed using it. But I am increasingly frustrated with its slow autofocus, esp in low light. Also its metering/whitebalance on landscapes is often "off" - the skies often look Cyan rather than deep blue. Of course when the metering is right, the results are superb. Unfortunately when travelling there is often no time to try different exposure settings. I have tried auto-bracketing exposures but that did not prove satisfactory. Note that my VX is not a faulty camera, another XV I tried had similar issues. In view of the above, I am thinking of switching to a TL2 with 18-56 zoom. My questions: 1) Is the TL2 autofocus significantly better than the XV? 

2) Are the auto-exposures on the TL2 more accurate? Does is also occasionally suffer from the Cyan sky syndrome? 3) Is the 18-56 zoom comparable in quality to the XV lens, and does it have that fabled "Leica glow" like the VX lens has? 4) Is the 18-56 zoom prone to flare? I have seen a few photos from this lens exhibiting flare, or a washed out background, hence am asking. 5) I have read the the out-of-camera jpegs form the TL2 at standard setting are "flat" or bland. Is this true? I normally use DNG, but on the XV, when it does get the exposure right, the jpegs are so good that it is difficult to get better results from DNG. I would be most grateful for your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

Our beloved X Vario, with its almost equally beloved beloved quirks ("almost"... see the first link in my signature, below), forces us to devise cunning exposure strategies. We have no exposure lock (holding the shutter release doesn't count if you want to focus after setting the exposure) and manual shutter speed is set in full stops only. How to achieve perfect exposures? After using center weighted metering for a while, lately I've been experimenting with spot metering. This seems to give me considerably more control. I use it in conjunction with aperture priority and exposure compensation; sometimes also in full manual mode (but then the full stop shutter speed dial quickly becomes a problem again). Most of the time I don't bother to pick a part of the scene that I want to place in a certain Adams' Zone — this would be feasible with exposure lock, or again with full manual — but instead I just decide where the spot area that I am focusing on should be placed, Zone-wise, and dial in exposure compensation, a little on the conservative side (0 for V, ⅔ for VI, 1⅓ for VII and 2 for VIII, which is often too much already, at least in the jpegs; the negative compensation follows a mirrored pattern). I find this works quite well. Only when there is an important highlight outside the focus rectangle (that coincides with the metering 'spot') will I revert to full manual and meter off that highlight, and hope that my full stop shutter speeds will fit the bill. How are others' experiences with this approach?

Sitting enjoying a late morning coffee at a beach-side bar near Oropesa (Spain), this morning, the view caught my eye. X-Vario, SEfexPro2.