barjohn Posted November 6, 2009 Share #41 Posted November 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's not the size of the camera it is relative to the size of the sensor that people are disappointed in the results. Read the comments on the DPR thread. Camera size was a given, the question was what level of IQ one would get with a large sensor equivalent to a DSLR and here is where the images appear to fall down, especially given the expected additional performance of a Leica lens on a camera at this price point. The images are not showing anything that many $500 DSLRs can't produce as well or better. Further the lens has apparent CA and distortion far above what many people expected from a Leica lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Hi barjohn, Take a look here LX1 Samples at dpreview.com. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Overgaard Posted November 6, 2009 Share #42 Posted November 6, 2009 Thorsten i agree with your "lack of care" remark .... i think that's what's at work here. Well noticed. I wonder why Leica supply reviewers like dpreview with preview sample cameras for them to create miserable stuff like that. It just create controversy about high ISO, shadow details and other issues that is utterly unimportant. The question is rather, where can you take a small camera like that, and what can you create with it. Not what the sensor is capable of. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 6, 2009 Share #43 Posted November 6, 2009 My eyes must be broken because they look good to me... technically speaking. I'm not seeing many of the things you guys are seeing and I've looked on a few different screens. Some of the pcitures actually look really good to me... leaves, blue and white building, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 6, 2009 Share #44 Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) If it is the same sensor as the D300/D90 maybe it is set to the lower iso end as the D90 is very ordinary at200/400 iso end but great at 800/1600 and a lot better at 3200 as shown on dpr . Edited November 6, 2009 by stnami Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 6, 2009 Share #45 Posted November 6, 2009 These weren't taken with a prototype camera but rather a production version, shot in RAW and processed in ACR. So far from not carefully taken or processed as Phil Askew of DPR is a photographer whether you like his images or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
murfman Posted November 6, 2009 Share #46 Posted November 6, 2009 My eyes must be broken because they look good to me... technically speaking. I'm not seeing many of the things you guys are seeing and I've looked on a few different screens. Some of the pcitures actually look really good to me... leaves, blue and white building, etc. Guess I'll join you in the broken eyes club, I opened a cross section of the full res pics in PhotoShop on a 24" Eizo, and with a spark of Smart Sharpen, quite nice! Would love to get my mouse on the RAW. If these are the results of a person that knows cameras, banging about with it for a few days, and default settings (what my programming prof many years ago called the dumbshit numbers, which now somehow mean "manufacturers optimal settings" -don't get me started on that...) in ACR, non profiled no less... Bodes well for actually learning the camera and its personality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted November 6, 2009 Share #47 Posted November 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's not the size of the camera it is relative to the size of the sensor that people are disappointed in the results. Read the comments on the DPR thread. Camera size was a given, the question was what level of IQ one would get with a large sensor equivalent to a DSLR and here is where the images appear to fall down, especially given the expected additional performance of a Leica lens on a camera at this price point. The images are not showing anything that many $500 DSLRs can't produce as well or better. Further the lens has apparent CA and distortion far above what many people expected from a Leica lens. DPR threads are full of whiners ALL THE TIME. Mostly Canonites who come by to slake their insecurities at other people's expenses. So why don't you actually try one for yourself before listening to what the teabagger wannabees over at DPR say, hmmm? "Further the lens has apparent CA and distortion far above what many people expected from a Leica lens." I don't see it, John. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 6, 2009 Share #48 Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) If it is the same sensor as the D300/D90 maybe it is set to the lower iso end as the D90 is very ordinary at200/400 iso end but great at 800/1600 and a lot better at 3200 as shown on dpr ...had a another bopeep at the files there isn't that much difference so at 2000 smackaroos probably not good value for money,..... what the heck. Now I wonder if that phantom ricoh is going to eventuate........ my guess is that Reid and Reichmann will be fairly positive for whatever that is worth Edited November 6, 2009 by stnami Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speenth Posted November 6, 2009 Share #49 Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) My eyes must be broken because they look good to me... technically speaking. I'm not seeing many of the things you guys are seeing and I've looked on a few different screens. Some of the pcitures actually look really good to me... leaves, blue and white building, etc. Yes, they look good, but the worrying issue is they look no better than the Panny GF1 samples on the dpreview site. The GF1 kit is half the price of the X1 and offers interchangeable lenses. I am not promoting the Panny, I am a long-standing Leica nut. I just don't get the X1. It looks wonderful, its undoubtedly built to Leica standards, I'm sure the lens is fantastic ... but, in this day and age, a fixed focal length lens is almost unheard of (the Sigma didn't exactly fly, did it)? To cap it all, the samples are unremarkable. Edited November 6, 2009 by Speenth Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 6, 2009 Share #50 Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) big difference between screen images and those downloaded ..... may be a -0.7 to -1 setting camera for the highlights in bright sunlight Edited November 6, 2009 by stnami Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottocrat Posted November 6, 2009 Share #51 Posted November 6, 2009 Yes, they look good, but the worrying issue is they look no better than the Panny GF1 samples on the dpreview site. Like jsrockit I'm another one with broken eyes, I don't see where the disappointment is coming from. The pics look good to me. I'm particularly excited by what looks like great performance at high ISO, certainly compared to my first-gen DSLR. The point about - what was it, scruffy? - bokeh is one I understand at some level; the blurring was not aesthetically pleasing to me, I don't know the extent to which that was the lens and not just the shot. For the rest, it looks great, very exciting, promising, I'm not seeing the problems. But then I always feel rather intimidated in these discussions by people who know more about these things than I do. For example, ashwinrao said "The images don't really pop in the way that I expect from Leica, and look like images from midrange SLR's. They don't seem to have the biting sharpness that I am used to from the M8...They also don't seem to have the beautiful out-of-focus rendering that I have come to expect, but once again, maybe this has to do with shooting conditions." Obviously we can't have side by side pics of the same scene shot by an M8 and an X1 yet, but I'd like to see exactly what ashwinrao means by the kind of image he'd expect from a Leica. This isn't a troll, just an attempt to understand and learn something. I'm always a bit suspicious that we're getting dangerously close to audiophile nazi territory in this kind of discussion ("the music via these standard copper cables doesn't really pop in the way that I'd expect from Bang & Olufsen if I were listening via gold cables") and that actually we're in the realm of the purely subjective. (Apologies for the semi-godwin there by the way - not actually calling anyone a nazi! ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamilsukun Posted November 6, 2009 Share #52 Posted November 6, 2009 Something seems to be taken care of. Photography, photographer, post-processing, the camera... How do these factors are shared? Quite uncertain at the moment. A sensor of this size and a 35mm Leica lens is a very promising, bullet proof combination. We will definitely see some better examples in near future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglasco Posted November 6, 2009 Share #53 Posted November 6, 2009 Like jsrockit I'm another one with broken eyes, I don't see where the disappointment is coming from. The pics look good to me. I'm particularly excited by what looks like great performance at high ISO, certainly compared to my first-gen DSLR. The point about - what was it, scruffy? - bokeh is one I understand at some level; the blurring was not aesthetically pleasing to me, I don't know the extent to which that was the lens and not just the shot. For the rest, it looks great, very exciting, promising, I'm not seeing the problems. But then I always feel rather intimidated in these discussions by people who know more about these things than I do. Well put Ottocrat, We will always have critics regarding this camera, some will think they know more than others, some putting the camera down because it may compete with there M8 or whatever else thet may have. Those images taken in poor conditions at this time of the year in the U.K are not that bad. We need to see photographs taken on a normal sunny day then we may see that Leica glow, who knows. I have had the same results as those with my Digilux 2 and I have had some nice shots with the camera, its to early to compare until we see some more photos. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 6, 2009 Share #54 Posted November 6, 2009 You can download the full sized images by clicking the appropriate link on each page. Not only that, but if you click on a specific point in the picture you get a high quality (for a jpeg) enlargement which is even more revealing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottocrat Posted November 6, 2009 Share #55 Posted November 6, 2009 Also, let's not use the dull October light in London as an excuse for sub-optimal shots (which I don't think they are by the way). Depending on the subject (and the photographer) the diffuse light on an autumnal day in northern Europe can be as beautiful as anything. I know I should back that up with some pics; maybe I'll get around to it one day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 6, 2009 Share #56 Posted November 6, 2009 Yes, they look good, but the worrying issue is they look no better than the Panny GF1 samples on the dpreview site. The GF1 kit is half the price of the X1 and offers interchangeable lenses. I am not promoting the Panny, I am a long-standing Leica nut. I just don't get the X1. It looks wonderful, its undoubtedly built to Leica standards, I'm sure the lens is fantastic ... but, in this day and age, a fixed focal length lens is almost unheard of (the Sigma didn't exactly fly, did it)? To cap it all, the samples are unremarkable. The beauty of the X1 is in its simplicity. Shutter speed and aperature dials. A button for each necessary feature. A design built out of what cameras used to be i.e. user friendly, manual cameras with no nonsense... the Panasonic is born from a P&S design and still has too much menu diving and whatnot. This is my opinion, but these are the things that make the X1 infinitely more appealing to me. I love fixed focal lengths though and hate zooms... I also prefer 35mm lens lengths. I just don't get the Panasonic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 6, 2009 Share #57 Posted November 6, 2009 The beauty of the X1 is in its simplicity. Shutter speed and aperature dials. A button for each necessary feature. A design built out of what cameras used to be i.e. user friendly, manual cameras with no nonsense... the Panasonic is born from a P&S design and still has too much menu diving and whatnot. This is my opinion, but these are the things that make the X1 infinitely more appealing to me. I love fixed focal lengths though and hate zooms... I also prefer 35mm lens lengths. I just don't get the Panasonic. i agree with all of this. unfortunately, the lens is too slow for what i'd like to use it for and the bokeh is just hideous. sigh. i did have hopes... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottocrat Posted November 6, 2009 Share #58 Posted November 6, 2009 Probably a bit premature to consign those hopes to the dustbin just yet, on the basis of two maximum three sample shots. I wasn't keen on the bokeh either but it hasn't doused my enthusiasm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 6, 2009 Share #59 Posted November 6, 2009 There is more to photography than bokeh... to me, f/2.8 is never a good sign when looking for bokeh. The lens isn't too slow if the higher ISO modes work good enough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted November 6, 2009 Share #60 Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) I don’t believe that the red "fringing" you see in these pictures is related to lens CA, instead it is an ACR profile issue. All the pictures with this red "fringing" have a very hot red channel. A profile that tames this red will get rid of this "fringing" and also improve the colors quite a bit. If you process these pictures with a more subdued red channel then the results improve dramatically. Dpreview had asked people not to post these pictures so I can not show my results. Those of you who have "Alien Skin Exposure 2" plug-in for Photoshop, just run these pictures through "Fuji Pro 160S" (along with a bit of under exposure) and you will see these "fringes" disappear; also the color is improved a lot. For example, the first picture which suffers from a hot red channel with this filter (and a bit of underexposure) is dramatically improved. A bit of sharpening and tamed red channel and these pictures start looking very good indeed. Take care! Furrukh P.S. The jpegs directly from the camera should not suffer from this profile mismatch. Edited November 6, 2009 by khanosu Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.