Sean Reid's X1 Part 2 Review is up

[ottocrat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah but sensor size isn't just about megapixels and noise, it's also about depth of field. Sure there are some really great small sensor compacts out there that produce fine quality images but if you like playing with depth of field or if you want to shoot in low light then, until now, you had to go with a DSLR or RF. But now the X1 and micro 4/3rds give you the option of going smaller.

[NZDavid]

Sean, I found your review very helpful -- well worth re-subscribing. But how about an index or alphabetical list?

 

All these pages on a little compact camera. Incredible. I don't think the X1 is an M replacement, but I do think it comes close to the original Oscar Barnack concept: small camera, big pictures.

 

I'll keep using the M for film, but this might be a very handy digi alternative to Ricoh.

 

For me, image quality is decisive. I also love the fact that it is a simple looking camera to operate. No fiddly menus. I absolutely agree that manual shutter and aperture controls are best. Yes, a manual ISO control would also have been useful, but I'm not sure if it's a big deal, and you don't want too many dials either.

 

Too many controls on the back makes them very easy to nudge -- happens all the time with my Ricoh GR-D. Also, I'm not quite sure why there's a self-timer button on the back and top. Less is more!

 

I probably wouldn't use manual focus -- too fiddly, so can someone tell me if I am right in assuming on AF the focus wheel is redundant?

 

The dinky flash could come in handy for filling in shadows for portraits.

[barjohn]

I hope the information about frame rate being the basis for AF speed is incorrect. I pulled down some current Patent Pendings for Contrast Detect AF and they did not mention sensor frame rate as a basis for their improvement in AF performance. At least one was by two Japanese inventors. If that is true, then it may be until Nikon releases their large sensor mirror-less camera that incorporates their new patented sensor that uses photo receptors in the imaging sensor to achieve phase detection AF that we will see fast AF in APS-C or larger sensor small cameras. I think that MF becomes even more important when you have slow or poor AF in low light and the need for an EVF becomes even more critical as a means for achieving focus with the lens wide open. In low light with a wide open lens and a shallow DOF you are not going to be using ZF.

 

I should add and I hope Sean will provide information on this, but how noisy does the image on the LCD get in low light (assuming Leica fixes the lenses tendency to stop down rather than staying wide open)? With the E-P1 it would become so noisy that you could not get sufficient resolution to MF the lens in low light. The GF1 stays very clean, even in very low light which frankly surprised me because the G1 did not do as well. The same is true for the EVF on the GF1. I haven't seen any information on this on the GRX yet.

 

Finally, given the firmware version 1.0 is available when will someone post raw test shots at various ISOs so we can look at what the camera is capable of doing for ourselves as far as IQ goes? In particular I would like to see more examples where shallow DOF is emphasized as the images are shot wide open.

[peterb]

Sean,

 

Issues of AF alacrity and shutter lag aside, there's been a lot of talk on this thread about zone focusing. So I'm curious, at f8 did you see any significant difference between the image rendered by the 20mm Panasonic f1.7 pancake lens (which you've been testing on the GF1 for your review) on its camera vs the one wrought by 24mm Elmarit on the X1?

 

I realize at higher ISO's noise is certainly an issue that favors the X1 but I was curious about lens performance.

 

 

Thanks.

 

Peter

[sean_reid]

Sean, I found your review very helpful -- well worth re-subscribing. But how about an index or alphabetical list?

 

Thanks, the article index is linked right near the top of the home page: http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/articleindextable.html

 

One must be logged in for the links to work.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

All these pages on a little compact camera. Incredible. I don't think the X1 is an M replacement, but I do think it comes close to the original Oscar Barnack concept: small camera, big pictures.

 

I'll keep using the M for film, but this might be a very handy digi alternative to Ricoh.

 

For me, image quality is decisive. I also love the fact that it is a simple looking camera to operate. No fiddly menus. I absolutely agree that manual shutter and aperture controls are best. Yes, a manual ISO control would also have been useful, but I'm not sure if it's a big deal, and you don't want too many dials either.

 

Too many controls on the back makes them very easy to nudge -- happens all the time with my Ricoh GR-D. Also, I'm not quite sure why there's a self-timer button on the back and top. Less is more!

 

I probably wouldn't use manual focus -- too fiddly, so can someone tell me if I am right in assuming on AF the focus wheel is redundant?

 

The dinky flash could come in handy for filling in shadows for portraits.

 

Yes, it is a very interesting little camera. Yes, the focus wheel does not affect AF. The current ISO control system works just fine (as it does on the GF1 - same idea with both).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hope the information about frame rate being the basis for AF speed is incorrect. I pulled down some current Patent Pendings for Contrast Detect AF and they did not mention sensor frame rate as a basis for their improvement in AF performance. At least one was by two Japanese inventors.

 

Considering my source (who must and will remain anonymous) that information should indeed be correct. You meant to say "a basis" rather than "the basis" right? Programming still plays a role but frame rate, as I now understand, apparently controls the ceiling for AF speed.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

how noisy does the image on the LCD get in low light (assuming Leica fixes the lenses tendency to stop down rather than staying wide open)?

 

Once that is fixed, and I hope it will be, I will look at that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

Issues of AF alacrity and shutter lag aside, there's been a lot of talk on this thread about zone focusing. So I'm curious, at f8 did you see any significant difference between the image rendered by the 20mm Panasonic f1.7 pancake lens (which you've been testing on the GF1 for your review) on its camera vs the one wrought by 24mm Elmarit on the X1?

 

I realize at higher ISO's noise is certainly an issue that favors the X1 but I was curious about lens performance.

 

 

Thanks.

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

I don't know the answer to that yet. It is an interesting question.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[peterb]

Hi Sean,

 

The reason I asked was that if you're going to zone focus at f8 or so, is there any advantage to using a camera with a pricey Leitz optic on it vs anyone else's reasonably fashioned glass? I thought the Leica edge took place when you were able to accurately focus their glass using their legendary rangefinders (which I happily enjoyed for years with the M6 and, when enough box tops have been saved, someday with the M9 again).

 

Thanks,

 

Peter

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean,

 

The reason I asked was that if you're going to zone focus at f8 or so, is there any advantage to using a camera with a pricey Leitz optic on it vs anyone else's reasonably fashioned glass? I thought the Leica edge took place when you were able to accurately focus their glass using their legendary rangefinders (which I happily enjoyed for years with the M6 and, when enough box tops have been saved, someday with the M9 again).

 

Thanks,

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

It's worth remembering that the two cameras use not only different lenses but also very different sensors and related electronics. I don't yet know how the two compare, though, when used at F/8. Of course, either camera can be used at any aperture and both lenses do well even wide open.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sandymc]

I hope the information about frame rate being the basis for AF speed is incorrect.

 

What Sean's sources says is indeed correct, although an important caveat perhaps got left out along the way which is "if the camera uses live view data for its contrast based auto-focus function". That's not actually a requirement, although for reason of cost, it's very common. You can, if you want, build a sensor that separates contrast based autofocus and live view. The issue is, as Sean correctly points out in his review, that the sensor that Leica are using was not really designed for a high performance contrast based autofocus mechanism, and so has low frame rates on live view, and no alternate faster autofocus read out mechanism. Leica have repurposed it's live view function to do autofocus, but that repurposing will have a downside.

 

Sandy

[barjohn]

Sandy,

There are a couple of things that aren't making sense to me. First, I believe I have read that the EP-1 uses the same sensor as the GF1 yet there is a world of difference in AF speed. The second is that Leica engineers had to know all of this going in so why wouldn't they pick a sensor with better AF performance as a criteria? With this style camera it isn't like AF was a last minute add on.

[sandymc]

Sandy,

There are a couple of things that aren't making sense to me. First, I believe I have read that the EP-1 uses the same sensor as the GF1 yet there is a world of difference in AF speed. The second is that Leica engineers had to know all of this going in so why wouldn't they pick a sensor with better AF performance as a criteria? With this style camera it isn't like AF was a last minute add on.

 

Don't know about whether the sensors are the same, but there's an interesting discussion here - Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Digital Camera Video - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! - which talks to some of the reasons why the GF1's autofocus performance is as good as it is, for a contrast detect design. Note they talk about using only one line, and they talk about 1/60 of a second, not the 1/30th you'd expect if they were just using the video video rate.

 

As regards the sensor the Leica picked, I doubt they had that many choices available to them. In fact, I think it was probably Sony/Nikon or nothing.

 

Sandy

[TEBnewyork]

Don't know about whether the sensors are the same, but there's an interesting discussion here - Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Digital Camera Video - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! - which talks to some of the reasons why the GF1's autofocus performance is as good as it is, for a contrast detect design. Note they talk about using only one line, and they talk about 1/60 of a second, not the 1/30th you'd expect if they were just using the video video rate.

 

As regards the sensor the Leica picked, I doubt they had that many choices available to them. In fact, I think it was probably Sony/Nikon or nothing.

 

Sandy

 

You beat me to it. I was just about to post that link. It is the best bit I've read so far about the AF on m4/3. I have the 14-140 lens which is one of the HD lenses and it is lightning fast to focus. When you get to the half press it is already locked in. At that point I'm more limited by my reaction time than the camera's focusing ability.

 

That doesn't mean I'm saying the rest of the camera operation is lightning fast as it doesn't compare from a continuous shooting or blackout of the LCD when trying to capture a burst of action with a good dslr for sports.

[sean_reid]

Sandy,

Leica engineers had to know all of this going in so why wouldn't they pick a sensor with better AF performance as a criteria? With this style camera it isn't like AF was a last minute add on.

 

They apparently did know this going in and they chose to use the sensor for file quality reasons even though they knew it would not be an AF speed champ. I'm not aware of any APS-C sensors (to date) that are designed to read out at 60 fps. But I'm not an expert on camera production so I can't be sure of that.

 

IMO: Quite simply, with the X1, Leica chose to accept modest AF speed in order to gain technical file quality. It was a conscious choice in the design, given what was available for sensor options. So the camera focused a lot like a typical small sensor camera but produces output that's quite different from those.

[sean_reid]

What Sean's sources says is indeed correct, although an important caveat perhaps got left out along the way which is "if the camera uses live view data for its contrast based auto-focus function". That's not actually a requirement, although for reason of cost, it's very common. You can, if you want, build a sensor that separates contrast based autofocus and live view. The issue is, as Sean correctly points out in his review, that the sensor that Leica are using was not really designed for a high performance contrast based autofocus mechanism, and so has low frame rates on live view, and no alternate faster autofocus read out mechanism. Leica have repurposed it's live view function to do autofocus, but that repurposing will have a downside.

 

Sandy

 

Hi Sandy,

 

Are you aware of any APS-C sensors that provide live view and also use a separate and faster AF read out? This, obviously, is not my area of expertise. It initially seems to be like something that might exist in the future but which does not exist now. Is that correct?

 

Again, I'll remind folks that I'm a photographer and not an engineer. I can report what I learn but I'm no expert on sensors or AF.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

As regards the sensor the Leica picked, I doubt they had that many choices available to them. In fact, I think it was probably Sony/Nikon or nothing.

 

Sandy

 

That's my impression as well, modified to note that the Nikon D300 uses a Sony sensor so basically the Sony seems like it was *the* option for APS-C with live view. Fortunately, its a sensor thats capable of quite high quality output in my experience.

 

Again, just my sense of things - not confirmed.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[TEBnewyork]

Hi Sandy,

 

Are you aware of any APS-C sensors that provide live view and also use a separate and faster AF read out? This, obviously, is not my area of expertise. It initially seems to be like something that might exist in the future but which does not exist now. Is that correct?

 

Again, I'll remind folks that I'm a photographer and not an engineer. I can report what I learn but I'm no expert on sensors or AF.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sony has done this on their mid range dslr. They have a separate sensor for the live view. There are pros and cons, some probably more dependent on the way they've implemented it vs. technical limitations....

 

Sony DSLR-A380 Review: 8. Operation (Live View): Digital Photography Review

 

terry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sandymc]

Hi Sandy,

 

Are you aware of any APS-C sensors that provide live view and also use a separate and faster AF read out? This, obviously, is not my area of expertise. It initially seems to be like something that might exist in the future but which does not exist now. Is that correct?

 

Again, I'll remind folks that I'm a photographer and not an engineer. I can report what I learn but I'm no expert on sensors or AF.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

I don't know of any in APS-C - as you know, most APS-C cameras are historically have been DSLRs that use phase detect, so it hasn't been an issue. But as we get more EVIL cameras, I suspect that some of the big players will do something like that.

 

Regards,

 

Sandy