Sean Reid's X1 Part 2 Review is up

[coup de foudre]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's been a lot of chatter on the web about what people think the X1's weaknesses are. It has some, to be sure, but it also has a number of strengths that are getting less attention.

Sean,

 

when i'm looking at a camera, seriously, i already know what i want. i won't even look if the basic strengths are not a given. people already know what the X1 is. it is down to the flaws or my misgivings, that i concentrate... can they be overcome? can i live with it, if not? is it worth my money regardless? they are now talking about what the X1 isn't.

 

i honestly think that people not taking a 2K camera's short-comings would be fools. that doesn't mean that they're not going to end up getting one, it just gives them pause. very intelligent, if you ask me.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

when i'm looking at a camera, seriously, i already know what i want. i won't even look if the basic strengths are not a given. people already know what the X1 is. it is down to the flaws or my misgivings, that i concentrate... can they be overcome? can i live with it, if not? is it worth my money regardless? they are now talking about what the X1 isn't.

 

i honestly think that people not taking a 2K camera's short-comings would be fools. that doesn't mean that they're not going to end up getting one, it just gives them pause. very intelligent, if you ask me.

 

In the end we're saying the same thing. The intelligent and thorough approach is to look at *both* the strengths and the weaknesses - neither should be ignored. That's my approach to every review I write. But some people seem to be more attracted to a "St. Peter's Gate" approach in which it is determined that a given camera deserves to go to heaven or to hell. They speak in terms like "such and such camera is a complete waste of money, etc." "Camera X is useless for this, camera Y is useless for that..." and then clarity goes out the window.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[brucek]

The ISO comparisons were amazing. The X1 looks fantastic!

 

But I'm surprised more people haven't commented on the appearance of the OOF (out of focus) areas in Sean's sample photos. The OOF in the first photo looked terrible, and in the third photo (if I recall correctly) the OOF highlight wasn't even circular. It was bordering on teardrop shaped.

[khanosu]

Excellent review by Sean as usual. On thing I love about Sean is that you can always drop him an email with a question about his review and he always replies mostly at once with an answer. I have been subscribing to Sean's site form the time of its inception and have always found it a valuable resource; well worth the subscription cost. His X1 review compliments Micahel's review since it looks at issues that are important from a "street shooter's" perspective. Emphasis on zone focusing, behavior of the camera in screen off mode, behavior of the camera when it goes to sleep, retention or lack of retention of important information in sleep mode, odd utilization of the buffer in continuous and single shot mode etc. Right now this information can not be found anywhere else on the Web.

 

For me the positive points of the X1 are its excellent image quality and almost silent operation of the shutter in a compact size (I plan on using the camera at mostly f8 range in conjunction with zone focusing so rendition of OOF is not important for me). My excitement over these qualities is dampened by the excessive shutter lag at full shutter press (picking up the camera and quickly making a picture) and few other odd aspects related to MF, buffer and sleep mode; hopefully these are addressable and will be addressed in the final version of firmware. Sean is in touch with some key Leica engineers about these issues so they do know about them; hopefully they will fix them before the camera is out. For the things that matter to me there is a potential firmware fix.

 

Take care!

 

Furrukh

[sean_reid]

Excellent review by Sean as usual. On thing I love about Sean is that you can always drop him an email with a question about his review and he always replies mostly at once with an answer.

Furrukh

 

Thanks Furrukh. That is luck sometimes because I'm not always near a computer or I may be there but in the midst of concentrating and not checking e-mail until I finish my thought process with a picture or piece of writing. It's also tougher on the days when I get hundreds of e-mails from subscribers. So - luck of the draw really. It's sometimes easier on the day a review is first published because I'm in the midst of e-mail stuff anyway.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sliversurger]

Sean,

 

Thanks for your review on the X1. Your review, along with Michael's, gives me alot to chew on as I've been thinking of purchasing the X1 since its announcement. I was about to put a deposit on my order when I read that Michael and your reviews would be on-line this week.

 

My main reason for purchasing the X1 was to have a high quality compact camera to take photos of my growing baby. Also as my wife doesn't feel comfortable using the M8, I wanted to give her a compact auto-focus camera. The X1's compact size and APS-C sensor was really intriguing and I had hoped that it would produce high qualtiy photos similar to other APS-C cameras of a larger size.

 

After reading Michael and your reviews, I would have to say that I'm going to hold off on my X1 purchase for the time being. I was not disappointed in the quality of photos in the reviews; they look fantastic! My main concern was the auto-focus. Babies rarely hold still for a photo and having a fast auto-focus helps in this regard. As most photos would be indoor with lower light, I feel that this might impede the auto-focus even further. If this issue would be resolved in the production firmware or future firmware updates, I would reconsider.

 

In the end, I looked at what my main purpose of the camera would be, then looked at how the pros and cons mentioned in the reviews would affect my planned use. Thanks again Sean, and Michael, for your reviews on the X1.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean,

 

Thanks for your review on the X1. Your review, along with Michael's, gives me alot to chew on as I've been thinking of purchasing the X1 since its announcement. I was about to put a deposit on my order when I read that Michael and your reviews would be on-line this week.

 

My main reason for purchasing the X1 was to have a high quality compact camera to take photos of my growing baby. Also as my wife doesn't feel comfortable using the M8, I wanted to give her a compact auto-focus camera. The X1's compact size and APS-C sensor was really intriguing and I had hoped that it would produce high qualtiy photos similar to other APS-C cameras of a larger size.

 

After reading Michael and your reviews, I would have to say that I'm going to hold off on my X1 purchase for the time being. I was not disappointed in the quality of photos in the reviews; they look fantastic! My main concern was the auto-focus. Babies rarely hold still for a photo and having a fast auto-focus helps in this regard. As most photos would be indoor with lower light, I feel that this might impede the auto-focus even further. If this issue would be resolved in the production firmware or future firmware updates, I would reconsider.

 

In the end, I looked at what my main purpose of the camera would be, then looked at how the pros and cons mentioned in the reviews would affect my planned use. Thanks again Sean, and Michael, for your reviews on the X1.

 

Thanks.

 

We'll see if the AF speed increases with firmware changes. Again, it is not especially slow it's just very average for a compact digital camera. If the AF speed does not improve and you want a compact camera, rather than a DSLR, then you might want to look into the Panasonic GF1. I've been shooting with one today and its AF is pretty zippy even in low light (with the focus assist light). It might be a good baby camera.

 

If you're somewhat flexible on size, you might also want to think about a quite small Pentax K7 with pancake lenses. That, of course, would give you a true optical SLR finder.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[dkCambridgeshire]

After reading the reviews I'm happy to order an X1 - it's the results which are important plus its pocketability. I can work with and work around the focusing and plan to use the camera with my vintage SBLOO 35mm finder. And I've seen a suitable non-Leica case which should house the camera plus finder when not in use. One 'plus' with the camera which has not yet been emphasized is that if ordered now, a three year warranty is available - that TTBOMK is a much better deal than obtainable from rival manufacturers. If Leica are happy to offer a three year warranty then the camera probably has much better than average longevity and should give many years good service - ie a cost effective proposition.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[FastFashnReloaded]

I love Sean's photography and his reviews are generally excellent but this is one of the first reviews of his that I have read where I felt his bias toward Leica was evident in his review. The first thing I noticed was that most of the photos were taken at f8, thus the advantage of having a 2.8 lens and shooting wide open were almost never illustrated. Was this because the AF was so bad he couldn't trust it when wide open? Sean seemed to gloss over the AF performance by saying it was no worse than most small sensor cameras. I could have said blah blah blah blah blah

 

You are too verbose, sir.

 

I believe you could have made your point in a single paragraph, instead of going on like Sean Hannity.

[barjohn]

It's due to the internal battle between the engineer in me and the lawyer in me sometimes one wins and sometimes the other. :D:D I'll let you decide.

[jsrockit]

The lag can essentially be eliminated by slightly pressing the shutter down in advance of actually releasing it.

 

Isn't this a normal way to get rid of lag? That's how I use every auto-focus camera I've ever had... what am I missing?

[jsrockit]

 

i honestly think that people not taking a 2k camera's short-comings would be fools. That doesn't mean that they're not going to end up getting one, it just gives them pause. Very intelligent, if you ask me.

 

100% +1

[barjohn]

Isn't this a normal way to get rid of lag? That's how I use every auto-focus camera I've ever had... what am I missing?

 

That is to pre focus the camera for cameras that can not focus quickly. In this case we are talking about a fixed focus setup requiring the 1/2 press to get rid of other latency (not focus latency).

[sean_reid]

Isn't this a normal way to get rid of lag? That's how I use every auto-focus camera I've ever had... what am I missing?

 

In this case, it applies even with the camera in MF/manual exposure mode - for now. The firmware is definitely still being refined and I have a phone conference with an X1 engineer Monday.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

That is to pre focus the camera for cameras that can not focus quickly. In this case we are talking about a fixed focus setup requiring the 1/2 press to get rid of other latency (not focus latency).

 

That's correct - again, as of this beta firmware.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[barjohn]

Sean,

 

I have gone back and re-looked at your X1 images, your D-Lux4 images, your Sigma DP2 images and your GRD III images and frankly, if I didn't know by which camera review i was in I wouldn't be able to tell you which camera took which images. I went further and tried opening multiple browser windows setting each to a different camera to see if one stood out from your B&W images. I would have to say, if anyone stood out it was the DP2 seemed a little sharper and for color the GRD III seemed the best balance of good skin tones and color saturation but this was marginal at best. Therefore, I am puzzled when you and Michael talk about how high the IQ was for the X1. It didn't seem particularly better than the smaller sensor cameras you have previously reviewed. I think part of the problem is your excellent and well honed post processing skills is what we are seeing so by the time you get an image the way you like it, it really is reflecting what you can do from years of practice and not what many of us might expect to get. I think when you make such statements you should give us illustrations that show us why you are making the statement by giving us visual comparisons where we can see what you mean and why.

 

For example, today I looked at the DPR samples for the S2. What I saw was that at ISO 160 converted from RAW the images looked very good for the model shoots with great detail and color rendition; however the out of camera JPEGS were terrible. They looked worse than images I have seen from the Canon G7 in being soft, flat and missing a great deal of detail. The ISO 320 and 640 shots were very noisy and in many shots the focus was not where it should have been. Even the B&W image was not as pleasing as I would expect from a $30K+ system. The camera seemed to do better in semi studio settings and the outdoor scenery shots just didn't have much to recommend them. My guess is that after I see your post processed shots I will have a different impression.

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

I have gone back and re-looked at your X1 images, your D-Lux4 images, your Sigma DP2 images and your GRD III images and frankly, if I didn't know by which camera review i was in I wouldn't be able to tell you which camera took which images. I went further and tried opening multiple browser windows setting each to a different camera to see if one stood out from your B&W images. I would have to say, if anyone stood out it was the DP2 seemed a little sharper and for color the GRD III seemed the best balance of good skin tones and color saturation but this was marginal at best. Therefore, I am puzzled when you and Michael talk about how high the IQ was for the X1. It didn't seem particularly better than the smaller sensor cameras you have previously reviewed. I think part of the problem is your excellent and well honed post processing skills is what we are seeing so by the time you get an image the way you like it, it really is reflecting what you can do from years of practice and not what many of us might expect to get. I think when you make such statements you should give us illustrations that show us why you are making the statement by giving us visual comparisons where we can see what you mean and why.

 

This is an interesting question (though I better get some sleep soon). Short answer as related to my reviews:

 

The actual size (100%) crops used in the sections on file quality/ISO noise are normally done with straight conversions (noise reduction sliders zeroed) so there's no post work there. That section of the X1 review (comparisons of X1 with GF1 and DP2) should hopefully be done next week (the traditional fruit and vegetable pictures). *That* section in any of my reviews is one place to look for illustrations of file quality differences.

 

The reduced size pictures (850 pixels wide in my reviews) can give some general clues about rendering but they obviously can't show us what we'd see in a good print. That's true of any small JPEG on the web.

 

To actually see how a camera is performing (from examples) on screen, the actual size crops (100%) are key. Ideally we'd also all be able to look at prints but that's a physical impossibility. I also spend a lot of time looking at actual size files (at 100% but not magnified at all) on screen because I'm used to seeing how those images (using that word by its original meaning) tend to translate in print.

 

I imagine some people have also chosen to make prints of the X1 files available in the DPreview samples - that could be useful.

 

The larger question of what can and cannot be communicated (about technical file quality) on the web would take too long to answer here but I've thought about that as the subject of its own essay - some day.

 

BTW, I actually do a lot of my work (preparing pictures for clients, etc.) directly in C1. I often don't need to do much more in Photoshop.

 

As for the S2...my test camera just got here today but I need to finish up work on the X1 and GF1 reviews before it can get my full attention.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[nhabedi]

The larger question of what can and cannot be communicated (about technical file quality) on the web would take too long to answer here but I've thought about that as the subject of its own essay - some day.

 

Looking forward to that. In the meantime: The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online

 

I'm always surprised how much people on this forum infer about a camera's IQ from seeing a few random pictures online. IMHO, reviews are mostly good for a) generally describing a camera and what sets it apart from others, pointing out obvious shortcomings, c) listing things that can be easily counted and measured. Everything else one should ideally try out and evaluate oneself instead of being obsessed by pixel-peeping.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

Looking forward to that. In the meantime: The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online

]

 

Hi Edi (do I have your name correct?),

 

That's a great link to mention at this point in the conversation. That's the essay I may write a counterpoint to. With caveats, there is indeed some value in looking at file quality on the monitor depending upon what one is looking at and how he or she goes about it. Michael and I have already discussed that potential essay (some time ago) but I haven't had time to write it yet. I agree with Michael's essay in many respects but have a slightly different perspective.

 

I do agree that the print is the intended destination for my work at least. I imagine this is true for many others as well.

 

Core Idea 1: The actual file, seen at full size on screen before printing *is* the source file. It is the thing itself. The print is a second generation version of that (as is a resized JPEG made from the same).

 

Core Idea 2: It would be wonderful if we could all review prints made from various camera files in person but we are spread all over the world and so this is not pragmatically possible on any large scale.

 

Core Idea 3: Each printer makes its own interpretation of a digital file. A print from printer X, with ink Y, on paper Z, will not necessarily look the same as print E from printer F, with ink G. (Again, the print is a wonderful thing but it is second generation). Hence the print that Harry is looking at in Harrisburg may not look the same as the one that Gerry is looking at in Germany (even if they start with exactly the same file).

 

Core Idea 4: Given 1 - 3, it makes sense to make the best use possible of the information (about digital output) that can be presented via the web. Calibrated high quality monitors are essential for this because the monitor, like the printer, is also interpreting the file.

 

The key to this, in fact, is the (often maligned) actual (100% size - not magnified) file seen in full or in sections (croppings). Photographers who are experienced in digital printing (and who are working with high quality and consistent monitors) can get pretty good at translating how such a file will look in print.

 

Too many things to do, too few hours in a day. Need to move away from forum discussions soon so that I can concentrate on the reviews at hand.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[peterb]

Looking forward to that. In the meantime: The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online

 

I'm always surprised how much people on this forum infer about a camera's IQ from seeing a few random pictures online. IMHO, reviews are mostly good for a) generally describing a camera and what sets it apart from others, pointing out obvious shortcomings, c) listing things that can be easily counted and measured. Everything else one should ideally try out and evaluate oneself instead of being obsessed by pixel-peeping.

 

I agree. It's sorta like advertising a color tv's image prowess on YOUR color TV so you can see how good the new color tv is.