Sean Reid's X1 Part 2 Review is up

[nhabedi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean,

 

There are a couple of things here I don't agree with although I don't

think we necessarily have to discuss this further. As I said, I'm

looking forward to your essay about this.

 

The most important point is that I'm tired of looking at 100% crops of

boring pictures online and I've seen too many of them without actually

learning anything. It didn't help me to make a good decision.

 

There's a tendency in photography, especially in digital photography,

to treat it as if most of its aspects can be measured and evaluated

quantitatively - ignoring the fact that photography is mainly a very

subjective process both on the side of the producer as well as on the

side of the consumer.

 

If I want to learn something about a new camera, I don't want long

comparison tables and 100% crops of boring pictures. I know where to

get this data if I really want it. What I want (and that's why I

subscribed to your service for example) is a subjective evaluation of

the camera done by someone who has access to the camera before I have

it, who has lots more experience judging cameras than I have, and who

I trust is fair and neutral - or at least has a focus similar to mine.

That doesn't mean I have to believe everything the reviewer has to

say, but it does mean that I'm hoping you are doing the groundwork for

me. Don't show me those pixel-peep crops, just tell me what you think

about them. (And then, for those who think they need more, provide

links to the RAW files. You are right that there are infinitely many

ways to create a print from one source, but there are also infinitely

many ways to create a JPG from one RAW file.)

 

In an ideal world, I'd want to read a camera review like a book

review. I don't want to know the exact number of pages, the paper it

was printed on, how heavy it is, and I don't want to know all the

details about the story, especially not how it ends. I want to know

someone else's opinion about the book and how he justifies it. I may

end up buying the book although he pulled it to pieces or I may avoid

it although it gets high praise, but if the reviewer is good his

review will help me make a decision without a quantitative analysis

and without the need to quote verbatim from the book.

 

Well, OK, at least that's me. I'm sure there are other readers who

want different things.

 

Cheers,

Edi

 

(You were right and it's pronounced like "Eddie" and short for

"Edmund". Americans often think it's short for "Edith" but it isn't.)

[sandymc]

What I want (and that's why I

subscribed to your service for example) is a subjective evaluation of

the camera done by someone who has access to the camera before I have

it, who has lots more experience judging cameras than I have, and who

I trust is fair and neutral - or at least has a focus similar to mine.

 

I'd have to say that my views are the exact opposite of that. I subscribe to Sean's site exactly because he does (very) careful, objective tests. So, e.g., he's told us his subjective views on the X1's shutter lag. But he backs those views up with some numbers compared to other cameras. And I know how much effort doing tests like that takes. While of course I'm interested in Sean's subjective views - I think he's right most of the time - I wouldn't subscribe for that. I seldom even bother to read the "subjective reviews" that another reviewer of Leica equipment is famous for; they literally add nothing at all to what I can find out by reading the spec sheet, and holding the camera in my hands for 5 minutes in a store.

 

Sandy

[barjohn]

Sandy,

 

I have to agree with you. As a former Bluetooth headset reviewer I felt that the things I offered in my reviews were the very tedious and time consuming effort to record what they sounded like with different handsets so that a prospective consumer could hear what I was describing. Just giving my subjective impression, I didn't feel was enough. That is why I have asked Sean to show me what he means by giving me comparative side by side images (or crops) along with his explanation. Then I can decide for myself if what he sees is what I see. Images taken in isolation are not enough. We need comparisons. He doesn't need to tell us what he is comparing against but rather give us a gold standard image then show us the camera's image and explain why it is as good, better or worse. Then do the opposite, give us a poor image and show us why the camera under review is so much better (assuming it is). Of course, all of this is still subjective but it is his expert subjective experience and judgment (plus the time to set up the tests and conduct them) along with the demonstration of his standards that helps us to make a judgment we might not be able to do otherwise.

[nhabedi]

I'd have to say that my views are the exact opposite of that.

 

As I already said, I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. Actually, that happens very rarely...

 

But he backs those views up with some numbers compared to other cameras.

 

Don't get me wrong. Of course, I expect him to make measurements and quantitative evaluations where appropriate. But ideally these should go into some kind of "appendix" where you can look them up if you must. Ideally (again), if a professional and experienced photographer tells me that, for example, the M9's shutter lag is short enough that it won't prevent me from capturing the often-cited decisive moment that's more important information for me than a lab report telling me that the difference between the shutter lag of camera A and that of camera B is 23ms.

[ottocrat]

As I already said, I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. Actually, that happens very rarely...

For the record, on this, I agree with you!

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

There are a couple of things here I don't agree with although I don't

think we necessarily have to discuss this further. As I said, I'm

looking forward to your essay about this.

 

The most important point is that I'm tired of looking at 100% crops of

boring pictures online and I've seen too many of them without actually

learning anything. It didn't help me to make a good decision.

 

There's a tendency in photography, especially in digital photography,

to treat it as if most of its aspects can be measured and evaluated

quantitatively - ignoring the fact that photography is mainly a very

subjective process both on the side of the producer as well as on the

side of the consumer.

 

If I want to learn something about a new camera, I don't want long

comparison tables and 100% crops of boring pictures. I know where to

get this data if I really want it. What I want (and that's why I

subscribed to your service for example) is a subjective evaluation of

the camera done by someone who has access to the camera before I have

it, who has lots more experience judging cameras than I have, and who

I trust is fair and neutral - or at least has a focus similar to mine.

That doesn't mean I have to believe everything the reviewer has to

say, but it does mean that I'm hoping you are doing the groundwork for

me. Don't show me those pixel-peep crops, just tell me what you think

about them. (And then, for those who think they need more, provide

links to the RAW files. You are right that there are infinitely many

ways to create a print from one source, but there are also infinitely

many ways to create a JPG from one RAW file.)

 

In an ideal world, I'd want to read a camera review like a book

review. I don't want to know the exact number of pages, the paper it

was printed on, how heavy it is, and I don't want to know all the

details about the story, especially not how it ends. I want to know

someone else's opinion about the book and how he justifies it. I may

end up buying the book although he pulled it to pieces or I may avoid

it although it gets high praise, but if the reviewer is good his

review will help me make a decision without a quantitative analysis

and without the need to quote verbatim from the book.

 

Well, OK, at least that's me. I'm sure there are other readers who

want different things.

 

Cheers,

Edi

 

(You were right and it's pronounced like "Eddie" and short for

"Edmund". Americans often think it's short for "Edith" but it isn't.)

 

Hi Edi (Edmund),

 

I understand your preference. I try to provide both in my reviews - evidence (visual - sometimes in numbers when needed - timings and counts for example) as well as my own impressions (in words). I personally value both kinds of information if:

 

1) The methodology used for producing the evidence/examples is sound

 

and

 

2) If I trust the writer's ability to judge what he or she is seeing.

 

Given that, I like to see both - evidence I can consider for myself *and* the impressions of one whose experience, skills, etc. I trust.

 

So I do see the value in the 100% crops (done correctly) but also recognize them as only part of the "story" so to speak. They're important though and I'll continue to include them when doing formal, controlled tests.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd have to say that my views are the exact opposite of that. I subscribe to Sean's site exactly because he does (very) careful, objective tests. So, e.g., he's told us his subjective views on the X1's shutter lag. But he backs those views up with some numbers compared to other cameras. And I know how much effort doing tests like that takes. While of course I'm interested in Sean's subjective views - I think he's right most of the time - I wouldn't subscribe for that. I seldom even bother to read the "subjective reviews" that another reviewer of Leica equipment is famous for; they literally add nothing at all to what I can find out by reading the spec sheet, and holding the camera in my hands for 5 minutes in a store.

 

Sandy

 

Hi Sandy,

 

Thanks and you know we agree on the value of the "data". It definitely has its place in a review.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sandy,

 

I have to agree with you. As a former Bluetooth headset reviewer I felt that the things I offered in my reviews were the very tedious and time consuming effort to record what they sounded like with different handsets so that a prospective consumer could hear what I was describing. Just giving my subjective impression, I didn't feel was enough. That is why I have asked Sean to show me what he means by giving me comparative side by side images (or crops) along with his explanation. Then I can decide for myself if what he sees is what I see. Images taken in isolation are not enough. We need comparisons. He doesn't need to tell us what he is comparing against but rather give us a gold standard image then show us the camera's image and explain why it is as good, better or worse. Then do the opposite, give us a poor image and show us why the camera under review is so much better (assuming it is). Of course, all of this is still subjective but it is his expert subjective experience and judgment (plus the time to set up the tests and conduct them) along with the demonstration of his standards that helps us to make a judgment we might not be able to do otherwise.

 

 

Hi John,

 

As I mentioned in another post (and as I'm sure you read in the review itself) the side by side file quality/ISO noise tests of the GF1, X1 and DP2 side by side will be added to the review when they're done. You did see that mentioned in the review, yes? They're part of almost every camera review I do. I can tell that you're very eager to see them but I still need some time before they're ready.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Ideally (again), if a professional and experienced photographer tells me that, for example, the M9's shutter lag is short enough that it won't prevent me from capturing the often-cited decisive moment that's more important information for me than a lab report telling me that the difference between the shutter lag of camera A and that of camera B is 23ms.

 

That's a good point. I can tell you, as discussed in the review, that if working from the half-press the X1 triggers the shutter fast enough to make the intended picture. In keeping with your thoughts on this, one of the ways I get a "feel" for shutter response is to look through a folder of pictures made with a given camera and look at the timing in them. With recent pictures, I know what I wanted to happen when - which overlaps, which expressions, which gestures. I can tell when a camera is getting the timing wrong even from looking at the pictures afterwards.

 

That's why I included the picture, in the review, where the boat is frozen just as it connects with the tree branch and just as its wake continues the lines of two branches. I actually wrote about that in the review draft and should have left it in.

 

Again, its good to have both kinds of description - words and, in this case, numbers.

 

Subjectively, with shutter timing I tend to think of releasing the shutter as being like letting lose an arrow from a bow. If the shutter timing is good, the arrow hits the bulls eye. With each camera, one also starts to learn *when* to release the shutter in order to hit the bulls eye (when all goes well).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[maddav]

That may be naive but what is full press exactly? I guess it includes the time the AF needs to focus or is related to some preparation of the sensr/shutter? If working in manual focus mode and/or with the screen turned off, does this full press lag disappear or is it still there?

 

If you have the screen turned off and want to put it on, say to quickly check the focus and/or expoure, is i almost instantaneous or is there again some lag?

 

Another question: If you don't use the live view is there still a way of seeing an exposure indication on the LCD screen or is it based entirely on the data that comes from the sensor so that you are either in live view or you are 'blind' (with respect to the exposure).

 

Thanks a lot!

[sean_reid]

That may be naive but what is full press exactly?

Thanks a lot!

 

These tests were done with manual focus, manual exposure and manual WB. So full press is simply what it sounds like - pressing the shutter through its full range of travel. Half press is pressing the shutter down to its half position just before the exposure and then pressing it all the way down.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[maddav]

I see but then what is the explanation for such a high difference between half- and full press?

[sean_reid]

I see but then what is the explanation for such a high difference between half- and full press?

 

That, indeed, is the question.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I see but then what is the explanation for such a high difference between half- and full press?

 

Maybe power conservation?

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[mcameraguy]

I read both Sean Reid's and Michael Reichman's review of the X1, and also Mike Johnson's review of the GF1 (which is relevant here, but he in turn has not reviewed yet the X1).

 

This "review of the reviews" does not talk at length about what Leica leaves out, is what maybe makes a Leica Camera distinctive and superior. Fewer buttons. No scene modes. Simpler menu. One lens, not more. Smaller, not larger. It certainly goes against our consumer instinct to get "more" for our money, when we are faced with a purchase decision to pay more for "less". You have to really twist your brain around this kind of thing.

 

One could argue from a design standpoint that it costs a designer of a camera more to subtract features, than to add features - and to still have a significant camera.

 

I don't want to descend into the quagmire of Leica tradition and philosophy - but why are we really concerned about electronic contrast detect AF affecting shutter response time in a Leica Camera. Leica has never been about autofocus. Their cameras drive you, point you, to manual and zone focus.

 

Lets talk about viewfinders as one final point-the GF-1's bad electronic viewfinder and Leica's Optical Viewfinder. Why would a buyer of a Leica camera want to make a photo of what's on TV at the moment?

[khanosu]

- but why are we really concerned about electronic contrast detect AF affecting shutter response time in a Leica Camera. Leica has never been about autofocus. Their cameras drive you, point you, to manual and zone focus.

 

The shutter delay of over a second happens in Manual focus with the LCD screen completely off and" viewfinder mode on" with an optical viewfinder on the camera and the camera set to Aperture priority. The camera is being used with zone focus as a traditional Leica camera yet we have a very long (plus one second) shutter delay. This is what is surprising since the camera is set to manual focus. Hopefully this can be fixed with firmware improvement.

 

Take care!

 

Furrukh

[barjohn]

For a comparison, I just tested the GF1 performance with both the 20mm f1.7 prime and the 14-45mm kit lens. Performance was measured with the camera set to AF, P mode, shooting a millisecond stop watch on the computer monitor starting with a full press including AF time in each capture for ten measure per lens and then averaged. The 14-45 Kit lens achieved an average including AF with full presses (not 1/2 press to pre focus) of 0.323 sec and with the 20mm prime 0.645 sec.

 

A Sigma DP2 measures at 1.4 sec according to DPR and the Sony DSC HX1 about0.5 sec.

[Guest malland]

...I don't want to descend into the quagmire of Leica tradition and philosophy - but why are we really concerned about electronic contrast detect AF affecting shutter response time in a Leica Camera. Leica has never been about autofocus. Their cameras drive you, point you, to manual and zone focus...

Uhhmm, you mean Leica put AF on the X1 for decoration?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[nhabedi]

I don't want to descend into the quagmire of Leica tradition and philosophy - but why are we really concerned about electronic contrast detect AF affecting shutter response time in a Leica Camera. Leica has never been about autofocus. Their cameras drive you, point you, to manual and zone focus.

 

From what I've read so far, the X1 is clearly (and sadly) not designed for manual or zone focus although it is of course possible with some effort.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

The shutter delay of over a second happens in Manual focus with the LCD screen completely off and" viewfinder mode on" with an optical viewfinder on the camera and the camera set to Aperture priority. The camera is being used with zone focus as a traditional Leica camera yet we have a very long (plus one second) shutter delay. This is what is surprising since the camera is set to manual focus. Hopefully this can be fixed with firmware improvement.

 

Take care!

 

Furrukh

 

 

I actually tested it with exposure in full manual mode with the LCD on but turning off the LCD doesn't seem to fix the problem. The key response difference, for now, is full press vs. half-press. Again, I have a phone conference with X1 project people on Monday. I'd like to see this problem vanish and they very definitely are still working on the firmware. They're all serious, IMO, about sorting this camera out as well as possible before it goes on sale. I say this based on e-mails. I'm happy to correspond with engineers from any company about problems that are revealed in reviews - one Japanese manufacturer tends to follow up in the same way though not as quickly usually.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean