Jump to content

Leica X1 LCD screen only 230k pixel - dealbreaker for me


artspraken

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am very disappointed with the X1 LCD screen, and pixel count will not change with firmware updates. This is a dealbreaker for me.

 

I know many of you are pros who prefer OVF instead of LCD for composition. However, the X1 is a point n shoot and should have a good LCD for the price. All I am asking is a reasonable LCD.

 

If you look at the competition below, I think 230k LCD is unreasonable.

 

 

Comparison of LCD Pixels

Leica X1: 230k

Sigma DP2: 230k

Panasonic GF1: 460k

Olympus EP1/2: 230k

Canon G11: 460k

LX3: 460k

Ricoh GRDIII: 920k

 

I am currently using an LX3, and thought of upgrading to X1. But I see the LCD pixel count and go WTF: what is the point of having a big sensor if I cannot clearly see what I am composing? I have seen 230k pixel LCDs (on the Olympus EP-1) and I am very unimpressed. I hesitate to pay so much for X1, and to downgrade my pixel count.

 

please let me know ur opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
...I hesitate to pay so much for X1, and to downgrade my pixel count. please let me know ur opinion

Do you really need an APS-C sensor? Maybe not if you compare the X1 to small sensor cameras. Then i agree that the price is (way) too high. But if you need APS-C the only alternative with a bigger LCD is the Ricoh GXR no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

please let me know ur opinion

 

Make the same table again and then compare the sensor sizes. Now decide what's more important to you. I, for one, am not in the market for an X1, but I think it's ridiculous to compare it to cameras like the GR-D III or the LX-3 which are totally different.

 

But in the end, you will have to decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate to pay so much for X1, and to downgrade my pixel count.

 

please let me know ur opinion

 

Well, if the LCD screen is the most important feature in a camera for you, then there is no need to upgrade to a camera that will allow you to make better quality photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you regard the LCD as the ultimate and primary viewing aid, disregard all other advances in imaging quality and look elsewhere. I only rely on the LCD for rudimentary image framing and exposure check (no sudden interventions from out of frame people, etc). The following little story may surprise you.

 

I still have an old well-made Pentax Optio 555 compact camera with inbuilt optical viewfinder which was a top camera in its day and which is always accessible at home. (I don't think Leica had anything comparable at the time). Despite having only a 5mp sensor and a tiny 1.5 inch 113 kilo pixels LCD monitor it has produced several saleable pictures and very many successful domestic pictures. Out-of-date? Yes. Unworthy of continued use? Certainly not!

 

I relate this story not to debunk preoccupation with one or other modern camera features, but rather to illustrate that a camera bought as a tool, only ceases to be useful when it is beyond economical repair or the photographer develops more demanding interests in place of what he did before. Or, more likely, the failure to resist the lure of more mega pixels, bigger LCD, faster lens, longer zoom range etc. Many photographers forget that principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

230k LCD screens are unacceptable for todays standards. Several years ago it was the only option, and a 230k screen was better than nothing, or better than previous screens, but technology has evolved. On the M8/9 the final pixels of the screen are so few that you can see a "grainy" and coarse image at optimum viewing distance. I cannot accept this. The total number of pixels has to be increased with screen size. And the pixel size has to be small enough. Maybe 920k screens are too much, or the limit, but 230k is obviously under the acceptable limit for good, precise and comfortable image reviewing. Menus' design also is an important dimension in the camera design. Antialiased fonts and texturized surfaces in menu items would be a nice touch for future Leica models. You have to design also for the look and feel of that part of the camera which is into the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do sometimes put a roll of film in my old M4-P. Do you know how small that screen is? It's a ZERO PIXEL SCREEN! Yes, it has so few pixels it simply isn't there! Curiously, it does still manage to take pictures.

 

Please, while we are on those really important issues, can we also have a thorough and preferrably impassioned discussion of the musical qualities of the chimes in various digital cameras? I am sure some of them too are unacceptable -- to some, at least.

 

The old man from the Age of Wall Screens

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do sometimes put a roll of film in my old M4-P. Do you know how small that screen is? It's a ZERO PIXEL SCREEN! Yes, it has so few pixels it simply isn't there! Curiously, it does still manage to take pictures.

 

Well, that analogy isn't too sound... maybe if you said you used a Leica MD, then your analogy would work. The X1 only has a LCD...take it away and you get a modern MD, not a M4-P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put a .25X viewfinder on an M8 or M9 you would find it unacceptable, well the LCD is the viewfinder for the X1 and putting a 230k viewfinder when a 900K finder could have been put on the camera is equally unacceptable. By the way it comes with nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. That must be the reason not only Leica but also Sigma and Olympus use them in their most recent models.

 

The Olympus EP-2 has a great electronic viewfinder with 900k. The Sigma doesn't, and the market is punishing this and other subpar items.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot the X1 with the optical viewfinder - it's nearly infinite in pixel count. You'll find it to be a liberating experience. Keep both eyes open.

 

Honestly, I wish the LCD had more pixels too, but for composing it's more than sufficient. I have been using the same 230K LCD on the M8, M8.2 and M9 now for years and it's never restricted my shooting, even though these cameras have manual focus.

 

Sure, my 5Dm2 has a 900K+ LCD, but I reach for that camera only for sports and HD video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you don't use the LCD on the M8 or M9 for manual focusing so it really isn't relevant.

 

+ 1 ... I think people have a good point about the outdated LCD on the X1 because it is the only method for viewing out of the box. However, to me, they got so many other things right. I just wish it wasn't $2000. After the reviews we've read, $2000 seems steep for this unit....even in Leica land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Olympus EP-2 has a great electronic viewfinder with 900k.

 

In the message I was replying to you talked about LCD screens and what's "acceptable" and what not. Now you've suddenly changed the subject to viewfinders.

 

FWIW, you can get a viewfinder for the X1 as well. Its resolution is higher than 900k... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...