maddav Posted November 30, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) How does the LCD compare with the M8's (not just in terms of resolution but also colors, etc.)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Hi maddav, Take a look here Leica X1 LCD screen only 230k pixel - dealbreaker for me. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
barjohn Posted November 30, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 30, 2009 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... Yes, true, but you can't focus with it and you can't see your shutter speed, aperture or ISO settings in it. Basically it gives you what you could get by using your fingers to form a rough rectangle and holding them up and looking through them; however, that won't cost you $300. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted November 30, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 30, 2009 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... I have changed nothing. The EP-2 hasn't a screen with more pixels because it can frame and focus with a much better "screen". The X1 viewfinder doesn't help in focussing, and hasn't parallax correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted November 30, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 30, 2009 Yes, true, but you can't focus with it and you can't see your shutter speed, aperture or ISO settings in it. Basically it gives you what you could get by using your fingers to form a rough rectangle and holding them up and looking through them; however, that won't cost you $300. The fingers-viewfinder also has high resolution... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henricus34 Posted December 1, 2009 Share #25 Posted December 1, 2009 I have changed nothing. The EP-2 hasn't a screen with more pixels because it can frame and focus with a much better "screen". The X1 viewfinder doesn't help in focussing, and hasn't parallax correction. The optical finder(viewfinder) has parallax correction,hence the name optical finder. And there is a led which confirms focus. Please read the broschures once again. henricus 34 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artspraken Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted December 1, 2009 I am not saying LCD quality is no.1 priority. I am saying that Leica X1 is a premier product in its class and should have a reasonable LCD. 230k by today's standards is not reasonable.An LX3 released 2 years ago has twice as many pixels (460k), and a Ricoh GRDIII released this year has 960k. Both LX3 and GRD3 are cameras with lesser sensors so I had thought that X1 with a larger sensor should be accompanied by at least an equivalent LCD, but instead it is worse. I know OVF is feasible option. But OVF users would be using M series. Heck, I know some of you are pros who do not use LCDs at all. But I had thought the X1 is targetting a different market, one that has non-pros like myself who use LCD to compose or rely upon LCDs for guidance. If I were as good as you guys I would be considering an M, not a X1 I am not denying there are more important things to look for in a camera eg. image quality. I am in full agreement with many things said in this thread that other aspects of a camera are more important. That said, I cannot disregard the 230k pixel LCD as being very disappointing. I could accept it if Leica X1 was on 460k, since that means it meets LX3 standards, but I cannot accept it only has 230k. That means by paying so much for an upgrade to X1, I get FEWER pixels in my LCD, leaves a bitter aftertaste. Don't Leica think that many of their DLux4 customers who are used to 460k pixel LCDs may feel the same way about the 230k LCD X1? After all, Leica played a part in designing Dlux4/LX3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted December 1, 2009 Share #27 Posted December 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I were as good as you guys I would be considering an M, not a X1 X1 has a silent shutter M8/9 does not; so if you are looking for a completely silent camera that is also unobtrusive and at the same time has excellent image quality then you would use an X1. Furthermore X1 syncs at all shutter speeds while M8/9 does not; this means that you can use an X1 with a strobe with relatively modest watt/second ratings to balance with bright sunlight, with an M8/9 you would need really powerful studio strobes for this purpose. So for people with such requirements an M8/9 does not replace an X1; the two cameras complement each other. Take care! Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
contaxgary Posted December 1, 2009 Share #28 Posted December 1, 2009 If the screen is a deal stopper, then take a look at what appears to be a reasonable alternative. The GXR should be available by mid December. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 1, 2009 Share #29 Posted December 1, 2009 The optical finder(viewfinder) has parallax correction,hence the name optical finder.And there is a led which confirms focus. Please read the broschures once again. henricus 34 The only parallax correction is a second set of marks, adjusted for a short distance (so you have lines for two distances, infinite and a short distance). This may be parallax correction for you, but for me it is absolutely useless for precise framing at any working distance. It provides, at best, a simple "finger viewfinder" tool for approximate framing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 1, 2009 Share #30 Posted December 1, 2009 This may be parallax correction for you, but for me it is absolutely useless for precise framing at any working distance. It's amazing how many things are "not acceptable" or "absolutely useless" to you. Precise framing has never been the strength of rangefinders. That didn't prevent lots of capable photographers from creating masterpieces with even worse viewfinders in the past, though. Looks like you should go for an SLR with a 100% viewfinder or for an EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 1, 2009 Share #31 Posted December 1, 2009 If the screen is a deal stopper, then take a look at what appears to be a reasonable alternative. The GXR should be available by mid December. Why do people keep comparing these two cameras? They are totally different outside of the fact that they are both big sensor digital cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2009 Share #32 Posted December 1, 2009 Leica will sell an EVF for the X1 and/or the X2 i guess but an optical viewfinder with AF confirm sounds like a valid alternative for a fixed-lens camera. Now should that VF be included in the X1 price, this is another question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2009 Share #33 Posted December 1, 2009 Why do people keep comparing these two cameras? They are totally different outside of the fact that they are both big sensor digital cameras. Which other camera would yould you compare the X1 to aside from the Ricoh GXR and Sigma DP2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 1, 2009 Share #34 Posted December 1, 2009 Which other camera would yould you compare the X1 to aside from the Ricoh GXR and Sigma DP2? Nothing... to me the X1 is a step in the right direction where the other two are still the wrong direction. To me, cameras should have dedicated shutter speed and aperature dials. That is what makes the X1 special. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2009 Share #35 Posted December 1, 2009 So no competition for the X1 then? They must be happy at Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptu Posted December 1, 2009 Share #36 Posted December 1, 2009 Nothing... to me the X1 is a step in the right direction where the other two are still the wrong direction. To me, cameras should have dedicated shutter speed and aperature dials. That is what makes the X1 special. I agree. I have been waiting those dials for ages. Now they are here in pocket size. BTW does anyone have a idea about accuracy of Leica delivery times, I mean that they promise X1 to be available on mid Dec. Can that be trusted?! I sold my DSLR and I want to have a camera to do some shooting. Cheers! Ptu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 1, 2009 Share #37 Posted December 1, 2009 It's amazing how many things are "not acceptable" or "absolutely useless" to you. Precise framing has never been the strength of rangefinders. That didn't prevent lots of capable photographers from creating masterpieces with even worse viewfinders in the past, though. Looks like you should go for an SLR with a 100% viewfinder or for an EVF. The Leica X1 is not a rangefinder, and the Olympus, Panasonic or Ricoh aren't rangefinder either. Why to buy a car, when many people used to travel on horses... Precise framing is a relative question. The framelines of the Leica M is absolutely precise, but it is precise enough (for me), using wide angles and prefocusing. We are talking here of the Leica X1, the autofocus camera with manual focus operation based on a screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 1, 2009 Share #38 Posted December 1, 2009 Leica will sell an EVF for the X1 and/or the X2 i guess but an optical viewfinder with AF confirm sounds like a valid alternative for a fixed-lens camera. Now should that VF be included in the X1 price, this is another question. It would be only if the AF is really fast. On the other hand, it is difficult to control where is the camera focusing, if you don't go to the screen for checking. I don't say the camera isn't interesting. It may be perfect for many people, and really good for many people too. But it is very expensive, and the basic problem of framing and focusing isn't well resolved, in my opinion, or at least it is not for me. I would suggest a good manual focus method for fast shooting (based on hyperfocal), and a higher resolution screen (fixed on the back of the camera or accessory, on the flash hot shoe) for precise manual focus and precise framing or precise selection of the AF points. I am sure future models will have these improvements. It is a question of time. Then the camera will make the cut for me. Digital cameras (and Leica cameras) are so expensive, and the technology evolves so fast, that I hesitate to invest in a camera with design of implementation flaws. I am thinking on the X1, but also on the M9 camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2009 Share #39 Posted December 1, 2009 It would be only if the AF is really fast. On the other hand, it is difficult to control where is the camera focusing, if you don't go to the screen for checking... Hi Ruben i hear you of course but, actually, is it really a problem given the wide DoF of the lens? Just a question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 1, 2009 Share #40 Posted December 1, 2009 Hi Ruben i hear you of course but, actually, is it really a problem given the wide DoF of the lens? Just a question. The sensor is large, so the DoF isn't so wide as we assume, specially if the lens is wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.