Guest stnami Posted December 4, 2009 Share #81 Posted December 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) .....thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Hi Guest stnami, 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!
Guest stnami Posted December 4, 2009 Share #82 Posted December 4, 2009 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdemas Posted December 4, 2009 Share #83 Posted December 4, 2009 Personally I look forward to seeing and handling the camera myself to judge the overall value and quality. Sure, I'd like a rear screen like my GF1 but that does not mean the X1 won't be a terrific tool. Every camera has a set of advantages and disadvantages, the real key being how the blended overall solution operates and melds with the photographer. Hopefully the "whole" of the camera will greatly supersede this "bit". If you want to see a "dealkiller" in a P&S check out the Sigma DP-1, which I own. The autofocus makes the camera a real chore to use, and the crappy screen adds to the pain. Output is terrific if you can stand the aforementioned. Kent ps- On the subject of the GXR.... the darn thing is so bizarre it's kind of enticing. I have a GRD II that I love and the thought of those ergonomics (or close to it) with a larger sensor is pretty intoxicating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 4, 2009 Share #84 Posted December 4, 2009 I have a GRD II that I love and the thought of those ergonomics (or close to it) with a larger sensor is pretty intoxicating. Unfortunately, the GRX isn't close enough. I wish they would have made a GR IV with a large sensor... drool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott J Posted December 4, 2009 Share #85 Posted December 4, 2009 ......... that is taken by an individual who's camera is capable of efficiently producing the required image. Tea or coffee sir?.........coffee please Duh, uh huh. More obvious statements please, there are some grade three students in the back row who were not paying attention... It is safe to assume - now that I have started that statement I realize how ridiculous it is, but I will continue regardless - that people will for the most part be looking at a tool that is appropriate for the job at hand. As the camera has not yet hit the market, and everything we know about it is through the comments of reviewers who were working with a "test" camera, we don't really know how well the camera performs in the working world. Using the resolution of the preview screen as some kind of determining factor as far as the purchase of the camera goes is RIDICULOUS! Perhaps along with the MP3 player etc, it should come pre-loaded with some great photography to make up for the poor screen... ej Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 4, 2009 Share #86 Posted December 4, 2009 It's the final image that counts ......... that is taken by an individual who's camera is capable of efficiently producing the required image.Just completing the statement you started .............because as a grade three kid I feel obliged to help out with the slower grade two kids like you manually focusing this camera will be very challenging in the excessively glaring situations of Australia ans SE Asia no matter how good or bad the LCD is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddav Posted December 4, 2009 Share #87 Posted December 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is certainly true that regardless of the LCD quality, using an LCD under a harsh light is always a challenge. On the other hand, in situations where there is plenty of light, focussing is generally less of a problem because: - the AF works much better with a lot of light - you typically use small apertures and then you have a lot of DOF so you don't need very accurate focussing - even if you want to focus manually in these situations (e.g. for street photography) it should be good enough to use the scale - assuming it will be improved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveleo Posted December 5, 2009 Share #88 Posted December 5, 2009 5 pages to argue over how many pixels your LCD has ? ..... an LCD that you cannot clearly see anyway in daylight ??? i imagine the conversation .... #1 = "i can't see my 230Kb LCD in daylight" #2 = "oh yeh ? .... well i can't see my 900kb LCD in daylight" #1 = "you win" #2 = "heh .... heh ....heh .... more is always better" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 5, 2009 Share #89 Posted December 5, 2009 Bright sunlight is good conditions, it is the glare to deep shadows the is problematic and f5.6 f8 for increased DOF is not always a option in the small alleyways/markets, souks etc Focusing hands on lens via a VF and a silent shutter as with the ricoh GXR beats LCD fiddling as it can all be done in one swift movement especially when scale focusing is not ideal. The down side is the 50mm of the ricoh, the 35mm length of the leica is a lot more versatile. The DNG files I have been able to download show great IQ at 1600 iso with the Leica better at the lower isos. In the end it is either the black duckling or the graceful red dot .......... a matter choice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 5, 2009 Share #90 Posted December 5, 2009 That's why electronic vewfinders are an interesting tool. I think it is the future, and for several cameras, even the present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 5, 2009 Share #91 Posted December 5, 2009 That's why electronic vewfinders are an interesting tool. I think it is the future, and for several cameras, even the present. I'll like them when they are internal in the camera body... I hate external crap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 6, 2009 Share #92 Posted December 6, 2009 I'll like them when they are internal in the camera body... I hate external crap. I agree totally. If you're going to go for a camera like the GF1 and still need the EVF you might as well get the G1 or GH1. With that nice 20mm f1.7, size-wise the cameras aren't that much bigger than the GF1 with an EVF mounted on it. Plus the resolution on the GF1's EVF pales in comparison to internal one in the G1 and GH1 (although the Olympus EVF that was just announced is the same resolution...although you still have that external EVF issue again). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 7, 2009 Share #93 Posted December 7, 2009 Outside of the huge lens on this... this E-P2 looks very nice even w/ EVF (such a beautiful body!): Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2009 Share #94 Posted December 7, 2009 De gustibus... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 7, 2009 Share #95 Posted December 7, 2009 I agree totally. If you're going to go for a camera like the GF1 and still need the EVF you might as well get the G1 or GH1. With that nice 20mm f1.7, size-wise the cameras aren't that much bigger than the GF1 with an EVF mounted on it. Funny, I thought the same yesterday. If you definitely want a viewfinder, then you have to take into account the size and inconvenience of an external one if the camera doesn't have one built in. So, if you don't mind an electronic viewfinder (as opposed to an optical one), the G1 seems like a good choice. With the 20/1.7, in practice there shouldn't be much of a difference in size and weight to the other MicroFourThirds cameras or the X1 or the DP1/DP2 with a viewfinder attached. I bought a G1 used for a ridiculous price (given the Euro exchange rate) when I was in the US in spring, but I haven't used it much and thought about selling it. But I'm now contemplating whether that was mainly due to the kit zoom lens which I kind of hated. I should probably give the 20/1.7 a try. Other pros: Probably the fastest contrast detection autofocus You can focus manually by rotating the lens as it should be It's quite "old" already, so you can get it used for a good price You can close the LCD and pretend it doesn't have one The lens is 1 1/2 stops faster than that of the X1 (or that of the DP2) Cons: It doesn't have the nice old-style controls of the X1 and instead has a wealth of dumb scene modes It is extremely loud for a non-SLR Focusing is "fly-by-wire" and there's no scale anywhere, so you can't really zone-focus Its faux-SLR look is just plain ugly (IMHO) compared to the X1 or even the Sigma It is not really pocketable unless you're wearing a large winter coat Its sensor is significantly smaller than the X1 sensor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 7, 2009 Share #96 Posted December 7, 2009 Funny, I thought the same yesterday. If you definitely want a viewfinder, then you have to take into account the size and inconvenience of an external one if the camera doesn't have one built in. So, if you don't mind an electronic viewfinder (as opposed to an optical one), the G1 seems like a good choice. With the 20/1.7, in practice there shouldn't be much of a difference in size and weight to the other MicroFourThirds cameras or the X1 or the DP1/DP2 with a viewfinder attached. I bought a G1 used for a ridiculous price (given the Euro exchange rate) when I was in the US in spring, but I haven't used it much and thought about selling it. But I'm now contemplating whether that was mainly due to the kit zoom lens which I kind of hated. I should probably give the 20/1.7 a try. Other pros: Probably the fastest contrast detection autofocus You can focus manually by rotating the lens as it should be It's quite "old" already, so you can get it used for a good price You can close the LCD and pretend it doesn't have one The lens is 1 1/2 stops faster than that of the X1 (or that of the DP2) Cons: It doesn't have the nice old-style controls of the X1 and instead has a wealth of dumb scene modes It is extremely loud for a non-SLR Focusing is "fly-by-wire" and there's no scale anywhere, so you can't really zone-focus Its faux-SLR look is just plain ugly (IMHO) compared to the X1 or even the Sigma It is not really pocketable unless you're wearing a large winter coat Its sensor is significantly smaller than the X1 sensor Interesting Pro and Con list. That's where I'm at. I got the G1 a year ago when I saw it as perhaps one of the most significant developments (no pun intended oh what the hell..yes) in photography. On the one hand, the G1 is not as sexy looking as the X1 (an M cousin if ever there was) or the DP2. And the scene modes have GOT to go. But on the other hand, while its shutter is noisy for a non-slr it's still a lot quieter (or less attention getting) than a DSLR. The mild shluck is fairly mild. And actually reminds me of the mechanical M6 I sold for a D2 years ago. (Although I regret getting rid of the lenses I had now that the G1 and M9 proved that Leica's adamant insistence that a digital 'M' would be impossible has now been proven soooooooo wrong. When I got the D2 I thought that was significant then. It had an EVF which I lived with. The EVF on G1 is lightyears ahead of that original attempt. It's clear. It's sharp. And the noise at low light levels doesn't bother me (conditioning from the D2 no doubt). The G1's AF is remarkably fast. And very accurate. And while not the prettiest body around the G1 is significantly less bulky than a DSLR. I hated the idea of carrying a rock around my neck which was what DSLR's felt and looked like. The kit lens with its uberly slow speed is sharp but at many times annoying. I long for faster lenses. Fortunately, the 20mm pancake is fantastic. And results appear to be amazing. On the noise front, the X1 with its D300 sensor pedigree will clearly keep most stray digital doodies at bay all the way up to ISO 3200. The G1 is clearly inferior at ISO's from 800 on up. But UNDER ISO 800, the G1 yields little ground to anyone particularly at ISO 100-200 where it still reigns supreme. What's more, its color accuracy is exemplary. But don't take my word for it. Pop Photo's tests bore that out. So with noise well controlled under ISO 800 and a one and a half stop advantage over the X1's Elmarit, EV wise for me it's a wash. For the low light shots you'd take with the X1 at 3200 you'd need the G1 at ISO 800. And if you really need to dial up the ISO with the pancake lens, you can use the G1's Dynamic BW setting which produces images that have a 'grainy' Tri-X look to them. As far as zone focus goes, with a 20mm f1.7 attached I wouldn't be likely to use it for zone focusing but stick with the AF. But if you want to go that route, I think picking a spot 2-3 meters out and focusing on it could easily be done. The MF focusing patch (which is sooooo much better than the one on the D2) now doubles in size so reasonably accurate focusing is possible. WIth the patch, manually focusing lenses like the Noctilux and longer focal lengths via an adapter are reportedly more accurate with the G1 patch than the rangefinder patch of the M8 or M9. And, speaking of other people's lenses Sean Reid and others pointed out that using M lenses under 50mm yields disappointing results in the corners. But at 50 and above you can create quite a formidable kit. With a 50mm M (particularly with the Noctilux) you have an amazing 100mm portrait lens. With the 90mm Summicron you'd have an extraordinarily compact 180mm f2.0 and with the 135 APO Telyt you'd have a phenomonally compact 270mm lens that's a helluva lot less bulky than an equivalent for a DSLR that's not much larger than the kit lens that comes with the G1. Making it lot easier for toting around to get wildlife at times. (As far as AF vs MF goes, with long lenses it always seemed like a waiting game in that, for me anyway, my style was never one for rapid fire shooting. Again a wash.) If you need wide a wide angle lens. The 7-14mm f4.0 designed specifically for the mFT's system is very good. Almost as good as it's Zuiko counterpart. While f4.0 is not as fast as the light giants made for the M it should be more than useful for the majority of most extreme wide angle shots folks typically take. And at those wide angles shake is minimized. Hopefully stellar optics of f2.8 or faster like Zuiko has in their line-up will be on the mFT horizon. Sensor-wise (and with the "35mm" 2:3 aspect ratio), while X1 is certainly larger, print-wise the G1 is certainly in the same ball park. At 300 DPI both will comfortably print an 8"x12" print (300 DPI yields a size of 8.91" x 13.33" for the G1 vs 9.52" x 14.24" so there's no significant loss of detail). At 240 DPI the G1 natively prints 11.13" x 16.67 while the X1 comes in at 11.90" x 17.80". Reasonably close in my book. And while both are under the 12x18 gallery ideal I seriously doubt there will be THAT much loss in detail for the slight enlargement required to make a print that size. I also find the articulating LCD very handy at times. I've flipped it out to shoot portraits and it's like having a TLR (which was perfect for them). And low angle shots are a delight. Or, as you pointed out, you can close it out altogether and hide it completely. So if you got a G1 at a ridiculously good price, you may have gotten a better deal than you originally thought Best, Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 7, 2009 Share #97 Posted December 7, 2009 Peter, do you have the 20/1.7? Or does someone else have experience with this lens and the G1? I'm asking because for me the main problem with the EVF is its low-light behavior. It's not that the image in the viewfinder gets too dark, but the refresh rate goes down and thus you're kind of watching a jagged slow-motion movie. With a lens that lets in at least four times as much light as the kit zoom, does that make a difference? Better refresh rate, smoother movements? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 7, 2009 Share #98 Posted December 7, 2009 I don't have it. And B&H (the NYC dealer I use) doesn't seem to have it in stock. But the comments I'd read on other forums would indicate that the EVF issues you raised (and I've experienced) may certainly be alleviated to the point of acceptance by this (and other f2.8 or better) AF-ing lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott J Posted December 8, 2009 Share #99 Posted December 8, 2009 Just completing the statement you started .............because as a grade three kid I feel obliged to help out with the slower grade two kids like you manually focusing this camera will be very challenging in the excessively glaring situations of Australia ans SE Asia no matter how good or bad the LCD is. Ooooooops, sorry... It just sounded like someone how was desperately trying to be very very very clever... But since you are clearly in a class above me...my mistake...I will try to be more respectful to those who are my superiors in the future, especially since it would appear that you are an artist? Guess thats why I just didn't get it. I agree with the screen comment - It seems pretty clear to me that this is a point and shoot - a really expensive one. Under the wrong conditions, doesn't matter how good the screen is. If the auto focus is not reliable, then that will be a problem. How Leica allocated resources to make the image quality what it is rumored to be, most likely came with some sacrifices. Maybe they considered this. Perhaps people wouldn't feel so bent out of shape if the viewfinder attachment was included? (That and a "Bresson" subject/composition/focus/auto shutter feature...) Historically this is in total keeping with the approach Leica has always had as far as buying the "bits". Add on what you need. Problem is, this is a point and shoot, not much you can add to it. Never been a big fan of looking at a screen to do my shooting. Prefer to look at the something/someone/somewhere that I am shooing without a screen in between - the viewfinder is part of my attraction to this - uncomplicated. Personally, I don't mind shooting with a high tech version of a IA. There were countless great images made with that camera, a camera which was a LOT more involved to work with than this one. There are some questions that I hope to have answered when I get one in my hands. The resolution of the screen isn't even on the check list. ej Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 8, 2009 Share #100 Posted December 8, 2009 you are the one that started the kid stuff...........couldn't help yourself to continue with your smug smug attitude. so be it enjoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.