ceflynn Posted December 8, 2009 Share #101 Posted December 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ooooooops, sorry... 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. ej The "point and shoot" controversy has its own thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-x1-forum/98845-x1-just-2-000-p-s.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Hi ceflynn, 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!
jsrockit Posted December 8, 2009 Share #102 Posted December 8, 2009 The "point and shoot" controversy has its own thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-x1-forum/98845-x1-just-2-000-p-s.html I think we can definitively say the X1 is not a point and shoot is what ceflynn is trying to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted December 8, 2009 Share #103 Posted December 8, 2009 OK, so we know there are higher resolution screens available today for manufacturers to use in their digital cameras. Obviously this would have been taken into consideration by the design team, not to mention other departments evaluating the final product's marketability. Leica ultimately chose the 230K screen for a reason. Perhaps they deemed it sufficient to do the intended job? Surely if they thought is was going to be a dealbreaker for many potential customers they would have opted for an improved screen. Someone earlier asked about power consumption. Could this have been a factor? Or was it simply an economic decision based on trying to keep the camera at a specific price point? I have taken some great shots with compact digital cameras that had 230K screens. Yes, a 460K screen is nicer, but for me it's not a necessity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted December 11, 2009 Share #104 Posted December 11, 2009 The point is that Leica with its price and its optical quality is aiming to reach the top in its class. Choosing a lower resolution screen is a saving money choice that is in contrast with the original aim and its actual competitors. Of corse anyone can adopt the external viewfinder but having an LCD screen of lower resolution after all the claim have been done presenting the Dlux 4 in comparison of D lux 3 sound untrustable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted December 11, 2009 Share #105 Posted December 11, 2009 Hmmm...wonder if they'll change the screen before release... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artspraken Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #106 Posted December 14, 2009 My point is not whether a good LCD is necessary to photography. My point is a DLux 4 user planning to upgrade to X1 will find that he is getting a LCD downgrade from 460k to 230k pixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #107 Posted December 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...My point is a DLux 4 user planning to upgrade to X1 will find that he is getting a LCD downgrade from 460k to 230k pixels. Sounds like a Volkswagen user planning to upgrade to a Porsche 911. Big trunk or big motor, that is the question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptu Posted December 14, 2009 Share #108 Posted December 14, 2009 Sounds like a Volkswagen user planning to upgrade to a Porsche 911. Big trunk or big motor, that is the question. I like the comparison, damn accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamr Posted December 14, 2009 Share #109 Posted December 14, 2009 The DMR has a 230K pixel count LCD. It is the only digital camera that I use that when the image is magnified to maximum I can see the "pixel for pixel" image sharpness and know that what I have captured is sharp. The M8 has a 230K LCD, but due to the higher magnification available the image will not look sharp if it is over magnified. I also use a Nikon D300 with a 900+K LCD. This never looks as sharp as the DMR at any magnification. I wonder why? It could be the Nikon glass in front of the CMOS sensor! Just a guess. Both of these cameras have larger LCD's also. It appears that the LCD pixel count race is now going the way of high ISO low noise as "must have features". Even with the availablility of the latest cameras with high pixel count LCD's, high mega pixel sensors with high ISO low noise and autofocus, I still purchased my second DMR earlier this year and last week added an R9 to compliment an existing R9 and two R8's. The fact is, the DMR / R system ticks all the boxes for me for 95% of my picture taking. The D300 the remaining 5%. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markpsf Posted December 14, 2009 Share #110 Posted December 14, 2009 It seems to me that while the quality of the LCD screen is worth a consideration, if as I would guess many want to use it for candid street type shooting, then how well the camera lends itself to zone focused shooting (particularly since the AF is reported to not be particularly fast) would be a more important consideration. Sean Reid's preliminary review emphasized manual focus controls as one major problem area for the camera that Leica needed to address. If this is not addressed and corrected by Leica then the combo of slowish AF, problematic manual controls, and a borderline passable LCD screen might be a lethal one for some of us. If manual focus controls work well, I'd dismiss the other two limitations as insignificant for me. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted December 14, 2009 Share #111 Posted December 14, 2009 ... the combo of slowish AF, problematic manual controls, and a borderline passable LCD screen might be a lethal one for some of us. I think that the more serious problem with street shooting is that the camera forgets its focus distance settings once it goes into sleep mode; and also that the camera can not be set so that it never goes into sleep mode. So if you forget to keep your camera alive by fiddling with some control constantly and suddenly see a good picture developing in front of your eyes then you will have to wake up the camera, set the focusing distance again and then make the picture; this is quite a lag. One can work around the other MF deficiencies but this sleep/forget problems is really concerning me. Take care! Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markpsf Posted December 14, 2009 Share #112 Posted December 14, 2009 Yes, that's one of the problems Sean identifies. That "appears" to be something that could be addressed through firmware. If not it will be an important limitation for street shooting. A key question seems to be whether Leica is responding to these concerns. We have no indication yet re firmware improvements. Mark I think that the more serious problem with street shooting is that the camera forgets its focus distance settings once it goes into sleep mode; and also that the camera can not be set so that it never goes into sleep mode. So if you forget to keep your camera alive by fiddling with some control constantly and suddenly see a good picture developing in front of your eyes then you will have to wake up the camera, set the focusing distance again and then make the picture; this is quite a lag. One can work around the other MF deficiencies but this sleep/forget problems is really concerning me. Take care! Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted December 14, 2009 Share #113 Posted December 14, 2009 Yes, that's one of the problems Sean identifies. That "appears" to be something that could be addressed through firmware. If not it will be an important limitation for street shooting. A key question seems to be whether Leica is responding to these concerns. We have no indication yet re firmware improvements. Mark This problem seems more difficult to overcome by firmware. There has to be available space left on some non-volatile memory in hardware that the focusing distance information could be saved to when the camera goes to shutdown/sleep mode and then read from when it wakes up. If they have used up every bit of available memory for other functions of the camera (which is entirely possible) then this feature can only be implemented at the cost of eliminating some other already implemented feature. So I would not hold my breath on a fix for this issue. Hope I am wrong Take care! Fururkh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.