X1 in-depth review

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only winner is the R&D team of the X1.

Being neither part of the simultaneous M9 nor of the S2 teams could have been due to a junior status at LEICA. They were probably not given exact specs regarding: AF and MF, shutter lag, speed in general, LCD screen etc. and hence can not be blamed for a model that marginally outperforms the Sigma DP 1&2, which did not find customers at a third of the price.

These promissing engeneers have gained experience in a rare field in Germany: photo camera development.

The marketing people will have next to a "Classic Limited Series" (the black and silver one talked about for 100 days) a Safari Series and a titanium or a white one, too. There are enough collectors around that don't understand, that digicams are perishable goods.

And next year this season (last year it was the end of the M8 update panic - remember?) nobody will like to be reminded of the subject.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jsrockit]

 

In the same way that Aston Martin and Jaguar were bought up by Ford, I can imagine the same thing happening to Leica photographic one day, by the Japanese - if they aren't careful.

 

I believe the Japanese would take good care of Leica if that ever happened... there are plenty of camera lovers and leica lovers there.

[jsrockit]

... but as a digital companion camera with a first-class lens costing less than a new Leica lens by itself, the X1 still looks appealing.

 

Ah-ha, that is EXACTLY how I feel about the camera... that it justifies the price due to that exact reason. However, the haters will say it isn't a true Leica lens of course.

[lars_bergquist]

I believe the Japanese would take good care of Leica if that ever happened... there are plenty of camera lovers and leica lovers there.

Like GM took care of SAAB? The company perished because they were not allowed to develop the cars they were competent to engineer.

 

The old man from the Age of Engineering

[barjohn]

A camera that is mostly built in Asia but assembled in Germany may technically qualify as a German camera but that doesn't make it a German camera. Not that it is all bad as the Asians build excellent cameras as evidenced by the Nikons and Canons. It is just a bit misleading and designed to appeal to the Leica purist following that denigrates any Leica not built in Germany even though the M9 is mostly built in Portugal.

[Rick]

From what I see in the review I think it is reasonable to assume the camera will produce high quality images comparable to those that a similar DSLR ... I keep waiting for Leica to make a camera as good as the CL was and by that I don't mean just size but its compromises were distributed in such a way as to make it a really good carry around camera that was simple to use and produced excellent images. Sadly, the X1 isn't that camera.

 

John... you crack me up. What is it? High quality or a sadly not a CL?

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A camera that is mostly built in Asia but assembled in Germany may technically qualify as a German camera but that doesn't make it a German camera. Not that it is all bad as the Asians build excellent cameras as evidenced by the Nikons and Canons.

 

Gosh John, I guess you are saying that an X1, built mostly by Asians, isn't all bad because they build nice cameras as evident by the excellent Nikons and Canons. Very large of you to point this out. But, it seems that on some level it bothers you that it doesn't make it "technically" a "German" camera, or you wouldn't point this out, no?

 

It is just a bit misleading and designed to appeal to the Leica purist following that denigrates any Leica not built in Germany even though the M9 is mostly built in Portugal.

 

Where in the Leica purest handbook does it state that it "denigrates any Leica not built in Germany" if it is built in Portugal or heaven forbid Asia? Where do you come up with this stuff? It isn't misleading and it isn't "designed" to appeal to Leica purists. Have you been living under a rock? We are living in a global economy. Leica is a global company that is using global resources to produce a global product. I'm sure the Leica purists (who ever they are) are fine with parts not made in Germany.

[marcg]

 

 

In the same way that Aston Martin and Jaguar were bought up by Ford, I can imagine the same thing happening to Leica photographic one day, by the Japanese - if they aren't careful.

I believe the Japanese would take good care of Leica if that ever happened... there are plenty of camera lovers and leica lovers there.

 

Believe me, I don't have a problem with it being built by the Japanese - the X1 or the M9 if they get it right. Of course the SAAB story is certainly a very sad reminder of what one can happen when companies take over marques which are not really part of their own con-sanquinity.

 

I read somewhere that there is a new camera phone in the pipeline which is reckoned to have about 12 megapixels, 3x optical zoom Zeiss lens lens and which may be out towards the end of 2010.

We all know that it won't be German.

 

If this is true, then this could be the beginning of a new route into excellence for a very compact, super discreet street-shooter. Of course the sensor will be smaller than the X1 - for the moment but who wouldn't want such a compact P&S camera if it tended to match X1 IQ in this generation or even the next.

[Ecaton]

Ah-ha, that is EXACTLY how I feel about the camera... that it justifies the price due to that exact reason. However, the haters will say it isn't a true Leica lens of course.

 

But the lens is married to a sensor which will be outdated in couple of years, and worse, to a lightbox with a firmware which will become obsolete. It seems that the firmware remains the Achilles heel of the premium compacts (Sigma, Ricoh GXR, X1) and future significant improvements/innovation will make the current high end generation of digital compacts obsolete, hopefully sooner than later.

[enty]

I think the backlash is mainly due to the time lag between announcement and actual delivery. Instead of commenting on user experience, people are reduced to academic argument and commenting on the specs and early reviews, and as a result, inevitable distortions and inaccuracies creep in (1.4 secs shutter lag. Really?). I still like the design concept and am eager to look at the results. As I said earlier, it's never going to replace an M, and I am still delighted with results with film Leicas, but as a digital companion camera with a first-class lens costing less than a new Leica lens by itself, the X1 still looks appealing.

 

I think you make a very good point about the time-lag. It has also given time for the GF-1 to get a real market-share, rave reviews and users who would otherwise have bought the X1 have tried (and very much liked) it. I am a good example - I fully intended to buy the X1, but the more time has elapsed and the more I read such rave reviews of the GF-1, the more likely I am to buy one. My impulse rationale to buy the X1 has waned and I will now wait for real-world feedback in mid-2010. That is a lost sale for an X1. As the GF-1 price starts to fall, and a few early "reviews" start to appear, more support seems to be moving the way of the micro 4/3.

 

Leica may not be trying to compete in that same market place, in their own minds. And they may feel the existing Leica user and those who aspire to Leica will still buy. Quite probably they will. But the volume of debate on-line shows that there is REAL competition from this new format and I just hope X1 sales do not disappoint as I would love Leica to succeed with this adventurous new format, for the sake of the longer-term.

 

Let's not judge it till we see and feel it, but meanwhile we become ever-more satisfied with our GF-1's.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

But the lens is married to a sensor which will be outdated in couple of years, and worse, to a lightbox with a firmware which will become obsolete. It seems that the firmware remains the Achilles heel of the premium compacts (Sigma, Ricoh GXR, X1) and future significant improvements/innovation will make the current high end generation of digital compacts obsolete, hopefully sooner than later.

 

The GXR will get with every new module and electronics the newest sensors and firmware.

The base camera will only handle the data storage, the power supply and the knobs and wheels.

This concept has no restrictions by a fixed mount and sensor-lens distance as all existing bajonnet cams have.

Ok, it will look funny to have a FF sensor/lens module in front of the cam but it would work better than M9 plus SWW lenses at the moment.

[hammam]

A camera that is mostly built in Asia but assembled in Germany may technically qualify as a German camera but that doesn't make it a German camera. Not that it is all bad as the Asians build excellent cameras as evidenced by the Nikons and Canons. It is just a bit misleading and designed to appeal to the Leica purist following that denigrates any Leica not built in Germany even though the M9 is mostly built in Portugal.

 

Just like purists dismissed, and still do, Leica lenses assembled in Canada, even though they are rigourously the same as their Germany-assembly counterparts.

 

Let me get this straight: Leica have the X1 built in Asia (or in Portugal, I didn't get that one), whereas German-built is way better, but have their electronics deveoloped in Germany, whereas Asia electronics are way better?

[Ecaton]

The GXR will get with every new module and electronics the newest sensors and firmware.

The base camera will only handle the data storage, the power supply and the knobs and wheels.

This concept has no restrictions by a fixed mount and sensor-lens distance as all existing bajonnet cams have.

Ok, it will look funny to have a FF sensor/lens module in front of the cam but it would work better than M9 plus SWW lenses at the moment.

 

That is an interesting point you bring up concerning the GXR. Haven't thought about it.

[hammam]

...

 

I read somewhere that there is a new camera phone in the pipeline which is reckoned to have about 12 megapixels, 3x optical zoom Zeiss lens lens and which may be out towards the end of 2010.

We all know that it won't be German.

 

...

 

LOL! The only problem will be when the external flash and viewfinder will be attached to it, hanging from your neck by the strap. Now, that'll be the strangest telephone in the world.

[hammam]

I believe the Japanese would take good care of Leica if that ever happened... there are plenty of camera lovers and leica lovers there.

Well, they might have their Leica stuff made in China, like Nikon did with some of their lenses. Now, we all know what THAT means.

[hammam]

What I like here is that people criticize others for criticizing the X1 without having actually used one, but there are also people who praise the X1 without having actually used one. I guess it should even out.

 

I have no idea how the X1 fares, but I still fail to understand why people bought the Leica D-Lux 4 instead of the half-priced Lumix LX-3, whereas they are almost identical cameras, at least internally, and produce identical IQ. Granted, the D-Lux 4 is prettier, classier and it bears the (in)famous red dot, but still.

 

I AM a Leica fan, and I've had many M cameras (and still have an M7, which I love), and I've had first an M8, and now an M8.2, but I did buy a Panasonic GF1 with the excellent 20/1.7 lens lately, and the Can. $1,000 I saved by not buying the X1 will go a long way towards getting a wide-angle Leica lens. Or will readily pay for a Zeiss M mount wide-angle. That's my reasoning. I am sure I would prefer the X1 ergos and handlling, but that's not worth 1,000$ in my (check)book.

 

I would really like to see an independant and unbiased review based on actual PRINTS in, let's say, A3 size between the X1 and its competitors, including the GF1, from Tif converted Raw files, no PS or converter adjustments. As it is, all we have are 72 dpi Web quality jpgs to judge from. Not very telling, is it?

[peterb]

Leica may not be trying to compete in that same market place, in their own minds. And they may feel the existing Leica user and those who aspire to Leica will still buy. Quite probably they will.

 

I am advertising copywriter who worked on Polaroid (remember them?) for a while. And while I'm not suggesting Leica cameras and optics are by any means like a Polaroid, there are parts of the Leica situation that are hauntingly familiar with what happened to Polaroid.

 

Here's their story: Polaroid had a sizable consumer following for many years. But there was something very curious about it. Essentially, for the most part, their main customers were the ones who bought into the idea of instant cameras at the beginning of Polaroid instant photography and never let go of the dream.

 

Now Polaroid had a very good market among photo pros over the years who bought instant films to make 'test' shots during shoots until that dried up when digital showed appeared on the scene. But the bulk of their business came from 'consumer' sales which consisted of regular folks who bought and continued to buy (and believe in) Polaroid cameras and the 'magic' of instant photography from the very beginning. And these were the folks who would buy each successive 'improvement' in film and process by buying the cameras that went with it. (Rather than simply make a camera and keep improving film for it, Polaroid went down the insane path of developing new films and forcing customers to buy new cameras to use with it, making all previous cameras and films obsolete. Something they didn't do to such an extent in the 'professional' market. Because of the constancy of medium formats Polaroid's professional market didn't have to endure such craziness as the standardization of medium formats forced Polaroid to make films available for the existing backs that were out there and not routinely make pros have to buy a whole new back for each new film that came out.)

 

Over the decades these same folks who kept buying each successive generation of cameras kept getting older and older and either simply died off or wised up and moved on to the newer, more affordable and more practical digital alternatives. At the same time it became more and more difficult for Polaroid to bring new adherents into their fold. Any 'new' kids who drank the Polaroid punch would typically buy a new camera after being wowed by some pretty strong advertising (and they had some of the best) and then quickly ditch it and the whole Polaroid gestalt once they got tired of the Polaroid scam (and the bulky cameras, although the SX-70 was pretty cool).

 

In Leica's case each generation of camera keeps gets more and more expensive. And while the M9 is the most compact 3:2 aspect ratioed camera out there today there's a very steep price of entry. And even taking inflation into account while the price of a Leica and its lenses today may be no different than it was...say 10, 20, 30 or even 100 years ago relative to peoples incomes or buying power, the numbers being tossed about are becoming increasingly, 'mentally' daunting to many. They see $10,000 as a lot for anything let alone a lens. $7000 is a LOT to ask for a camera no matter how preciously compact and well executed it is. And, likewise, $2000 for a very well-executed point and shoot (sorry if I offend anyone but, sensor and optics aside, it's in the same camp as a Lumix LX3 even though the output is in a much better league) is very tough to swallow as evidenced by the rants by members on this forum.

 

There will always be wealthy people. And some will be photographers. And some still, photographers who will see buying (or should I say investing) in Leica gear a financial trade-off no different than choosing to buy a full-dressed touring Harley Davidson Electra Glide over a Honda Shadow. My fear is that like Polaroid, there will be fewer and fewer new folks entering the Leica fold as the price/value/IQ equation keeps shifting potential customers away from them for other alternatives, leaving an increasingly dwindling number of aging loyalist die-hards to keep the dream (and the company) alive.

 

But I could be wrong.

[SiOnara]

I am advertising copywriter who worked on Polaroid (remember them?) for a while. And while I'm not suggesting Leica cameras and optics are by any means like a Polaroid, there are parts of the Leica situation that are hauntingly familiar with what happened to Polaroid.

 

Here's their story: Polaroid had a sizable consumer following for many years. But there was something very curious about it. Essentially, for the most part, their main customers were the ones who bought into the idea of instant cameras at the beginning of Polaroid instant photography and never let go of the dream.

 

Now Polaroid had a very good market among photo pros over the years who bought instant films to make 'test' shots during shoots until that dried up when digital showed appeared on the scene. But the bulk of their business came from 'consumer' sales which consisted of regular folks who bought and continued to buy (and believe in) Polaroid cameras and the 'magic' of instant photography from the very beginning. And these were the folks who would buy each successive 'improvement' in film and process by buying the cameras that went with it. (Rather than simply make a camera and keep improving film for it, Polaroid went down the insane path of developing new films and forcing customers to buy new cameras to use with it, making all previous cameras and films obsolete. Something they didn't do to such an extent in the 'professional' market. Because of the constancy of medium formats Polaroid's professional market didn't have to endure such craziness as the standardization of medium formats forced Polaroid to make films available for the existing backs that were out there and not routinely make pros have to buy a whole new back for each new film that came out.)

 

Over the decades these same folks who kept buying each successive generation of cameras kept getting older and older and either simply died off or wised up and moved on to the newer, more affordable and more practical digital alternatives. At the same time it became more and more difficult for Polaroid to bring new adherents into their fold. Any 'new' kids who drank the Polaroid punch would typically buy a new camera after being wowed by some pretty strong advertising (and they had some of the best) and then quickly ditch it and the whole Polaroid gestalt once they got tired of the Polaroid scam (and the bulky cameras, although the SX-70 was pretty cool).

 

In Leica's case each generation of camera keeps gets more and more expensive. And while the M9 is the most compact 3:2 aspect ratioed camera out there today there's a very steep price of entry. And even taking inflation into account while the price of a Leica and its lenses today may be no different than it was...say 10, 20, 30 or even 100 years ago relative to peoples incomes or buying power, the numbers being tossed about are becoming increasingly, 'mentally' daunting to many. They see $10,000 as a lot for anything let alone a lens. $7000 is a LOT to ask for a camera no matter how preciously compact and well executed it is. And, likewise, $2000 for a very well-executed point and shoot (sorry if I offend anyone but, sensor and optics aside, it's in the same camp as a Lumix LX3 even though the output is in a much better league) is very tough to swallow as evidenced by the rants by members on this forum.

 

There will always be wealthy people. And some will be photographers. And some still, photographers who will see buying (or should I say investing) in Leica gear a financial trade-off no different than choosing to buy a full-dressed touring Harley Davidson Electra Glide over a Honda Shadow. My fear is that like Polaroid, there will be fewer and fewer new folks entering the Leica fold as the price/value/IQ equation keeps shifting potential customers away from them for other alternatives, leaving an increasingly dwindling number of aging loyalist die-hards to keep the dream (and the company) alive.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

I see that Polaroid are heading back out way again. I have a Polaroid camera and love the whole Polaroid experience. The main problem is the stock prices. This needs to come way down. At the moment the cheapest stock goes for about £17 for 10 pictures. Crazy. 10 pictures should cost at the most £5. A lower price would increase the amount of stock being used by people and thus drive the production costs down as it can be produced in bulk. Sorry, this statement has nothing to do with Leica or the X1

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[barjohn]

John... you crack me up. What is it? High quality or a sadly not a CL?

 

You can't use the HQ unless you can focus the camera in the first place. The CL had a real RF, the X1 doesn't. The CL was responsive the X1 isn't. I could go on but I think that paints the picture. If you look at a host of compact 35mm cameras from the past you will see that they were able to fit a range finder into the compact bodies. Today, that finder may become electronic rather than optical or if some camera company gets real creative it will combine optical and electronics for focus confirmation giving the best of both worlds. I don't think I am the only one that laments that Leica has not built the modern equivalent of a CL. Read through many of the posts on this forum going back over the last three years and you will see many members requesting such a camera.

 

If you want a small limited use slow AF camera with the aperture control on a knob rather than on the lens and the manual focus control on a thumb wheel rather than a ring on the lens barrel and that will be extremely difficult to focus in low light manually or electronically where you need the high ISO the camera is capable of, then you will buy the X1.

 

P.S. I am glad I made you laugh! I pointed out the build issue precisely because the purists here make such a big deal about it with whole threads dedicated to arguing about where Leica cameras are built. It was a little tongue & cheek. I purchased lenses made in Canada because they cost less simply because the purist believe they are inferior.

[barjohn]

Peter,

I think you raise some very valid points. I think when the sales numbers are in Leica will have sold fewer M9s than it did M8s to the same folks that purchased M8s (but not all of them will have taken the plunge) and they will have added far fewer new customers than the M8 added. The net is a diminishing market. A $2000 P&S with its slow performance will not bring many new customers into the fold but will mostly sell to the same customers that purchased an M9 or M8. Hopefully the M9 will save them from the death spiral they were in when the S2 was the focus of their existence. The S2 will have such a small market as to reflect Leica's vanity more than any real contribution to the bottom line. The X1 reflects their fear of cannibalizing their M9 sales the way the CL did their M sales.