X1 in-depth review

[marcusperkins]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

True for AF but not true for zone focusing where the real figure of merit for speed is the shutter-lag.

 

0.5 sec. is not exactly lumbering

 

Furrukh

 

0.5 - that's five time slower than the M9, which in turn is already on the slow side for many.

 

10 times slower, than a pro SLR and some 20 times slower than a Leica film M.

 

Too slow for such an expensive camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[khanosu]

0.5 - that's five time slower than the M9, which in turn is already on the slow side for many.

 

10 times slower, than a pro SLR and some 20 times slower than a Leica film M.

 

Too slow for such an expensive camera.

 

Alright - semi-lumbering

 

Sean also said that his tests were not very scientific and his quoted times also include his reaction time and actual time required to press the shutter button - so I think that the actual shutter lag might be in the .2 sec range (similar to the shutter-lag for half press). This is the ball park figure for the shutter-lag on an M8 which has never been a problem for me.

 

Furrukh

[marcusperkins]

Leica are slowly learning (I hope), and good on them for trying to do everything in house. They will get there in the end.

 

However, it is frustrating - a lot of photographers have been waiting a long time for an X1 style camera to come along. Finally we have the quality, but it will be a few more years before we get the kind of zippy performance required to really make it work, and I'm not talking about frame rate here.

[wda]

Once again several members seem to be overlooking the fact that the tested X1 firmware is almost certainly different to that likely to be delivered. Or is this a blind declaration of faith in Leica getting things right before global launch? I am sure the delay, in part, is due to final software modifications and fine-tuning.

[jsrockit]

One side of me hopes it bombs, so I can pick one up cheap. Another side of me hopes it does really well so thet can develope it more.

[hammam]

It'd better be very, very good, because it already has serious competition in Olympus and Panasonic for half the price.

[Craftsman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Somebody explain to me why a ,fixed lens, slow focusing , no view finder camera . that's not pocketable would be priced at $2,000.00 . Other than Leica just needs the money.

[jsrockit]

It'd better be very, very good, because it already has serious competition in Olympus and Panasonic for half the price.

 

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't consider them competitors. The Leica has a classic design and the others have a consumer digital design.

[jsrockit]

Somebody explain to me why a ,fixed lens, slow focusing , no view finder camera . that's not pocketable would be priced at $2,000.00 . Other than Leica just needs the money.

 

Hmmm... the 24mm lens for the M series is $3800... maybe that's how they justify it?

[markpsf]

...gets really old really fast.

 

Personal values + depth of personal pockets + desire for object = amount willing to pay

 

The real issues are quality and match of camera with photographer.

 

The more good info shared from direct experience the camera the more valuable this forum is.

 

Side note.

 

The latest version of firmware is 1.0

Leica already has one that is 1.002 and maybe there will be another one before release a month from now.

Will those make a difference? Unknown, but of more interest to me than haggling about what the price should be. I mean hell, I can buy a great new car for less than the price of the new high end Leica, but there will be some who will choice the camera over a new car!

 

Mark

[barjohn]

Maybe before comparing the lens to real Leica lenses you should compare the MTF chart on DPR to their test of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. It shows better performance at f2.0 than the Leica at f4.0 in every area but barrel distortion (the easiest to fix distortion). Much better MTF at center and out to the edges with the Pany hitting optimum at f5.6 and the Leica at f8. In fact the Panny is better at f2.0 than the Leica at f2.8. It is a $400 lens, not a $4,000 lens. This doesn't include the fact that you can put a real Leica lens on the GF1 if you want even more performance.

[georg]

The lens is most likely not made by Leica and therefore not up to their quality standards - a big issue for this camera because everything else can be implemented by competitors. They should have made a real metal X1 with a real Leica-lens, that would have been unique although it would cost at least 2000€. But not another "me too"-product with a red dot.

 

Right now it's an unique way to achieve D300-IQ with a smaller body and for less money (lens) - but how long until Sony puts the very same sensor and ASIC into a cheaper camera?

[theendlesshouse]

Somebody explain to me why a ,fixed lens, slow focusing , no view finder camera . that's not pocketable would be priced at $2,000.00 . Other than Leica just needs the money.

 

the dot, ie. lx v d-lux

[peterb]

Maybe before comparing the lens to real Leica lenses you should compare the MTF chart on DPR to their test of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. It shows better performance at f2.0 than the Leica at f4.0 in every area but barrel distortion (the easiest to fix distortion). Much better MTF at center and out to the edges with the Pany hitting optimum at f5.6 and the Leica at f8. In fact the Panny is better at f2.0 than the Leica at f2.8. It is a $400 lens, not a $4,000 lens. This doesn't include the fact that you can put a real Leica lens on the GF1 if you want even more performance.

 

John, I was JUST looking at that tonight. And you're right! But yet when I look at the images (and granted they're on an LCD laptop) the X1's seem a tad sharper. Like the shot of the guy with the glasses (for the bokeh analysis...if that's even remotely possible The bokeh shot using the GF1 and the 20mm f1.7 when DPreview tested THAT lens was also quite good by the way but the leaf was waaay over exposed.) There was noise. But the sharpness was pretty good. Is that my imagination or a biased illusion hoping it to be so? I'm just not sure.

[peterb]

One thing I DID notice in the DPreview of the X1 was something in the sample image area. Now granted, the site had already posted some sample images a while ago (and under a previous firmware) but one thing I noticed was the reviewer's taking shots that weren't all bright sun and low ISO as they seem to typically do. In amonst the samples were a lot of night time and underground shots at ISO 1600 and 3200...lots of 'em by comparison. Shots in both color AND black and white. These were not your typical shots. Unlike what they usually do, it seemed to me the reviewer really wanted to take this camera out for a good spin, open 'er up and see what this baby could do.

 

As I said I don't see that very often on DPreview (or any other review site for that matter.) And it seemed very apparent to me. Clearly this camera inspired him to push himself.

 

Yeah the color shots were a bit noisy as expected but they weren't horrible. And the BW ones...well like I've already mentioned in this forum, there's a kind of romantic quality about it that really works for me. And what little noise there is at the top ISO is actually kinda nice.

 

The ghost of HCB, look out! Here I come. (Okay his legacy doesn't have anything to worry about. But I'm going to B&H as soon as I can. )

[jsrockit]

Maybe before comparing the lens to real Leica lenses you should compare the MTF chart on DPR to their test of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. It shows better performance at f2.0 than the Leica at f4.0 in every area but barrel distortion (the easiest to fix distortion). Much better MTF at center and out to the edges with the Pany hitting optimum at f5.6 and the Leica at f8. In fact the Panny is better at f2.0 than the Leica at f2.8. It is a $400 lens, not a $4,000 lens. This doesn't include the fact that you can put a real Leica lens on the GF1 if you want even more performance.

 

I understand, but I go by what I see in photos. I like what I see from the Ricoh and the X1. I'm not into the Panasonic at all so I don't look at the images... that camera doesn't exist for me.

[NZDavid]

What a load of negativity from people who haven't even seen the camera, let alone used it! OK, the X1 is not an M replacement but it looks capable of producing first-class results from a compact package -- Oscar Barnack's original philosophy. What I really like is the minimalist design. As DPreview notes, shutter speed and aperture are controlled by dials, and there are no superfluous gimmicky "modes". No other camera does that!

[barjohn]

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 would produce as long as you shoot RAW and have some experience using LR. However, Leica's weakness in electronics and firmware means you will miss many shots, especially in low light situations where its high ISO capability is its strength. The slow review time, the very slow AF time, the miss-indication of focus when it does not in fact have focus will all contribute to missed opportunities or opportunities lost due to miss focus. These are the same problems that plagued the Sigma DP series and their Foveon sensor. While image quality was very high at lower ISOs the constant irritation that comes from always waiting on the camera to perform its function soon wears on a person. Leica engineers had to be aware of these issues and elected not to solve them prior to release for review in all probability because they do not have a solution and/or no solution is possible given the technology employed. I think buyers expecting a firmware fix are going to be very disappointed. Those that can accept the camera as it is for its small size, high IQ and simple controls will be satisfied just as DP-1 and DP-2 buyers are satisfied with the trade-off they have made. 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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Driver8]

Somebody explain to me why a ,fixed lens, slow focusing , no view finder camera . that's not pocketable would be priced at $2,000.00 . Other than Leica just needs the money.

 

DP Review rates the X1's RAW files a hair better than the Nikon D300s with a 50mm f1.4 lens (page 21 of the review). The X1 is $1995 and includes the $300 Adobe Lightroom. The Nikon set-up costs $1925 at B&H Photo. Also, the X1 weighs 9.9 ounces, while the Nikon with 50mm lens weighs 39.8 ounces.

 

That's the attraction to the X1.

 

I have the $2000 set aside for the X1, but I'm not sure if I'm going to purchase it.

 

Here's what I love about the X1:

 

1. Outstanding image quality.

2. Its small size and weight, but solid build quality.

3. Attractive looking camera with conventional shutter speed/aperature dials.

4. A simple assortment of just five screen menus (Nikon and Canon SLR menus are insanely complicated).

5. The green autofocus light that confirms focus (particularly useful when using the attached viewfinder - which is how I would normally handle the camera).

6. A leaf shutter which allows flash at any shutter speed.

7. A leaf shutter that is almost completely silent.

8. Press the half-shutter and the camera is ready to go, even if you're not.

 

Here's what annoys me about the X1 (but I can live with):

 

1. Subpar LCD screen.

2. Extremely slow playback mode.

3. Flash with a wimpy 5 guide number (should have been at least 8).

4. No lens hood.

5. 5-second delay between RAW shots.

 

Here's what I hate about the X1:

 

1. Autofocus takes 1.4 seconds.

 

1.4 seconds is terribly slow and I don't think this can be corrected by a firmware update. Leica should have at least cut this down to 0.7 seconds (Canon G11 level), The whole X1 autofocus issue gives me, well...pause.

 

My dilemma right now is to purchase the X1 now, love its files, and get used to its quirks, or wait for the $2500 X2 that Leica will deliver in 2011 to address most of these issues.

[wda]

Has anyone actually downloaded the sample raw images in the subject review? Last night I downloaded three raw taken at ISO100, my strongly favored setting. I processed them in Lightroom 2.5 and was really surprised at the detail and quality revealed despite the review's expressed feelings that LR was not yet optimized for the X1. Those seriously interested in the X1 should try this for themselves.

 

While I am not prepared to gloss over the reported shortcomings, AF speed etc, for my needs that is not quite so important. I need stock quality images of subjects that are not fleeting moments in time. I have the M8 as my first choice camera when serious photography is scheduled. I see the small Leica X1 as filling the gap left by rather unsatisfactory small sensor compacts when carrying extra kit is not possible or desirable.