jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #21 Posted March 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) and this image is up to the standard of any $300 P&S. Yes, I agree, but what's the point in saying this? Just because the X1 is $2000 it should automatically make the best images ever? There are plenty of bad images on this site taken with the M9 and even the S2. These hockey photos are snapshots from the stands for family purposes, not proof that the X1 is the best camera on the market. I'm simply sticking up for the guy because I think you guys (that are dissing him) are assuming he posted these to prove the X1 is a superior camera when I believe he posted them just to show what he did with the camera recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Hi jsrockit, Take a look here Took the X1 to a youth hockey game. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ecaton Posted March 10, 2010 Share #22 Posted March 10, 2010 Yes, I agree, but what's the point in saying this? Just because the X1 is $2000 it should automatically make the best images ever? There are plenty of bad images on this site taken with the M9 and even the S2. These hockey photos are snapshots from the stands for family purposes, not proof that the X1 is the best camera on the market. I'm simply sticking up for the guy because I think you guys (that are dissing him) are assuming he posted these to prove the X1 is a superior camera when I believe he posted them just to show what he did with the camera recently. The thread was to demonstrate how great a camera the X1 is, because it even works at hockey games. Yet it only confirms that it is a camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #23 Posted March 10, 2010 The thread was to demonstrate how great a camera the X1 is, because it even works at hockey games. Yet it only confirms that it is a camera. This is the original post: "This was my first serious outing with the X1. I shot behind either plexiglass or netting the entire time. I used manual focus only. All photos were processed in Aperture 3. I used Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro on some of them. Let me know what you guys think." Where does it say he was trying to demonstrate how great a camera the X1 is? Do we only make photographs to show how great a camera is or to push it to its limits? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #24 Posted March 10, 2010 I believe he posted them just to show what he did with the camera recently. Then those images should have been posted on the Photo Forum section. To think that any image posts in this forum that is already toxic with controversy about the quality/value of this camera would not invite criticism of the camera's abilities (sharpness, noise etc.) and the fact that some serious post treatment didn't help it all that much is a bit naive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #25 Posted March 10, 2010 This is the original post: "This was my first serious outing with the X1. I shot behind either plexiglass or netting the entire time. I used manual focus only. All photos were processed in Aperture 3. I used Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro on some of them. Let me know what you guys think." Where does it say he was trying to demonstrate how great a camera the X1 is? Do we only make photographs to show how great a camera is or to push it to its limits? I'll even use your own evidence. If the original poster hadn't brought up caveats about the shooting conditions and the extensive post processing involved why wouldn't anyone in this part of the forum not assume it's an invitation to critique the camera's promised abilities? The whole sticking point all along has been is the IQ up to the steep price? Theoretically "yes". Sometimes "yes" (Reid et. al). But, as I'm finding out with more and more disappointing images seen both here, flickr and other venues (and I don't mean by images' content) many times, "no". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #26 Posted March 10, 2010 Then those images should have been posted on the Photo Forum section. To think that any image posts in this forum that is already toxic with controversy about the quality/value of this camera would not invite criticism of the camera's abilities (sharpness, noise etc.) and the fact that some serious post treatment didn't help it all that much is a bit naive. Ok, point taken... and I can see how you guys would think that. Just remember, any camera is capable of both bad and good results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #27 Posted March 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ok, point taken... and I can see how you guys would think that. Just remember, any camera is capable of both bad and good results. Absolutely! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #28 Posted March 10, 2010 The whole sticking point all along has been is the IQ up to the steep price? You can't really expect Leica to provide value for your dollar, can you? Everything they make is overpriced and when compared to other options, doesn't appear to be worth the money. Leica is not about value and providing the latest innovations. That's not to say that I don't find value in Leica cameras... I definetely do. It's just to say they are not the best bang for your buck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #29 Posted March 10, 2010 You can't really expect Leica to provide value for your dollar, can you? In a word, yes. And I think that is why there is so much controversy about this new camera. The D2 was expensive, but it delivered for what it was. The D-Lux series, while pricier than the its sister camera from Lumix, delivered. The M's 8 and 9, while expensive (and in the case of the M8's need for an IR filter on the lenses) delivered. The X1 with it's superb lens and sensor has the potential to deliver but the numerous complaints about its AF, its often loose dials and its imprecise manual focus vs other far lesser cameras has called it into question. Don't get me wrong. I actually DO see Leica as a good value. I remember the first time I got results back from a rental I got at Ken Hansens in NYC (when he still had a shop on the second floor of Broadway and 21st street) made my mouth drop. I was sold on the mystique and the quality. And I haven't been disappointed since. If you look at Leica cameras in the absolute, that is just as things to pay for, most people would say you should have your head examined. Yes they are absurdly expensive. But to a passionate photographer (and from what I can tell from your postings you're certainly among them) it is not. Consider the following logic (or illogic): Say a photographer buys into an M9 camera. The cost with a 35mm Summilux (just to pick a good lens) comes to around $11,500 (US) or so. Now in the digital age, there's a good chance that photographer will use it practically every chance he or she can (the issue of film cost goes out the window.) My assumption, based on numerous postings of images by the same person in the photo forums actually supports that notion. Now while that $11,500 may seem a lot for a camera and a lens compared to what other camera choices one could make, consider what other $11,500 purchases you could make, period. If you were a passionate motorcyclist, you could buy a nice low end Harley Davidson or a low end BMW motorcycle. If you live in the Northeast you can take it out on weekends from April to October. More in the warmer areas. Would you take it out EVERY weekend? Probably not. But the photographer who has their M at the ready would. Plus you have annual costs to contend with of insurance, registration and maintenance. Costs you wouldn't have to bear with the M. While a lot of people might say two can enjoy riding the motorcycle, for most, like photography, it's a solo pastime. Now consider the boat lover. For a price that goes from $11,500 (for an utterly basic boat without a motor most likely) on up to the stratosphere you get enjoyment you may only get to use for a limited weekends or outings a year. And again a little more in warmer areas like Florida or San Diego. Now consider the costs of fuel, docking, storage, a trailer, insurance, registration, the annual upkeep and all the extras people buy to fully experience the boating lifestyle (go to any boatshow, go through tents filled with all kinds of boating mishigas like clocks, furniture, dinnerware etc. and you'll see what I mean) and this very common passion among far more people than there are Leica owners makes the M seem like a downright bargain. My point is I actually DO think Leica provides value. Particularly when you compare the price of admission to enjoying the potential of Leica quality to other purchases you might make that are not all that uncommon. (And, admittedly, not EVERYONE shares this point of view but its one I've come to rationalize my often irrational exuberance for this camera company and justifying paying for its often pricey products.) With my total illogic, I find the X1, despite it's potential, is riddled with shortcomings that I am surprised a company like Leica would permit to go out the door when for a few dollars more and a little more development they could have produced a camera with respectable AF with technology I would imagine is readily at their disposal along with better dial indents (a.la the M's), better battery life and a more accurate MF dial (a la Sigma et. al.). Had they done that you would not have heard a peep of disapproval from so many posts about this camera. And you would have seen people lined up to get this camera (not that there aren't a lot of 'em). And the naysayers would merely be those who see the price of a Leica in pure absolute dollars, DM's, Pounds, Yuan or whatnot. As an overpriced device that can easily replicated by other lesser photographic instruments. And not as a camera that has incredible value when you consider other places you could spend your money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box Brownie Posted March 10, 2010 Share #30 Posted March 10, 2010 Why not look at the Flickr user group for the X1 for evidence of picture quality? The number of pictures uploaded is beginning to grow leica x1 - Flickr: Search Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #31 Posted March 10, 2010 See, PB, the only expensive thing I care about are Leicas, so I can only compare cameras vs. cameras. I truly don't think Leicas provide a good value for your cash. You could spend the same cash and get "better" equipment. However, it is the camera I feel comfortable using do to me being a fan of simplicity, shutter speed / aperture dials, and rangefinders (I hate SLRs), so I pay the premium. As far as the X1 is concerned, have you tried one yet? Perhaps what others see as not good enough will not seem so bad to you. Luckily, I get to find out tomorrow if I made a bad decision or not since my X1 will arrive. There is no doubt that the Panasonic GF1 is a nice camera that will give you great results, but it just isn't for me. It is just doesn't have one foot in the past like I like my cameras to have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #32 Posted March 10, 2010 Why not look at the Flickr user group for the X1 for evidence of picture quality? The number of pictures uploaded is beginning to grow leica x1 - Flickr: Search Because good just isn't good enough for the haters... they are expecting the best images ever made to prove the $2000 price tag... (I'm half-joking fellow forums members). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #33 Posted March 10, 2010 Hey JS, No I haven't tried one yet. As you know these things have been as scarce as hen's teeth. B&H et. al. constantly post "temporarily out of stock" or "On back order". So, like yourself I've been living vicariously through the semi-Hemmingwayesque descriptions of X1 use by Reid, Huff and others. I never went the DSLR route for the simple reason that, to me, they seem like huge optical albatrosses around anyone's neck (although the Sony A850 with its relatively minimalist dialage and Zeiss optics is quite tempting). When the G1 came out I leaped. And haven't regretted it. The original optics were so so but the 20mm f1.7 has proven to be a gem. And I hope to pick up the lenses that offer the range of 7-140mm (14-280mm in 35mm speak) to make a superb general kit. The images have not disappointed. Particularly at ISO 100 although I will shoot as high as ISO 640 in a pinch. I opted against getting the GF1 for the simple reason that I'd want that luscious EVF I've become so fond. (I have the Leica D2 and got into it and the G1 was nothing short of dazzling). But the EVF offered on the GF1 is just so so (Olympus has made a superb one for their Pen digital's but it won't work on the GF1 and I prefer the Lumix performance (particularly AF) and output over Olympus. And if I got the EVF for the GF1 I'd have a camera that was essentially no different for my purposes than the G1. Like you I like the X1's simplicity. Two dials and very little else. A superb lens. And a superb sensor that promises low noise when used in dimmer situations (although with the 20mm f1.7 at the G1's best ISO it's a wash in terms of EV). If after finally handling the X1 I felt it would certainly meet my needs (like the D-Lux cameras do) in certain situations I would most likely get it. I would also most likely get an OVF (which I jury rigged onto my DLUX by attaching a Voightlander accessory holder onto the top deck with double stick padded tape from 3M and used the Voightlander OVF and came to enjoy) and the 'grip', which I feel would be nothing short of essential in bringing the camera to the right size I'd need to put in my hands as I did with my old M6. But that's a big "IF". As you saw in a post on another thread my thinking lately has been to think M9 and go for that. In its day my M6 was a constant companion that I took to places no normal person would consider taking such an expensive piece of hardware and true to the brochures' claims the camera held up like a champ. THAT camera was the essence of simplicity. Minimal dials and a great VF with RF focusing that would certainly be as quick as the X1 (if not quicker---much of the time I would fire away even at wider f-stops with minimal focus re-adjustment as opposed to a complete 're-hunt' that I find on AF cameras). There were many times when I'd miss the additional feedback the M6 provided (focus and exposure indicators...those lovely red arrows) in the DLux. And I fear I might miss them on the X1 as well. Plus when fitted with an OVF and a grip, the X1 starts to enter the volume domain of the M anyways which I'd carry quite stealthily to most venues. So again I wait. That along with 1-3 very pocketable lenses (that I can use with the G1 via an adapter) and a grip and I'm good to go. I've seen some of the best images the X1 can create along with some of the just so-so of an M9 (or an M8) and there's simply no comparison. And speaking of which, you're right. When you compare Leicas to other cameras, dollar for dollar, Leica's will lose. But owning this company's products is a totally irrational decision. And even if you don't do as I do and put it into an equation of spending one's money for ANYTHING it's still a choice that one justifies for some exotic reason that we all buy into. Whether it's because of the prestige of the marque or the lore behind it created by those who've used them or because the optics when used wide open have a certain look to their images that allows one to pick out the shots from others in a pile is always a topic of discussion (as this forum can attest). And one that will justify the ridiculous expense to have that in your hands, like a Porsche for some a Hatteras for others or a Rolex for still others no matter how dear the price of getting one is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted March 10, 2010 Share #34 Posted March 10, 2010 Ah, my first camera love as well... the Leica M6. I used a bunch of Nikons prior to the M6 including the F4 and was never that satisfied. Once I got my hands on a very used M4-2, I was hooked and knew I needed the current model... the M6 (in the 90s). About 6 months ago I decided to get back into photography and loved the X1 idea. However, it wasn't available. To hold me over, I bought a M2. But after 10 years of using digitals casually, I recognized their advantages for me and I noticed the M8 was becoming cheaper on the used market, so I bought one (sold the M2). I wasn't satisfied though only having one camera and still wanted the X1. Now my M8 is in for repairs, so the X1 is coming at the right time. I also aquired a M4 recently to replace my M2 as a film Leica. Grrr, back to buying too much again. I justify it by telling myself that they all serve a different purpose, which I truly believe they do. Now, when do I get bit by the barnack bug? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 10, 2010 Share #35 Posted March 10, 2010 If you were a passionate motorcyclist, you could buy a nice low end Harley Davidson or a low end BMW motorcycle. No You would buy a high end Ducati Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 10, 2010 Share #36 Posted March 10, 2010 I am surprised a company like Leica would permit to go out the door when for a few dollars more and a little more development they could have produced a camera with respectable AF with technology The quirky AF situation as seen in the X1, the ricoh and now Samsung is probably one reason why Canon and Nikon haven't entered the fray, nobody there wants to damage their name until AF is at a acceptable level Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #37 Posted March 10, 2010 Ah, my first camera love as well... the Leica M6. I used a bunch of Nikons prior to the M6 including the F4 and was never that satisfied. Once I got my hands on a very used M4-2, I was hooked and knew I needed the current model... the M6 (in the 90s). About 6 months ago I decided to get back into photography and loved the X1 idea. However, it wasn't available. To hold me over, I bought a M2. But after 10 years of using digitals casually, I recognized their advantages for me and I noticed the M8 was becoming cheaper on the used market, so I bought one (sold the M2). I wasn't satisfied though only having one camera and still wanted the X1. Now my M8 is in for repairs, so the X1 is coming at the right time. I also aquired a M4 recently to replace my M2 as a film Leica. Grrr, back to buying too much again. I justify it by telling myself that they all serve a different purpose, which I truly believe they do. Now, when do I get bit by the barnack bug? I started with the Yashica GT a rangefinder that I got at the age of 15 with money saved from working in a summer camp kitchen. My brother was in the Air Force stationed in Sapporo and was told this was a great camera. It was a rangefinder with AE. And what a gem it was. In college I moved on to Canon's FT and thought that was a great way to go. That remained the camera du jour until I got Nikon's EM. A very basic camera that gave me entre to their lenses. I had that for a number of years and even wound up writing ads for Nikon at their U.S. ad agency in NYC at the time. At THAT time I was introduced to Ken Hansen's store where I checked out the Contax 139, an amazing camera with access to some equally amazing lenses. For the first time I saw what decent optics could provide. That kept me happy for a number of years until one day in Hansen's I found they were selling a truckload of Leica R4sP's for practically cost. The camera had been discontinued and Hansen apparently had bought the entire remaining U.S. stockpile of them. I got it and rented a lens. The results were nothing short of phenomenal. Once in the Leitz fold (and with no Leica-done clinics to go to) I'd buy used lenses from various vendors (Jim Kiehl in Illinois was a favorite) and built up my optical arsenal. But something was missing. The images I took were good but they lacked soul. I started to look at photo books at the MOMA (Museum of Modern Art) bookstore as well as the International Center of Photography and concluded that the rangefinder gave one a point of view that the SLR could not (even though it could). So I rented an M6 and a 50mm summicron and the results were nothing short of extraordinary. Equaling or blowing away results from the Contax or the R4sP. And....it brought me back to my RF beginnings which I really liked. Moreover, in just manual mode I was quicker than I was with any AE (I preferred A since I was constantly rotating the aperture and if I needed fast shutters I just opened the thing up). But the cleanness of 'balancing' the diodes by rotating the aperture at a workable shutter speed along with the wide-assed view with frame lines telling where to 'find' the picture in the scene along with the utter compactness of it all was simply sublime. As I saw film giving way to digital I held on for as long as I could and when I thought parity had been achieved I went digital, with the Digilux 2 (alas with Leica insisting a digital M could not be done I sold my lenses along with it). The D2 was great camera with an AMAZING summicron (no less) zoom lens and a grainy EVF. Nearly silent and analog-like it worked for me. The D2 was sorta big so I partnered it up with a DLux. When the M8 came out I passed on it due to the IR issues. And I think the fact that it was APS-C may have weighed into that decision just a tad. But I do like it still and would have gone there had Leica not come out with the M9, which has managed to achieve the holy grail for the M in the digital age: a full frame camera that is, for all intents and purposes, an extension of the long illustrious lines of M cameras. A line that has not been so much revolutionary with each iteration as it has been evolutionary. Each time getting better and better (although some may argue that perhaps it's time has come and gone and that new thinking and design are in order here). As I said above, DSLR's didn't do it for me for issues of bulk but the G1 seemed to me a way to get there. Certainly more compact than DSLR's. And what I saw almost immediately was an opportunity to use M lenses (35mm on up) on the thing. A poor man's M. While m4/3's is no APS-C or full frame, at the lower ISO's I felt the noise control was utterly superb for color while with BW I felt one could go to the highest ISO's and produce images that retained that romantic grainy 35mm look to them. Plus the EVF which having gotten used to the D2 was nothing short of incredible. And the rapid AF wasn't bad either. The soft 'shluck' of the shutter while not silent like the D2 still worked for me in quieter locations where unobtrusiveness is important. The X1 certainly tops that. But I'm not sure it's worth the added expense. So I wait for the M9. In the meantime, enjoy your X1. I look forward to seeing some extraordinary images from you on these pages. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted March 10, 2010 Share #38 Posted March 10, 2010 No You would buy a high end Ducati True! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted March 10, 2010 Share #39 Posted March 10, 2010 It is quite simply the wrong tool for this job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 10, 2010 Share #40 Posted March 10, 2010 Not as simple as that Pete some simply just don't get it:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.