Leica X1 impressions and directions

[dickgrafixstop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Finally got to try an X1 this past weekend - and was simultaneously excited and disappointed. I loved the feel, the controls and the results, but I was turned off as

I view the camera as an expensive dead end. It is nowhere near worth three times

the cost of the D-lux 4. But, if you view as I do that it takes Leica three tries to

get anything right (slr's, m digitals, and d-lux's as examples), X1 shows great potential. It could well be a 2012 answer to expanding the market, maintaining reputation and making $

- give it an interchangeable mount, (doesn't have to be M compatible), add a

50, a 75 or 90 and the "wow" factor goes through the roof. Price the body at $12-15

hundred, the lenses at $400-800 each and you have a fantastic lightweight, entry

level digital Leica system to bring new folks into the "family". With live view you don't

have to worry about external finders and could even modify the Digilux's outstanding standard

zoom to provide an attractive alternative solution. No, I don't want a job in the Leica

planning department.

[Dan States]

Not sure you can judge a camera by fondling it in a camera shop. In general the goods and the bads have been rehashed here adnauseum, so at this point opinions about it are worth what you paid for it:....I'm sure the upcomming Sony system will be more to your taste. I'd not hold my breath for a camera system that both beats the M's in image quality and useability....at 1/5th the price.

[jsrockit]

Finally got to try an X1 this past weekend - and was simultaneously excited and disappointed. I loved the feel, the controls and the results, but I was turned off as I view the camera as an expensive dead end. It is nowhere near worth three times the cost of the D-lux 4.

 

I can understand being disappointed in the X1, but it seems like you are disappointed by things that you knew about before buying.

[Guest badbob]

If the X1 body were $1350 (1200 to 1500), and two lenses at $600 each, that's $2550 total. An M9 with two lenses would be what, about $13000 ?

 

So what kind of smaller Leica would I get for *five* times less price than an M9 ? Crappy would be my guess. I'll stick with the X1 until I can afford a real interchangeable lens Leica. I had an R3 once. Never again.

[SJP]

Is the M9 worth 25x a point and shoot? Or the S2 100x?

 

Probably yes. Still the price of camera's is not a linear equation.

[nippa]

It is nowhere near worth three times

the cost of the D-lux 4.

 

I love my DLuxe4 and it's going nowhere ; it's a keeper and it gets used.

 

But to me the X1 is worth the extra for its ability to take better pictures than my GF-1 , more quietly and discretely and to sit inside a jacket pocket.

My example of the X1 appears to be assembled with rather more care than my Dlux4 although the X1's accessories ( inc viewfinder ) seem to lack the quality of those for the DLux4.

 

Actually I had a similar experience to that of the poster.

I went to buy an M9 and didn't like the quality of the black finish or lens handling ; that's the way it goes it just didn't feel right It had nothing to do with price!!!!

 

Conversely , as soon as I got my hands on an X1 I knew that I'd use it.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the X1 body were $1350 (1200 to 1500), and two lenses at $600 each, that's $2550 total. An M9 with two lenses would be what, about $13000 ?

 

So what kind of smaller Leica would I get for *five* times less price than an M9 ? Crappy would be my guess. I'll stick with the X1 until I can afford a real interchangeable lens Leica. I had an R3 once. Never again.

What is wrong with an R3. I still find mine very useful to hammer nails into the wall Indestructible, and actually a very usable camera, once you have solved the problem of unobtainable batteries.

[NZDavid]

...once you have solved the problem of unobtainable batteries.

 

Jaapv, try: VintageBatteries.com WeinCell PX625 Replacement Specialist.

[Jeff Kerridge]

Why on earth would Leica produce such camera?

A completely new body and a range of new autofocus lenses to go with it!

If you want that sort of camera buy a Samsung NX10. I agree with previous posters, you cannot judge a camera by holding it in a shop, nor can one judge a car by sitting in it in a showroom.

Jeff K

[Guest badbob]

What is wrong with an R3. I still find mine very useful to hammer nails into the wall Indestructible, and actually a very usable camera, once you have solved the problem of unobtainable batteries.

 

When I gave the R3 Safari (with the green-painted lens) away at a white-elephant gift exchange, the person who got it said that it's just a rebranded Minolta, and they showed me the Minolta version. I didn't care at that point - I thought SLR's were the worst sort of thing to ever happen to cameras. I actually considered an S2 until I found out that it was a DSLR. As far as I've been able to tell, since the time I gave away that R3, SLR users are in a different world from me, and speak a different language. No need to translate - I wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

[dickgrafixstop]

Why on earth would Leica produce such camera?

A completely new body and a range of new autofocus lenses to go with it!

If you want that sort of camera buy a Samsung NX10. I agree with previous posters, you cannot judge a camera by holding it in a shop, nor can one judge a car by sitting in it in a showroom.

Jeff K

 

Why? Why not? Think about it for a minute. Leica has made entry into the "leica family"

either (a) relatively expensive or ( through the used market. There are only a limited number of current M users who will buy a digital body and significantly less who will buy two or more digital M bodies, and fewer "newbies"to build the base on. You can build the finest lens in the world, but you need a base of bodies to sell them. Particularly since not all M body users would want or could afford each new offering. Even if the abandoned "R" users switch, you're still talking a minor increase in users.

Now back to the why.....a new attractive X system, "reasonably priced (whatever that is in

Leicaland) would be all gross equals net new business. It could generate a significant revenue stream on its own, but more importantly, it introduces serious photographers into the Leica family and significantly improves the odds that they'll upgrade to a M system,

also gross equals net business. Also, a new X system would not necessarily be a major development expense. You could use the M bayonet system at .6, .75 or whatever.

The development of the autofocus system is done with the existing lens and only needs to be tweaked for different focal lenths. The lenses themselves could be scaled down elmarits so the basic design is done. Think of it as a photographic BMW One series.

Not everyone can drive a seven, but.....

[kschwarz]

I am still anxiously waiting for my X1 to arrive (6 months on the waiting list so far). As far as I can tell, the X1 is the only camera that offers pocketable size without compromising SLR-grade image quality. While I have other lenses, the 35mm is the one that is almost always on my M, so I do not think I will be too disappointed with the fixed focal length lens. After all, the collapsible fixed focal length lens is the primary reason for the X1's small size, and it also adds freedom from sensor dust.

 

All this said, I agree with everything dickgrafixstop says in his original post. We all know that Leica photo gear is outrageously over-priced and we purchase it for reasons of cachet, quality of manufacture, or one-off unique features (rangefinder-M, SLR quality in a pint-sized package-X1, extreme quality in an SLR package-S2). Generally spoken, there is no such thing as a "Leica-look", or some other such nonsense that can not be replicated by a fast lens on a high-quality SLR. What dickgrafixstop is suggesting is exactly where the photo market is moving, smaller interchangeable lens digital "rangefinder" cameras with SLR quality. To have any hope of mass-market success, the lenses on this camera would have to have autofocus capability and the camera would have to have two critical features missing from Leica's current lineup, auto sensor cleaning and movie making. I know you all scoff at the movie making option, but this is a fact of life now and a camera without it will not have anything close mass-market appeal. Most also scoff at the idea of mass-market success, as Leica is now an exclusive brand that identifies the user as a special photographer (usually middle-aged or older male). Exclusivity (cachet) and quality of manufacture can be maintained by just doubling the price of equivalent Olympus/Panasonic/Canon/Sony offerings. The problem is that Leica sets the price-bar at 5 to 7X these other companies, which is just too high for all but the super rich or those super dedicated to the brand. I count myself in the latter category, but I continue to hope that I might somehow magically move into the former category, or for Leica to get real on the pricing structure. At some point, Leica has to start bringing in more younger customers, or the brand is going to die-off with the current customer-base...

[peterb]

Although some may disagree the X1, to me, is not an entree to the Leica family. There are far less expensive Leica-badged cameras (by Leica standards anyway) that allow you to proudly show your photos here as genuine Leica photos that we all comment and gush over.

 

As your first Leica you're far better off getting a used M8 and a used M lens than getting the X1 and then wondering how much you'll get back when you decide to 'trade up'.

 

No to me the X1 is just what it is. A smaller, more compact way to produce superb, DSLR quality images in a compact (albeit somewhat flawed) body without having to lug rock of Gi-NikonCanonSonyPentax-bralter around your neck.

[Guest badbob]

Why? Why not? Think about it for a minute. Leica has made entry into the "leica family"

either (a) relatively expensive or ( through the used market. There are only a limited number of current M users who will buy a digital body and significantly less who will buy two or more digital M bodies, and fewer "newbies"to build the base on. You can build the finest lens in the world, but you need a base of bodies to sell them. Particularly since not all M body users would want or could afford each new offering. Even if the abandoned "R" users switch, you're still talking a minor increase in users.

Now back to the why.....a new attractive X system, "reasonably priced (whatever that is in

Leicaland) would be all gross equals net new business. It could generate a significant revenue stream on its own, but more importantly, it introduces serious photographers into the Leica family and significantly improves the odds that they'll upgrade to a M system,

also gross equals net business. Also, a new X system would not necessarily be a major development expense. You could use the M bayonet system at .6, .75 or whatever.

The development of the autofocus system is done with the existing lens and only needs to be tweaked for different focal lenths. The lenses themselves could be scaled down elmarits so the basic design is done. Think of it as a photographic BMW One series.

Not everyone can drive a seven, but.....

 

All of these things could be done of course. But it makes for one of the following:

1) A small X1-size body that struggles with a large sensor and low power, extra Leica lenses, etc. Extremely expensive, probably $7000 u.s. or more with lenses, based on a camera that's marginally acceptable to unacceptable in performance.

2) Same as above, except slightly cheaper, but now with the marginal body and marginal-quality lenses (to lower [read: cheapen] the cost).

3) More non-Leica components, which further degrade the optical performance.

[dickgrafixstop]

Step back and don't limit your thoughts to the current X1. Leica right now is much like Cadillac in the 80's and 90's. Great reputation, high end product line and very loyal customers whose demographics aged with the calendar. Tough to sell a Broughm d'Elegance or a Fleetwood to the new market, so they developed the CTS/CTX etc. line,

brought out - horrors of horrors an SUV (which is now their most profitable item) and

transformed the company into a survivor. Now, at least, young soccer moms will consider a Cadillac which before was always "Grandpa's car".

 

Leica recognizes this to at least some extent - why else bring out a cheapened line of

elmarit lenses which duplicate already available focal lengths? They opted out of the SLR market because they couldn't compete in the technology product cycle and they focused on their key strength - the classic M, whose user demographics parallel Cadillac's

in the 80's and 90's. Now they desparately need a "new market" and they're not going to

hit it big re-badging Panasonic products and raising the price. They need innovation -

harkening back to Barnack's vision of a high quality camera for a "new film format -35mm".

 

The 4/3 chip is a dead-end. the APS size is getting better (and cheaper) and could be

the foundation for a new system. Call it the X2 or the Z1 and open your imagination as to what Leica could accomplish as a "entry level" system. Based on the X1 seems logical,

but then, not necessary.

[Dan States]

Step back and don't limit your thoughts to the current X1. Leica right now is much like Cadillac in the 80's and 90's. Great reputation, high end product line and very loyal customers whose demographics aged with the calendar. Tough to sell a Broughm d'Elegance or a Fleetwood to the new market, so they developed the CTS/CTX etc. line,

brought out - horrors of horrors an SUV (which is now their most profitable item) and

transformed the company into a survivor. Now, at least, young soccer moms will consider a Cadillac which before was always "Grandpa's car".

 

Leica recognizes this to at least some extent - why else bring out a cheapened line of

elmarit lenses which duplicate already available focal lengths? They opted out of the SLR market because they couldn't compete in the technology product cycle and they focused on their key strength - the classic M, whose user demographics parallel Cadillac's

in the 80's and 90's. Now they desparately need a "new market" and they're not going to

hit it big re-badging Panasonic products and raising the price. They need innovation -

harkening back to Barnack's vision of a high quality camera for a "new film format -35mm".

 

The 4/3 chip is a dead-end. the APS size is getting better (and cheaper) and could be

the foundation for a new system. Call it the X2 or the Z1 and open your imagination as to what Leica could accomplish as a "entry level" system. Based on the X1 seems logical,

but then, not necessary.

 

 

 

The Summarit lenses have not sold because people don't want a second tier Leica...that's the Zeiss ZM market.

 

The M9 and now the X1 prove one thing to Leica: There are buttloads of rich people in the world and they don't care what stuff costs, they just want it.

 

They put out the most expensive 35mm rangefinder camera ever and they literally can't make enough of them. They put out the most expensive compact digital camera ever and they can't make enough of them. Hell, they put out the most expensive 35mm optical viewfinder ever and even THOSE are rare as hens teeth.

 

I'd say they don't need our guidance in product planning, they seem to know their market quite well.

[Ned Hamilton CA]

"I'd say they don't need our guidance in product planning, they seem to know their market quite well."

 

Well said.

 

Plus in addition to the buttloads of rich people in the world who buy Leicas, there are smaller buttloads of professionals who will use the best equipment there is.

[Guest badbob]

Step back and don't limit your thoughts to the current X1. Leica right now is much like Cadillac in the 80's and 90's. Great reputation, high end product line and very loyal customers whose demographics aged with the calendar. Tough to sell a Broughm d'Elegance or a Fleetwood to the new market, so they developed the CTS/CTX etc. line,

brought out - horrors of horrors an SUV (which is now their most profitable item) and

transformed the company into a survivor. Now, at least, young soccer moms will consider a Cadillac which before was always "Grandpa's car".

 

Leica recognizes this to at least some extent - why else bring out a cheapened line of

elmarit lenses which duplicate already available focal lengths? They opted out of the SLR market because they couldn't compete in the technology product cycle and they focused on their key strength - the classic M, whose user demographics parallel Cadillac's

in the 80's and 90's. Now they desparately need a "new market" and they're not going to

hit it big re-badging Panasonic products and raising the price. They need innovation -

harkening back to Barnack's vision of a high quality camera for a "new film format -35mm".

 

The 4/3 chip is a dead-end. the APS size is getting better (and cheaper) and could be

the foundation for a new system. Call it the X2 or the Z1 and open your imagination as to what Leica could accomplish as a "entry level" system. Based on the X1 seems logical,

but then, not necessary.

 

I can certainly agree in principle. After all, Leica did what all those rich and feature-rich camera companies couldn't do - released not one but three cameras at the same time that were best in their class. I'm guessing now on this one: Leica wants to keep releasing "best of" models in niche categories where they have a proven record, but they don't want to have their ideas stolen when they get too close to a design that Nikon or Sony or Panasonic might want to make. And an interchangeable-lens X1 is crowding into micro 4/3 space - not because it's the same thing exactly, but because the micro 4/3 makers are crowding the large-sensor compact market more every day. They also don't want to over-commit with items they can't produce. I guess people are OK with several-month waits on the X1, M9, etc. But I'm sure Leica would not want that to get any worse.

[dickgrafixstop]

this thread goes to prove my father's old adage, "don't argue religion with a convert to

Catholicism." I'll add "don't suggest alternatives to anyone with a Leica".

Thanks guys

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest badbob]

this thread goes to prove my father's old adage, "don't argue religion with a convert to

Catholicism." I'll add "don't suggest alternatives to anyone with a Leica".

Thanks guys

 

Actually I like your suggestions, and not only that, I would buy exactly what you described. Well, I'd order it, because I don't know when it would ever arrive.

 

Seriously, my observations were more like questions, to see if anyone has better insight on the subject (that ought to be nearly everyone). I had a Panasonic G1, and hated it. Big and clunky, with a big and clunky shutter. I didn't go for a GF1 for two reasons mainly - the shutter, and the fact that there was no point to having interchangeable lenses on the same camera I'm carrying as a "compact".

 

BTW, a 35-70 or 45-90 zoom on a Leica camera the size of the X1 would be OK with me as long as it can collapse to the same size as the X1, and as long as the lens is as good as the X1's at all focal lengths.