erwin puts' x1 comments

[patrick parker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

X1

[Advertisement]

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

[NZDavid]

Minimalist but appropriate. Thanks for the link.

[jsrockit]

Same old, same mold.

[Dan States]

His conclusion seems to be that it makes images on par with the M9 but has too many features.....

 

I never thought I'd hear someone say the X1 has too many features:confused:

[h00ligan]

Iwas surprised that iso800 is considered the practical limit..I guess if you want to print BIG.

[jsrockit]

h00ligan, I would think that is based on what you are used to. If you are used to fast film with a lot grain, then 1600 and 3200 are fine.

[Guest Chris M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Same old, same mold.

 

What exactly does that mean? I think Erwin has done a remarkably (controlled test) which answers some very important questions, He's put the nail in the coffin. If you have $11,000.00 for a M9 and a 35mm cron then have at it, I would if I could see or spend only $1,995.00 X1 and shoot like the olden days 35mm only, and have it pretty much just the same.

 

Ps... I cence some biased??

 

chris m.

[jsrockit]

I didn't think there was anything new added in his review... except that he complained about added consumer gimmicks and things that make it less simple. I don't agree with him there. The X1 is a simple camera.

 

and biased about what? I use and love the X1 and could buy the M9 if I wanted to.

[Guest Chris M]

No problem, just wanted your personal clarification:)

 

chris m

[h00ligan]

h00ligan' date=' I would think that is based on what you are used to. If you are used to fast film with a lot grain, then 1600 and 3200 are fine.[/quote']

 

I see, I guess by those standards he would find 400 unusable on a mft!

[grober]

I'm disappointed that Erwin didn't touch on the camera's slowness: slow to turn on, slow to focus, etc.

 

-g

[wda]

I thought it was a succinct, balanced, insightful and fair report. Thank you for posting the link, Patrick Palmer.

[NZDavid]

I think the most significant finding in Putts' report is that IQ with the X1 is on a par with the M9. That's pretty impressive, all by itself!

 

Partly this is thanks to a very good new optic in the X1, but it's also because of the sensor. For example, M9 is subject to moire effect; X1 isn't.

 

The other foibles and drawbacks of the X1 are already well known: slow AF, loose dials, lack of optical finder, lenshood, build quality not up to M standards, etc. Obviously the X1 and M9 are very different tools.

 

My conclusion is that if you are only concerned with IQ and the only lens you need is a 35, and if you can live with slow AF, then the X1 makes sense. Otherwise, go for the M9 -- but as Putts has shown, that's not perfect either and costs a darned sight more.

[Guest badbob]

h00ligan, I would think that is based on what you are used to. If you are used to fast film with a lot grain, then 1600 and 3200 are fine.

 

ISO is just a factor, and some shots at ISO 1600 or 3200 will look much more (or less) noisy than others, depending on the lighting, contrast, etc.

[jaapv]

I think the most significant finding in Putts' report is that IQ with the X1 is on a par with the M9. That's pretty impressive, all by itself!

 

Actually that conclusion of his is false, as he compares to an M9 file cropped down to APS-C. So the performance is slightly below an M8. Which is pretty impressive for the type of camera anyway, so I am puzzled why he pulled this little trick.

[Dan States]

Actually that conclusion of his is false, as he compares to an M9 file cropped down to APS-C. So the performance is slightly below an M8. Which is pretty impressive for the type of camera anyway, so I am puzzled why he pulled this little trick.

 

I WISH my M8 came close to my X1....I might start using it again. It's not even close especially in the most important aspects of digital image quality: File flexibility, shadow noise and highlight control. My X1 looks better at 3200 than my M8 at 1250....by a lot.

[h00ligan]

Wow Dan, that's quite a statement! Certainly makes me feel better about splashing out on the x1. Do you find the m8 sharper with comparable yet more expensive lenses? What I'll be your plan for the m8 then?

[Ro1and]

Actually that conclusion of his is false, as he compares to an M9 file cropped down to APS-C. So the performance is slightly below an M8. Which is pretty impressive for the type of camera anyway, so I am puzzled why he pulled this little trick.

 

Jaap- I read this forum most days and rarely post because I think peoples intensions are often misunderstood when they do post. As an novice I often read your posts as it is clear to me you take excellent pictures and have a much better understanding of the technical aspect than I do. My goal is to learn. When I read you disagreeing with others that I respect, like Puts, it confuses me. Call me stupid. Have you ever considered starting a blog etc to put your thoughts in a cohesive manner versus the sound bites from individual postings on numerous subjects? I, and I believe many others, would benefit from your knowledge.

 

Roland

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Dan States]

Wow Dan, that's quite a statement! Certainly makes me feel better about splashing out on the x1. Do you find the m8 sharper with comparable yet more expensive lenses? What I'll be your plan for the m8 then?

 

Don't know if I could say "sharper"...there is just a touch of CA in the X1 that is not there in my Zeiss and Leica 28mm lenses, but that is corrected in LR. The M8 has no AA filter so the files are really crisp without any extra sauce, but in total I can't see any advantage in total resolution.

 

Otherwise I can print to the same sizes or better with the X1 and the files are rich in shadow detail and color depth even at 1600 asa. 3200 looks very good but has a bit of grit to the rendition.

 

This is my second M8 and I didn't pay too much so I won't sell it...but its harder and harder to justify all the equipment I've kicked to the curb in the past few months since getting the X1.

 

Color rendition on the X1 is more "realistic". I can always pick out the M8 files on site...not that the color is bad, but it has a very distinct signature. The X1 is much more neutral in this respect. A matter of taste. I will say that the X1 has been totally free of buggy softwear, lockups, battery funkyness and random strangeness that the M8 is so famous for. Looks like Leica is getting their heads around this part of digicams.

[h00ligan]

Great to hear Dan. Hopefully I will be void of skin peeling issues and able to wrap my head around the cam.I followed through with my plan, buying the x1 as I seem to prefer the focal range and allowing an old dslr with new (decent not great) lens to pick up the 10% slack of action photos, zoom, etc. I wonder if the x1 can cover a volunteer gig I have coming up, I'll have to check out how it does in low light. I'm sure people would be very concerned showing up with a 'pocket cam' for the posed award shots, I'll probably take both. Its nice to see you have such a high regard for the x1, as there has been so much negativity toward it + your photos are very nice. Excited to get my hands on it tomorrow and get that battery charged and cycled a few times. Appreciate your time further educating, have a good night.