magnolio Posted February 5, 2011 Share #41  Posted February 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with Ecaton on forveon colors, it is very good. Operationally I find the DP2s quirky, maybe I didnt get used to it (my brother's). The big drawback is it is actually a very low MP camera, files are very small so no leeway for cropping. As for the X1, I think there may be some over-expectation probably due to the Leica site which may have led some to getting ideas in the head that it is lightning fast. It is not fast for sure, but definitely usable.  Really depends on what you plan to use the camera for. if the fixed 35mm does not work for your kind of intended use, DO NOT buy the X1. If the focal length works, I feel there isnt another camera out there that is as small and good IQ like it. Thanks forwriting this, phancj. I'm really on the fence for the X1. I think, reviewing my pictures that it is the right camera for me.IQ is the main issue, even before speed imho. Let's cross our fingers.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 Hi magnolio, Take a look here Ultimate pocket camera: X1 vs Nex vs S95 vs DP2S vs Oly vs Panny vs Fuji. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted February 6, 2011 Share #42  Posted February 6, 2011 I have no idea how one can sensibly compare an X1 to a Canon S95. One is over 3x the price of the other.  I bought an S95 yesterday as a gift and it seems like quite a good buy for £300 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 6, 2011 Share #43  Posted February 6, 2011 Penty of people ask 'dlux5 or x1’  Just because leica rebranded and includes better software doesn't make that question any more valid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted February 6, 2011 Share #44 Â Posted February 6, 2011 I think it is because they are both compacts and placed together on the Leica site? Â The dlux5 and X1 that is. Â Cj Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 6, 2011 Share #45 Â Posted February 6, 2011 Right, but surely if one is considering a dl5 then it is perfectly reasonable to consider an s95...regardless of price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jafleming3 Posted February 6, 2011 Share #46 Â Posted February 6, 2011 The range of comparisons is too wide. S95 and the DLux5 are comparable; so are the X1 and DP2; so are the Nex and the Oly EP2, et al; but not all together. The S95 is a small sensor, full featured P&S. The four thirds have interchangeable lenses and larger sensors. The X1 and DP2 have sensors akin to a DSLR in size, but fixed lens only. Â The IQ of the four-thirds do not compare, in my view, with the X1 - neither the sensor nor the lenses are up to X1 quality. The simplicity of the X1 is also a huge plus for me - pouring through manuals or layers and sublayers of menu choices is no fun. Â The X1 has limitations - no interchangeable lens (4/3), no zoom lens (S95), very expensive, slow focus, no macro capabilities (other than a work-around) - but so do all of the other cameras. But it takes astonishing photos and it's very light. If you need telephoto (wildlife / birding), none of these cameras really work - I'd use my Nikon D700 w/ long zoom (but it literally weighs a ton!) Â Personally, I feel that Leicas are grossly overpriced - this is by far their biggest shortcoming as a product. The X1 should be priced at around $1200 to $1500, maximum. At $2000, plus $350 for an OVF, plus grip, etc., etc., one can easily approach $3K, which is ridiculous. And the M9 + 3 lenses will cost $20K+ The value simply isn't there in the latter case, IMHO. If Leica persists with its pricing policy, it will become a camera largely for rich, collector types, instead of what it used to be - the camera of choice of professionals. There is a definite niche for RF cameras, small quality cameras with quality sensors and lenses, but not at Leica prices. Â As someone mentioned earlier in this thread (and I agree with them): Image quality, excellent sensor, excellent lens, small / lightweight are my key factors. I can reluctantly justify $2K, not $20K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 6, 2011 Share #47 Â Posted February 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) If Leica persists with its pricing policy, it will become a camera largely for rich, collector types, instead of what it used to be - the camera of choice of professionals. There is a definite niche for RF cameras, small quality cameras with quality sensors and lenses, but not at Leica prices. Â Leica have had their best quarter in living memory, sell every M9 they can make, and cannot keep up with demand for their lenses. Leicas have always, ever since the 1920s, been expensive. Â I'd say that they have their pricing policy about right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 7, 2011 Share #48 Â Posted February 7, 2011 Everything but the dl5 is already for the rich.....or the middle class willing to eat ramen. Certainly they are not 'the people's camera' anymore than BMW is 'the people's car'......or even vw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbonedeedo Posted February 7, 2011 Share #49 Â Posted February 7, 2011 Everything but the dl5 is already for the rich.....or the middle class willing to eat ramen. Certainly they are not 'the people's camera' anymore than BMW is 'the people's car'......or even vw. Â Spot on Edward. The tough part is you've got people swearing the sky is falling because they want one and can't afford one, or are unwilling to accept the price point. Then you've got those who bought and still aren't happy with the price point. Youve got those who bought and constantly try to justify the spend to others. Â I knew the short comings when i bought (my first Leica is the X1 by the way). i just don't worry about what anyone thinks of it. I bought for the IQ. The fact that it make me slow down and think is a good thing. As a rule, I shoot it manually. Something I did not have the patience to do with my m4/3. I like that the X1 is a camera, and not a gadget with menus. Sure, zone focus is a chore, so I rely on auto focus, but maybe they'll address the distance scales. If not, that's ok too. Â Live and let photograph, yeah? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted February 7, 2011 Share #50 Â Posted February 7, 2011 I agree with you 100%. The first few moments with my X1 was full of disappointment having been used to DSLRs for a while. The greatest revelation came shortly when I reviewed the images on my comp. WHat was s*&t on the X1 LCD was breathtaking on the comp. That feeling I still get sometimes now after a year of using it. The stunning IQ in the dimunitive package pkus simple controls is simply amazing so for me I can overlook its shortcomings without much complaint. Â CJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jafleming3 Posted February 7, 2011 Share #51 Â Posted February 7, 2011 My comment about Leica's too high price point has nothing to do with my ego, or anyone else's. I'm not trying to justify anything to anyone (I owned an M7 and a complement of M lenses before, and I do own a BMW today). It is irrelevant if Lecia just had it's most profitable year (coming off near-bankruptcy). If their price point was appropriate, they would sell MORE cameras and lenses, and would be more competitive! Relying largely on the vagaries of conspicuous consumption gets it only so far. Remember Leica's brilliant history and what got it to its lofty position of producing small, well made, reliable cameras with excellent lenses, - the choice of most photojournalists and professional photographers. Expensive, yes; but not outrageously so. Â And I do love my X1, for all the reasons cited before. Â And, my main point, you can't compare the X1 with most of the cameras mentioned in the title line - it's like comparing a hammer and a drill. They're both tools, but have different purposes, different strengths and weaknesses. Â cheers, Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 7, 2011 Share #52 Â Posted February 7, 2011 We have had this discussion many times before here, but they cannot physically make any more cameras (or lenses) and they most certainly don't want (or, arguably, need) to make the ones that they do make cheaper. Â I think that you will find that an M9 body isn't that much different in price from a Pro level Nikon or Canon and their pro lenses are also very expensive and very hard to find in the market. A Nikon D3X is more expensive than an M9, for example. Â Leica obviously don't pander to the lower end of the market, in the same way that lots of other prestige brands don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted February 7, 2011 Share #53 Â Posted February 7, 2011 I agree Andy. Â The X1 is actually good value IMO (and not to justify my purchase) coz the sensor is the same (from consistent info) as my D300 and it has a great lens on it and is the same price as the D300 when I bought it three years ago. IQ, image processing better, operationally slower, has better build and materials I do not find it expensive. Maybe many think it small so it shouldnt be priced as such, but really if you look at its innards and the exterior materials my D300 looks to my eyes more overpriced. Â The M9 is also a steal when you look at its sensor and lack of AA filter which gives sharper images from the start and materials and construction is way better than D3x. What it doesnt have is a good LCD and AF. Â Like you said the good nikkors are hard to find and expensive. Past few months I bought the AFS 85mm f/1.4g followed by the 35mm f/1.4g. Both are out of stock and only reason why I got them quick is coz I know some shops well and they put me on priority. EVen then I had to order in advance. They are still out far as I know here. Expensive? Yes. Worth their money? Sure. Â I think many P&S cameras are overpriced, teeny weeny sensors and with a touch screen (which you can find on any cheap cellphones) plus some gizmos they become pretty expensive for that IQ and build. Â CJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbonedeedo Posted February 7, 2011 Share #54 Â Posted February 7, 2011 Just so I'm not misunderstood, I don't believe that the majority of X1 users bought for ego, or are trying to justify anything. There are, however, a vocal few that seem to have a, shall we say, 'deep' resentment towards the X1/pricing at Leica in general. I used this sight, Steve Huff's sight, Thorsten Overgaard, etc... when researching and I've read plenty of data from folks who seem to be on a campaign over Leica's pricing. Â And they do have a small penetration into the lower end market, albeit by using Leica branded glass on Pany P&S cameras. Granted it's not a camera, but it IS the Leica name/brand they're allowing to be used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 7, 2011 Share #55 Â Posted February 7, 2011 The nikon d3x has a MUCH higher level of technology in it. and is peanuts more. It's certainly a lot more versatile. Therefore it meets a segment of pros that leica just doesn't care about. Leica's bread and butter are rich amateurs... that much is pretty clear. That doesn't diminish the quality of their optics in any way. Their answer for pros is the s2 though no? Â Leica can price how they want, if someone wants a digital RF, there is one choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted February 7, 2011 Share #56  Posted February 7, 2011 I buy a camera based on 3 parameters: sensor, lens, image processing engine. The X1 fares very well on the 3 counts.Plus superb portability. CJ I would like to add build quality to your list. Computer generated MTF-curves only give the intention. Build quality is a price driving factor. Tolerances, mechanics, materials, quality assurance, etc.  About the sensor I have question. The bayes sensor has blocks of 4 elements, so the number of 10 Mp should be divided by 4. If the camera blows this figure up to 10 Mp, doesn´t that bring more information. The foveon sensor has in reality 10 Mp. Of course the comparison is not so simple, foveon looses during the calculation of the RGB dimension values. The blue values are mixed up with green and red, also the green is not clear. Another disadvantage seems to be the number of reflecting surfaces. But the foveon sensor could be better than the bayes one in IQ. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest badbob Posted February 8, 2011 Share #57 Â Posted February 8, 2011 If Leica were overpricing the X1, then let's say they could sell it for $1350 U.S. and still make a profit. So with their small, semi-automated factory making a few at a time, compared to, say, Nikon, Canon or a dozen others who are highly automated, the price would drop in half or less if one of the big companies made the X1. Let's say $675 U.S. by Fuji, Canon, or Nikon. But Fuji couldn't do it for $675, as we see by the X100 pricing. And the other companies don't want to touch it, because of: Â 1) Too small a demand to be commercially viable for the big mfr. 2) Too difficult to match Leica's image quality at the $675 price point with a small-quantity item. 3) Too difficult to explain to the company board - why to make such a camera? Â So Leica bears the total cost of research and development - not just for the product, but for the marketing and other functions. And in spite of how easy it would be to copy what they did, and make improvements, and sell for half or less $, nobody is doing it except Fuji, whose camera is still not as compact as Leica's. Â But if Fuji's X100 is good enough, and people don't mind the larger size, it could make Leica rethink their design for the X2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jafleming3 Posted February 8, 2011 Share #58  Posted February 8, 2011 Interesting points, CJ and Andy Barton - got me rethinking my view about the cost of M9 and lenses!  john  PS I agree fully with your points about the quality of the X1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted February 8, 2011 Share #59  Posted February 8, 2011 I would like to add build quality to your list. Computer generated MTF-curves only give the intention. Build quality is a price driving factor. Tolerances, mechanics, materials, quality assurance, etc. About the sensor I have question. The bayes sensor has blocks of 4 elements, so the number of 10 Mp should be divided by 4. If the camera blows this figure up to 10 Mp, doesn´t that bring more information. The foveon sensor has in reality 10 Mp. Of course the comparison is not so simple, foveon looses during the calculation of the RGB dimension values. The blue values are mixed up with green and red, also the green is not clear. Another disadvantage seems to be the number of reflecting surfaces. But the foveon sensor could be better than the bayes one in IQ. Jan  I believe it is the other way round, judging from the size of the files. Sigma overstates the MP and count the RGB layers separately, so i believe they overstate the actual file size 3 times. I see it from files from the DP2s, really small compared to the X1. Colors are nice but to my eyes the X1 produce better colors. The X1 DNGs have way more latitude for PP too compared to the sigma.  CJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 8, 2011 Share #60 Â Posted February 8, 2011 Fuji posted x100 samples tonight.. let's read some thoughts on those. Â I'm tall and wear cargo pants.. it's pocketable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.