My initial review of the Leica X1

[Ecaton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Better late than never:) In my "criticism" I only say that camera's ergonomics sucks! Definitely NOT a "tool"; rather an expensive toy. Leica is NOT a holly cow; they make some outstanding lenses but very often their cameras seem like being designed by Porsche egineers but NOT photogrpahers. One reads chants about how great X1 is and very seldom severe ergonomic flaws are brought up (for example - continuous stopping down of the aperture blades which makes exposure assestment virtually impossible). Of course the camera is capable of delivering stunning images (mostly thanks to the lens and sensor) but so are many other cameras for half the price. So wake up Leica lovers: criticise, complain, demand - for the money you have the right to get properly designed "tools" not hybrids consisting of half of jewels and half of rubbish.

 

The user interface and af speed rather than the ergonomics partly suck. Hoewever, in the same weight and size class, only a Sigma DP comes close to the X1's IQ. But only up to iso 400 and with some more serious quirks, warts and limitations otherwise. Would be interesting to see your list of the many cameras and lenses with better "ergonomics/UI" costing half and delivering image files as excellent as the X1.

[Guest drpix]

My list? Any small decent dslr (PentaX, Canon, Nikon) with a good prime can deliver similar quality (with RAW and some tweaking).

My favourite (for travels) is properly calibrated/adjusted Canon 1000D with Canon EF 24/2.8. It's not as discret as X1, unfortunately... But IQ is as good!

[Ecaton]

My list? Any small decent dslr (PentaX, Canon, Nikon) with a good prime can deliver similar quality (with RAW and some tweaking).

My favourite (for travels) is properly calibrated/adjusted Canon 1000D with Canon EF 24/2.8. It's not as discret as X1, unfortunately... But IQ is as good!

 

And at what aperture starts the Canon lens to be usable (sharp from center to edges?).

[Guest drpix]

Have a look at my pics from Mallorca; most of them taken both with 24/2.8 and 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS (Canon 1000D body). Apertures are usually 5.6, 8 or 11. I´ve taken hundreds similar pics with X1 and frankly do not see any considerable difference in IQ (see link from Venice).

Mallorca 2004-2011

Leica-camera.dk | LEICA X1 Andrzej i Venedig

[reginaldwatkins]

Have a look at my pics from Mallorca; most of them taken both with 24/2.8 and 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS (Canon 1000D body). Apertures are usually 5.6, 8 or 11. I´ve taken hundreds similar pics with X1 and frankly do not see any considerable difference in IQ (see link from Venice).

Mallorca 2004-2011

Leica-camera.dk | LEICA X1 Andrzej i Venedig

 

I must say you are an outstanding photographer, I've been known to say it's not always the camera but the finger pushing the shutter. With that being said, if the Mallorca 2004-2011 are images taken with your Canon, I can tell a difference compared to the link that shows your X1 images.

 

The X1 seems to have more clarity and detail. I could be wrong, it's just one man's opinion.

[HiltonJoy]

Have to agree with the previous post, the skill is in the operators finger.

However having looked at the two galleries, I have to say the X1 shots

have a certain quality that does distinguish them. They kind of pop out

at you. A certain "zing" that makes it seem that I'm there. Hard to quantify.

Showed my wife for an unbiased opinion, didn't mention camera's, but she

agreed. I try to stay objective, just say it the way I see it.

[Ecaton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have a look at my pics from Mallorca; most of them taken both with 24/2.8 and 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS (Canon 1000D body). Apertures are usually 5.6, 8 or 11. I´ve taken hundreds similar pics with X1 and frankly do not see any considerable difference in IQ (see link from Venice).

Mallorca 2004-2011

Leica-camera.dk | LEICA X1 Andrzej i Venedig

 

I like the photos. But my point was that the optical quality of the Canon lens is inferior to the one fixed to the X1, particularly at f2.8 and 4. And it certainly does not fit into cargo pant or jacket pockets. And for most, if not all of the photographs shown on your web page, the X1's AF is fast enough. In my size/weight/optical/file quality equation, the X1 still has no equal, no matter the price.

[phancj]

I think every individual places different emphasis on image quality/price/portability. Drpix main gripe appears to be one of leica's traditionally premium pricing, whilst many here puts X1's portability as a big plus which arguably justifies the pricing somewhat. Also, like you said the lack of real alternatives of this kind of cameras (big sensor tiny camera) puts the X1 in a position of lack of competition which in turn allows leica to put a heavier premium on it. I hope nikon/canon do something along this line soon.

 

Image quality is in the eyes of the beholder, but I have to say that to my eyes Drpix is an excellent photographer who probably can churn out nice photos from a lomo but the canon files he has shown are not in the league of those shot by him from the X1.

 

Also, I would also agree that his shots are of the type where the X1's slower AF is not of any consequence.

 

CJ

[bluebear]

I In my size/weight/optical/file quality equation, the X1 still has no equal, no matter the price.

 

I totally agree!

[Guest drpix]

I must say you are an outstanding photographer, I've been known to say it's not always the camera but the finger pushing the shutter. With that being said, if the Mallorca 2004-2011 are images taken with your Canon, I can tell a difference compared to the link that shows your X1 images.

 

The X1 seems to have more clarity and detail. I could be wrong, it's just one man's opinion.

 

Thank you and everybody else for nice words.

I DO like Leica; I only pointed out tha fact that there are certain faults in the design which should NOT happen at this price level (AF speed is NOT any problem for me). As to the clarity of X1 vs Canon the truth is that all X1 pics were tweaked with Topaz Detail - Canon were not, hence the difference.

What about this link - Egypt 2011 - Leica or Canon?

Cheers.

Egypten 2011

[napawino]

Great photos. But aren't you comparing an apple to an orange? The X1 is a small, grab and go, and the Canon is a system.

[Guest drpix]

Great photos. But aren't you comparing an apple to an orange? The X1 is a small, grab and go, and the Canon is a system.

 

NOT really. Same size of sensor, same size of prime, same highest f, almost same size of body - system or not, doesn't mater.

I'm talking value for money! Should almolst be the other way round (X1 price vs 1000D with 24/2.8.

X1 Jpegs are so-so; RAWs (DGN) are rather tricky to get right and require extensive editing to achieve nice results. Canons RAWs developed in DPP are much easier to tweak. X1 vievfinder is in my oppinion real pain, huge distortion and lack of AF point - for instance.

X1 is a very nice point-n-shoot delivering sometimes great results (after some tweaking) but ridicously expensive - main cause of my chant!

Andrzej

www.audiomix.se/photo

[napawino]

I find that no tweaking is necessary to get the results I like. I prefer natural looking photos, without over saturated colors. I prefer not to have to do anything but maybe a crop. The X1 does that for me, in a very small package.

 

The best camera is the one you take everywhere. The X1 is such a nice size, that it can go anywhere with no hassle. Being unobtrusive is a big bonus, as humans tend to shy away from "big black cameras".

 

Sure, it's expensive. I tend not to throw that into any comparison, since once you've spent the money, all is equal.

 

p.s. I've also found that girls think it's cute.

[Guest drpix]

I find that no tweaking is necessary to get the results I like. I prefer natural looking photos, without over saturated colors. I prefer not to have to do anything but maybe a crop. The X1 does that for me, in a very small package.

 

The best camera is the one you take everywhere. The X1 is such a nice size, that it can go anywhere with no hassle. Being unobtrusive is a big bonus, as humans tend to shy away from "big black cameras".

 

Sure, it's expensive. I tend not to throw that into any comparison, since once you've spent the money, all is equal.

 

p.s. I've also found that girls think it's cute.

 

You're totally right. The best camera is the one which gives you pics you like. Without tweaking! I thought that girls like pro looking black monsters though...? Apparently not. Show me a "pro-looking" pic that has NOT been tweaked (not on the web, here you can hardly see anything).

Same applies to recordings - my profession. What is natural looking/sounding? In whose eyes/ears?

They say that you get what you paid; very often true, alas not always with Leica...

[napawino]

Sounds to me like your only issue is the price.

 

I wonder what the resale value will be in 5 years on the two different cameras?

[Guest drpix]

Sounds to me like your only issue is the price.

 

I wonder what the resale value will be in 5 years on the two different cameras?

 

Not true. Read all I wrote. Price is one of the issues. And I'm not interested in cameras as investments; there are better options/ways, ha ha. But don't worry, be happy, without tweaking:))))

[napawino]

As I thought.

[tc4237]

i'm guessing the Egypt photos are canon...

[phancj]

NOT really. Same size of sensor, same size of prime, same highest f, almost same size of body - system or not, doesn't mater.

I'm talking value for money! Should almolst be the other way round (X1 price vs 1000D with 24/2.8.

X1 Jpegs are so-so; RAWs (DGN) are rather tricky to get right and require extensive editing to achieve nice results. Canons RAWs developed in DPP are much easier to tweak. X1 vievfinder is in my oppinion real pain, huge distortion and lack of AF point - for instance.

X1 is a very nice point-n-shoot delivering sometimes great results (after some tweaking) but ridicously expensive - main cause of my chant!

Andrzej

www.audiomix.se/photo

 

I find the X1 raw files extremely pliable and easy to tweak, and jpegs are more than useable compared to my nikon files (I do not shoot canon so cannot compare).

 

CJ

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[napawino]

I find the X1 raw files to be clean and sharp. I just convert to jpegs without much of any PP or none at all. I don't care much for oversaturated photos. I much prefer the look of what my eye actually sees. The X1 does that for me. Although the trend these days seems to be to make your photos "pop" with all this extra vividness. It just doesn't look natural. Grass is green. Not fluorescent green.