Leica X2 the X100 Killer

[iforum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Its not possible to show here due to the picture size limitation, but you get the idea:

We have photo people and we have camera people ---------- Alas you must be one of the latter sigh

[Advertisement]

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

[colonel]

We have photo people and we have camera people ---------- Alas you must be one of the latter sigh

 

wow

I wouldn't have bothered to reply if I realized you were such an ar$e

as a low poster on this forum you could do some reading and obey the general courtesy that differentiates this forum

[pop]

You guys are sounding a bit like the "wow razor sharp.... alas no content" type of photographers .

 

We have photo people and we have camera people ---------- Alas you must be one of the latter sigh

 

iforum: In this forum we have discussions ranging from the artistic to the purely technical aspects of photography. This happens to be one of the technical ones. That's to be expected as it has been placed into the subforum titled Leica Products.

 

If you feel uncomfortable reading discussions about the merits and demerits of photographic paraphernalia, please visit our other subforums.

 

Ridiculing people says more about you than about the people here, BTW.

[iforum]

Pop why don't you berate the colonel for

I wouldn't have bothered to reply if I realized you were such an ar$e

or is using arse quite acceptable?

 

 

This happens to be one of the technical ones.

No it isn't the title is Leica X2 the X100 Killer and the single most important basis for a better camera is not sharpness. Nor has the original poster emphasised it in his article

Maybe the colonel should have read what I wrote before he replied which was about content and image sharpness not the process of producing sharp images.

 

 

and yes I own both camera and have no intention of selling either because of some inane camera vs camera thinking

[CalArts 99]

The quality of the X2 has seriously made me think about selling my M9 and buying an S2

 

I sold my M9 and picked up the X2. I had a love-hate relationship with the M9. I'm staying with Leica M in film only (M4 and M6 bodies and current lenses.) I won't get the S2 however, as I also use large format sheet film which personally just works better for me (and a lot cheaper in respect to the hardware ) And for a full working digital system I need to stick with my Nikon D3s and prime lenses, and Nikon's versatile and excellent CLS flash system (when/if Nikon comes out with the D4x, then it will be the cheaper 'S2 substitute' for me.)

 

I've found the X2 to be a capable and serious tool in a very ergonomic and minimalist style form factor. It will grow in size with a grip and the Kiwi tube and filter/hood system and the EVF, but those things also make it a great little workhorse of a camera. The tube not only gives me filter options and no messing around with a fiddly lens cap, but in addition gives me the same ergonomics as with the Leica M system (i.e., I can cradle the lens tube in my left hand like I do with a lens on the M.)

 

The EVF is very good (I got a good deal on one and I think the Leica version will be in demand when the new digital M hits the shelves; otherwise the Olympus is obviously the same finder.) I also have the optical finder for 'quick use' with the display and preview turned off. I set a user profile and then just quickly frame with the OVF (using center spot focusing and metering, the very center of the OVF as your target works very well.)

 

The IQ of the DNGs is excellent and I think pretty much on par with the M9 (no doubt I'll be attacked for saying that ) I've made several large prints as my judging standard and they look great (RA-4 prints and also inkjets.) But equally important to me is the ergonomics of using this camera. It's a pleasure to use and becomes almost transparent once you set it up the way you like. It kind of reminds me of a Konica Hexar. And the shutter is as silent as the Hexar, too.

 

I did find the supplied strap to be pretty crappy and I'd recommend a soft strap (like the A&A cloth straps) or a wrist strap.

 

If the X2 fits one's sensibilities and form factor needs, then it's an excellent choice as a digital tool. But that fit of course will be very subjective.

[colonel]

I sold my M9 and picked up the X2. I had a love-hate relationship with the M9. I'm staying with Leica M in film only (M4 and M6 bodies and current lenses.) I won't get the S2 however, as I also use large format sheet film which personally just works better for me (and a lot cheaper in respect to the hardware ) And for a full working digital system I need to stick with my Nikon D3s and prime lenses, and Nikon's versatile and excellent CLS flash system (when/if Nikon comes out with the D4x, then it will be the cheaper 'S2 substitute' for me.)

 

I've found the X2 to be a capable and serious tool in a very ergonomic and minimalist style form factor. It will grow in size with a grip and the Kiwi tube and filter/hood system and the EVF, but those things also make it a great little workhorse of a camera. The tube not only gives me filter options and no messing around with a fiddly lens cap, but in addition gives me the same ergonomics as with the Leica M system (i.e., I can cradle the lens tube in my left hand like I do with a lens on the M.)

 

The EVF is very good (I got a good deal on one and I think the Leica version will be in demand when the new digital M hits the shelves; otherwise the Olympus is obviously the same finder.) I also have the optical finder for 'quick use' with the display and preview turned off. I set a user profile and then just quickly frame with the OVF (using center spot focusing and metering, the very center of the OVF as your target works very well.)

 

The IQ of the DNGs is excellent and I think pretty much on par with the M9 (no doubt I'll be attacked for saying that ) I've made several large prints as my judging standard and they look great (RA-4 prints and also inkjets.) But equally important to me is the ergonomics of using this camera. It's a pleasure to use and becomes almost transparent once you set it up the way you like. It kind of reminds me of a Konica Hexar. And the shutter is as silent as the Hexar, too.

 

I did find the supplied strap to be pretty crappy and I'd recommend a soft strap (like the A&A cloth straps) or a wrist strap.

 

If the X2 fits one's sensibilities and form factor needs, then it's an excellent choice as a digital tool. But that fit of course will be very subjective.

 

Interesting thanks

I don't have DSLRs at the moment, but I am sure the Nikons can be used for many situations (are you a professional photographer ?)

 

I wouldn't say the X2 has as good raw files as the M9. The M9 is much sharper, and combined with either the 35mm or 50mm f1.4 it produces picture quality I have not seen matched anywhere in a FF camera. I did have the D800E for a while and its sensor is definitely state of the art. However the Nikon lens quality, although the 35mm and 85mm f.1.4G are great above f2.8, never completely matches Leica.

 

The X2 however is plenty good enough for walk around and travel, and better when more subtlety is needed. The EVF is also very good. (I use the Olympus one).

I would rather take around the M9 for most forms of travel.

 

My S2 point was simply that this camera is a dream for me. Its obviously not subtle at all, and a 1.4kg based weight means I would not take it everywhere (although this compares favourably to your D3/D4).

I am a big fan of DOF play, and the bokeh from MF is special(although the sensor is actually only 1.25x FF, but almost double the surface area).

There are some ex-demo kits with lens of the old S2 (the new one has just come out) which are very favourable. Basically the same cost as a M9 and a couple of good f1.4 lenses.

If you have a link to any of your MF shots I would be interested to see them.

 

Of course if I get the S2 I will need to get my wife a new car as well .....

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When one prints, those differences tend to kind of get lost. The print process is an additional factor that affects the original file. I think the majority of people are judging by what they see on a monitor and also at 100% 'pixel peeping.' Printing (either analog RA from a Lambda or Océ or inkjet from an Epson or HP) is what I personally base things on since I print and don't normally post images on the internet; except sometimes as an example thumbnail if a publisher needs it for publicity, etc.. In my case, the final product is the physical print. I tend to identify photography as a physical object; the image and the paper it's on is the actual product.

 

File size (for large prints) is important and that's where high MP count sensors matter and also for the dynamic range. Printing from the M9 file alongside with the X2 file and the visual differences are just not there; no viewer will tell you they see any difference. Viewers are responding to the content of the image and subject matter. Unless it's so radically off technically to where it's an offense to the mind's eye, they aren't going to be affected. Think of all the great images in history that aren't high resolution and very sharp, etc.. Granted, certain subject matter does benefit from fine detail (e.g., landscapes), but then there's also that old "print size and viewing distance" adage to contend with. And monitor viewing has its own parameters.

 

The S2 (and large MP count cameras) allow for large format prints and also with a wide dynamic range (depending on the quality of the sensor.) That's also why I use sheet film (not MF but 4x5 inch sheets.) The large file from a drum scan and the dynamic range found with film does make a difference in very large (36" plus) prints. But that's not really very noticeable as a small file viewed on a computer monitor.

 

Yes, I used to do commercial work (and as a still photographer on film production sets) and so all sorts of tools were necessary to own or rent. But now I only exhibit (and teach at a university art department.) But I still find a versatile camera 'system' (like the Nikon F and D series) comes in very handy for certain projects (I do my work as projects which can be either over a few months or over several years.) I like the S2 system but I personally can't afford it. I have rented MF digital systems (e.g., Phase One and Hasselblad) but can't justify owning them personally for my current needs. That's where a large format view camera comes in handy for me: quality lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider but at a fraction of the cost (used.) Granted it's not as easy as using a digital S2 or equivalent, but I also like the whole process, and focusing/framing with the ground glass and then seeing the final developed transparency as a large 4x5 inch positive. The colors and details are so scrumptious to look at.

 

Anyway, that's just my take on it. It works for me (and probably only for me )

[rob_w]

I found this thread very interesting to read having just tried an X100 and returned it.

 

After a period of intensive use in a variety of 'real world' situations: daytime and evening, indoors and out, I was quite disappointed in the IQ of the resulting files. Surprised and dismayed, in fact, as many reviewers here and elsewhere have rated the X100 highly specifically because of its good IQ. For me the images were generally mediocre -- flat, dull, lacking tonality and colour range, modest resolution, etc. With PP some of them would come up quite well, but many others just lacked the underlying quality to respond, and the RAW files were not very robust. [This is not to gainsay the many wonderful qualities of the X100 -- its OVF/EVF combo, leaf shutter quietness, manual controls, quality construction etc.]

 

So now I am wondering if the X2 produces better IQ files and should I explore it as an alternative, or should I stick with my M9 and a favourite lens and not look for a pocketable camera?

[colonel]

I found this thread very interesting to read having just tried an X100 and returned it.

 

After a period of intensive use in a variety of 'real world' situations: daytime and evening, indoors and out, I was quite disappointed in the IQ of the resulting files. Surprised and dismayed, in fact, as many reviewers here and elsewhere have rated the X100 highly specifically because of its good IQ. For me the images were generally mediocre -- flat, dull, lacking tonality and colour range, modest resolution, etc. With PP some of them would come up quite well, but many others just lacked the underlying quality to respond, and the RAW files were not very robust. [This is not to gainsay the many wonderful qualities of the X100 -- its OVF/EVF combo, leaf shutter quietness, manual controls, quality construction etc.]

 

So now I am wondering if the X2 produces better IQ files and should I explore it as an alternative, or should I stick with my M9 and a favourite lens and not look for a pocketable camera?

 

Do you need a pocketable camera ?

And if so for what ?

[jaapv]

The M9 is a pocketable camera. It just depends on the size of your pocket...

[fursan]

The M9 is a pocketable camera. It just depends on the size of your pocket...

 

Or, remove the lens.

[mongrelnomad]

The M9 is a pocketable camera. It just depends on the size of your pocket...

 

Nice question, and the reason I've been searching for a large-sensor, small-size camera in the digital age for a long time. An example: I'm going skiing in a few weeks and will spend most days on the slopes, meeting with my wife and tiny daughter for lunch and in the late afternoons. I want a camera with a tiny volume but with the control and quality of my M9 for the time I spend with them.

 

In the film age, this was easy. Minolta, Contax and Ricoh outdid themselves with their 35mm compacts. The fact that I am still using these cameras when film is an anachronism speaks volumes to their quality and engineering. In the digital age, finding their replacement is not so easy.

 

I had an X100 - the second coming as some would claim - and found the RAW files, the handling, the focus, and the great-in-principle hybrid viewfinder to be incredibly frustrating. I I sold it and kept using my Minolta TC-1 for the times I need a small-scale camera with me.

 

But, having had a great offer from Paul Smith UK for one of the LE X2s (yes, I like the colours!) I just pulled the trigger. I'm not expecting much - you may find it on eBay soon - but if the X2 can give me M8 quality photos with Ricoh GR-Dx levels of control, I'll be happy. Lord knows I've tried enough cameras to get there...