Mini M? [MERGED] AKA X-Vario

[dwbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi There

Well, I can subscribe to that . . . . it just depends on what you want, and I rather agree that if you're gonna carry something that big it may as well be a bit bigger and be an M.

 

But the X100s doesn't have a zoom . . . and the difference between Image Quality between the G15 and the XV is really huge.

 

As for the slow lens - yes, it is slow - but I imagine that you can shoot in lower light than you can with your Canon, and that it has better DOF separation. (of course, you could buy 5 G15's for the price - but that's a different matter!)

 

Thanks Jono, as always. I'm certainly not trying to argue mine is better then yours. We're both above that. The G15 limitations are print size, nothing else as far as I'm concerned. I frame with that in mind so to speak. Incidentally it is f/2.0 at 35mm with excellent IS worth at least 2 stops.

 

Yes the IQ is a difference, but not as large as not taking the camera in the first place, ie none! and that's where my 'compact' problem comes in. Basically, it doesn't solve a problem I have. It doesn't fit a gap. When I shot it in the shop it was asking at 35mm for 1/30 at f/4.5 at ISO3200! My two other smaller 'compact' solutions were both capable of f/2 in that situation, with good IS and I trust the ISO more with Fuji and canon. I would argue that I could certainly print larger in that situation with the XV, yes, if I got the shot at all, but for the XV size I'd rather take an M240 and have print size AND the shot.

 

This is of course my opinion, and only that.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Thanks Jono, as always. I'm certainly not trying to argue mine is better then yours. We're both above that. The G15 limitations are print size, nothing else as far as I'm concerned. I frame with that in mind so to speak. Incidentally it is f/2.0 at 35mm with excellent IS worth at least 2 stops.

 

Yes the IQ is a difference, but not as large as not taking the camera in the first place, ie none! and that's where my 'compact' problem comes in. Basically, it doesn't solve a problem I have. It doesn't fit a gap. When I shot it in the shop it was asking at 35mm for 1/30 at f/4.5 at ISO3200! My two other smaller 'compact' solutions were both capable of f/2 in that situation, with good IS and I trust the ISO more with Fuji and canon. I would argue that I could certainly print larger in that situation with the XV, yes, if I got the shot at all, but for the XV size I'd rather take an M240 and have print size AND the shot.

 

This is of course my opinion, and only that.

 

We need to see some XV image files made at ISO 3200 - and don't be surprised if they are good. Everyone seems to be hypothesising and not 'doing' - we need some accessible in depth reviews - especially from unbiased users and buyers.

 

dunk

[dwbell]

We need to see some XV image files made at ISO 3200 - and don't be surprised if they are good. Everyone seems to be hypothesising and not 'doing' - we need some accessible in depth reviews - especially from unbiased users and buyers.

 

dunk

 

They'll come, and serve to better inform I agree. I don't need them though, with respect. It's too big to be small, and not so much smaller than the M that for the compromise on lens speed it's worth it.

 

It's very well made, very solid, lovely feeling dials etc. but I expect nothing less from actual Leica's, as opposed to panaleica's.

[Ruhayat]

Wow measuring the length of lenses ..............as young lads we would have measured to make things longer:D

 

Well, why not? When some people say they could shoot faster cos theirs are longer, I just wanted to see what the penalty might be in terms of weight and comfort in carrying that longer and faster thing in their pockets (or backpacks).

[Peter H]

I feel almost exactly the same way about the X Vario as I do about the WATEs and MATEs:- big and slow and not for me, but very high quality and very convenient in enough situations to make them attractive to many other people.

 

Leica have often made slow lenses that make beautiful photos. This is no doubt another.

[lct]

...The G15 limitations are print size, nothing else as far as I'm concerned. I frame with that in mind so to speak. Incidentally it is f/2.0 at 35mm with excellent IS worth at least 2 stops...

Your G15 is a small sensor camera. Its sensor size is only 1/1.7" (7.44 x 5.58 mm). If you want to compare it to an APS-C camera DoF wise, your f/2 lens is equivalent to f/5.6 more or less for the same field of view. Now if you prefer wide DoF there is no point at using an APS-C camera obviously. But you know this already don't you.

[iforum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

guess you missed the pocket billiards aspect

[lct]

guess you missed the pocket billiards aspect

I don't understand what you mean sorry.

[dwbell]

I don't understand what you mean sorry.

 

He means it's too big.

 

Yes, I know all that you've said. My point was that for me, it's not small enough to be a 'compact' and it's so large that with that slow lens I'd take the M9/240.

 

The rest, DoF, sensor size etc is secondary.

[sfage]

I'd say so. Not much cropping room, but I'd say the quality of the XV files was right up there with the 5D2. Of course, the camera isn't as versatile. But then

 

Thanks Jono. I did lay out some criteria quite clearly in my original post. I am certain the files from the new machine are very good. To be completely honest, for my style of shooting, this XV would be a good machine. I mainly shoot static subjects. It would also allow me to shoot macro, which I do a lot of.

 

I can't argue that the XV isn't a nice looking machine... because it is. I actually quite like the style and ergonomics of it. But, no VF and aps-c is kind of a non-starter (for me).

 

As I said in my original post, I would like to buy something from them because I believe in the company and I would like to support them. Would I pay double (and maybe a touch more) for a machine that is FF, has a VF and an interchangeable lens set up that I can use my M and R glass upon? Absolutely. In a heart beat. But when we get in to triple the price for what is -basically- a lateral move? No.

 

They have shown that they can deliver upon the criteria in the above paragraph. Unfortunately, it's at triple the price, and then some. I will say this again: for a lateral move, it's not worth it.

[wlaidlaw]

He means it's too big.

 

Yes, I know all that you've said. My point was that for me, it's not small enough to be a 'compact' and it's so large that with that slow lens I'd take the M9/240.

 

The rest, DoF, sensor size etc is secondary.

 

......and much too expensive to be regarded as a disposable camera, like my second hand Olympus EP-2, where I bought it for the VF-2 finder. The whole camera, finder and kit lens was less than the price of a "Leica" EVF-2, so in effect the camera was a freebie for me. Therefore if it gets destroyed, stolen, damaged etc, it really does not matter in the wider scheme of things. I would not be happy to have an XV suffer the same.

 

I am sure there is a niche for whom this is the ideal camera, but I personally believe it will prove to be a small niche, maybe smaller than Leica are hoping for. As a Leica buyer and user for over 50 years, I am as keen as anyone for Leica to continue to be a commercial success and for that reason, I feel there are broader horizons they could have targeted with a new camera.

 

The current success story in the mid priced camera market is the compact system camera, with interchangeable lenses. So if that is what folks want, why not give it to them? A deluxe, top-performing product priced above the Sony/Pana/Oly/Samsung/Nikon/Pentax brigade but below the absurdly priced Hasselblad Lunar, would I think, be a good seller.

 

Wilson

[sfage]

Agreed, Bill.

 

With the addition of the VF, we're talking... what... $3,200?

[wlaidlaw]

Agreed, Bill.

 

With the addition of the VF, we're talking... what... $3,200?

 

Who's Bill?

 

Wilson

[stunsworth]

No my point is the the whole thing is a compromise...

 

All cameras are a compromise, otherwise when film was king we'd all have been shooting 10"x8".

[dkCambridgeshire]

......and much too expensive to be regarded as a disposable camera, like my second hand Olympus EP-2, where I bought it for the VF-2 finder. The whole camera, finder and kit lens was less than the price of a "Leica" EVF-2, so in effect the camera was a freebie for me. Therefore if it gets destroyed, stolen, damaged etc, it really does not matter in the wider scheme of things. I would not be happy to have an XV suffer the same.

 

I am sure there is a niche for whom this is the ideal camera, but I personally believe it will prove to be a small niche, maybe smaller than Leica are hoping for. As a Leica buyer and user for over 50 years, I am as keen as anyone for Leica to continue to be a commercial success and for that reason, I feel there are broader horizons they could have targeted with a new camera.

 

The current success story in the mid priced camera market is the compact system camera, with interchangeable lenses. So if that is what folks want, why not give it to them? A deluxe, top-performing product priced above the Sony/Pana/Oly/Samsung/Nikon/Pentax brigade but below the absurdly priced Hasselblad Lunar, would I think, be a good seller.

 

Wilson

 

Not much point in offering eg a Leica APS EVIL camera unless a new range of Leica APS lenses was offered too because very few potential new Leica users would wish to buy the existing expensive M lenses. Leica are highly unlikely to consider making a new range of APS camera prime and zoom lenses because they cannot produce enough M lenses and likely demand for a new Leica APS lens range would not justify the investment required to design and produce them.

 

However, if Leica was to produce a FF EVIL camera it would probably satisfy the needs of both existing Leica users and potential Leica users - but maybe only at the expense of lessening demand for the M240 and MM. When Leica have sold enough M240 bodies to recoup their R&D and production set up costs for the M240 then maybe then they can then consider a FF EVIL 'M' camera.

 

Whatever Leica decide to do will never fully satisfy the relatively few (compared to e.g. the buyers of the millions of Far East APS ILC cameras) Leica customers who always want more than Leica can justifiably offer and manufacture.

 

Leica joined the 4/3 partnership but only co-produced/designed four 4/3 lenses and one Leica tweaked (as distinct from OEM) 4/3 camera - compared to Olympus' multitude of 4/3 cameras with three distinct qualities of 4/3 lenses. Leica chose not to produce or badge engineer a M4/3 camera (after burning their fingers with 4/3) because they probably did not have the resources in the broadest sense to do so - and also because M4/3 camera designs have advanced far quicker than anyone could have imagined in the overcrowded market place dominated by Olympus and Panasonic.

 

Whatever Leica might be able to produce or offer in the APS EVIL market would soon be left behind by other manufacturers' offerings - in the same way that Leica's Digilux 3 4/3 offering was left behind by Olympus' smaller, cheaper but not necessarily better 4/3 camera designs.

 

Leica will probably always be a niche market manufacturer; a Leica FF EVIL camera would be a niche product - but at the moment it would probably compromise both production and demand for the M240. However, if Leica have managed to churn out hundreds maybe thousands of X Vario cameras in anticipation of relatively high demand for same by utilising the increased production facilities in Portugal then maybe they might be able to consider a FF EVIL camera too - but only if 'the numbers' add up properly.

 

The planned bottom line has to be achievable - regardless of what the customer 'really really wants'

 

dunk

[AlanG]

I've seen the Olympus PM-1 as low as $250 new. I think it is being closed out. It has in body IS and a slow but collapsible zoom and is only 12 MP. Get a 20mm f1.7 for it and still have a very compact two lens system. Additionally you can mount M lenses and many others on it (yes 2X FOV) It can use the same EVF as your M.

 

I've never used one but it seems like a useful compact camera for the very low price and is available in various colors including purple. So even this very low end model is ahead of the X-Vario in many ways. How much better your typical shots would have to be from the X-Vario to justify spending 11 times more is the thing to contemplate. And since you can't put an F1.7 lens on the X-Vario there are situations where the image quality of the PM-1 could be way ahead.

 

My view is you either take your best camera or you decide something producing lower image quality will work for that use. E.g. I've been hiking a lot lately and carry a Nex 6. Why would I need any better quality imaging to record these hikes for me and my friends even if I get some nice scenics or nature shots occasionally? The Nex is already overkill but at least is small enough and light enough that I hardly notice it. So I don't desire anything smaller.

 

Leica will make whatever it makes and hopefully will earn a good profit from its cameras. But it is certainly not being competitive with what is available currently. What it plans for the future is anyone's guess. But the future choices from other manufacturers is not going to make it easier for Leica either.

[AlanG]

All cameras are a compromise, otherwise when film was king we'd all have been shooting 10"x8".

 

And large format is a compromise from 35mm in may ways too.

[earleygallery]

The thread is now all about compromises. Pretty much everything in life involves a compromise somewhere along the line, but digital compacts seem to be an area where new technology can't catch up with film.

 

My Minox camera is the size of a cigarette packet, yet it's still 'full frame' and has a high quality lens which means when I want to carry a small camera, I don't have to sacrifice image quality (compared to an M or SLR).

 

I wonder if digital compacts can ever catch up?

[lct]

Don't want to rain on your parade James but your Minox has a mere 11x8mm film IIRC which means that its DoF is still huge compared to an APS-C camera (23.7x15.6mm). Kind of Digilux 2 with grain sort of.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dkCambridgeshire]

The thread is now all about compromises. Pretty much everything in life involves a compromise somewhere along the line, but digital compacts seem to be an area where new technology can't catch up with film.

 

My Minox camera is the size of a cigarette packet, yet it's still 'full frame' and has a high quality lens which means when I want to carry a small camera, I don't have to sacrifice image quality (compared to an M or SLR).

 

I wonder if digital compacts can ever catch up?

 

I've owned four Minox 35mm compact cameras; the first three proved to be unreliable and expensive to repair; the fourth gets an admiring glance now and again just to make sure it still works. Most digital compacts are far more reliable and repairable. The Minox lenses are pretty good - apart from the odd shaped lens diaphragm. DAG appears to recycle the lenses for M4/3 use.

 

dunk