With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Thank you for the suggestion that my friend should consider using 'one of those angle finder things' . That is a very impractical suggestion for the circumstances in which he took the series of pictures. And we are primarily discussing X series cameras which do not require the use of any form of accessory finder if used eg on a table.

 

Just a note, I use the EVF on the X2 and find it really useful. It tilts and sometimes I find it to be like using a Hasselblad where one 'bows' their head before their subject (in non-candid work.) I like that posture and often it creates a more friendly environment between the photographer and their subject.

 

I suppose one would need really good eyesight to use it in the context that you brought up. But it still might work. One could see the framing at least. Anyway, one could possibly have it on a table top and just look down into the EVF.

[iforum]

I am with wattsy on this one sneaky and there really is no need for that voyeur style attitude

 

My friend is a Leica Forum member

that is not a justification

[bill]

Bill, you are the person... blah talking about being able to talk about the pros and cons of cameras feature without being a fan boy ?

 

And you do completely the opposite, being the resident troll here

 

Your technique, repeated again and again, is to jump in to heavily critise any new digital Leica (which you have never owned).

When anyone has the temerity to respond to King William's pronouncements, you reply by instantly resorting to personal attack and insults.

 

Nothing I have said has any relevance to what you have posted above.

 

It is plainly evident to anyone that fast AF is faster then any MF. If you can't see that then that says alot about your "opinions".

Of course pre-focus is better then any focus, but thats just a necessary evil for cameras that are not fast enough.

 

And I am not going to lower myself to cricise your photography skills, despite the temptation.

 

Harold, you are not getting it. And there is no need for the passive aggression or name-calling, nice as it is to be crowned Please calm down and try to understand the point I am making - technology does not trump technique or talent - the photographer has to use the three in harmony to get the shot. Here, to illustrate the point are two examples for you. One was shot with a Leica IIIc, the other with a Panasonic L-somethingorother. Pre-focussed MF versus AF:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

So.

 

"fast AF is better than any MF"...

 

and

 

"pre-focus is better then any focus, but thats just a necessary evil for cameras that are not fast enough."

 

Really?

 

Do you see? It is not just about having the latest and greatest techno-wonder. It is about taking the time to understand your tools and master your craft. That is something you cannot do if you change your tools faster than your underpants. It takes time and patience and familiarity with your equipment.

 

Now, please try to separate the debate from the debater, eh?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[colonel]

Now, please try to separate the debate from the debater, eh?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I thought that was your issue ? i would appreciate a separation

 

I always say that the photography and the composition is 90% of the photograph

The camera is just an anciliary.

 

Which is why a good photographer can produce good pictures with mostly any camera, Whereas a beginner or "bad" photographer would produce a "bad" photo with the most expensive camera.

 

This is however a technical discussion.

 

For my needs the XV is an excellent example of a camera that delivers, and allows me to focus on the composition.

 

For sure there are people that do not sync with it, or like many other methods of photography better,

 

However, many (not all) of the comments here are simply not valid and are based on assumptions or misinformation.

The point is that there are many people attacking here without ever having been near an XV or used it, or don't like what it delivers based on what they want.

 

Thats fine. But it was never intended to be, and will never deliver, a range finder type of photography, full frame, or fixed large aperture prime. It was meant as a sort of general purpose compact camera with an emphasis on lens quality that puts it somewhat above all compact zooms (not Cano/Nikon full size zooms).

[bill]

This is however a technical discussion.

 

...hmm... and there was me thinking it was actually a thread started to moan about people expressing opinions - "the mob function of hordes of arm-chair CEOs and self-imposed "experts" who doomed the camera without having touched or tried it." were I believe the words of the OP.

 

Look, Harold, I get that you like it. I get that it is new. I get that we will probably be having the same debate in 18 months time over the next new camera from Leica. I am really pleased that it works for you. But stifling debate by using words like:

 

...many (not all) of the comments here are simply not valid and are based on assumptions or misinformation.

 

Is like a red rag to a bull to anyone who takes a realistic view. There is no need to be defensive about your purchase. Equally there is no need to take pot-shots at anyone who points out the factual deficiencies of the XV.

 

Finally:

 

But it was never intended to be, and will never deliver, a range finder type of photography.

 

...better tell that to the Leica marketing people who got everyones' back up in the first place with their ill-judged and poorly executed "M-Mini" campaign.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

Sorry, but photos of the backs of strangers doing nothing in particular are not 'street photography'. Can you imagine such images in an exhibition or book?

 

Nor am I a fan of sneaky shots, with cameras on restaurant tables, photographers that work like that tend to get noticed, more so than being up front about what they're doing.

 

There are times when hip shots and the like are called for, but if the end result is pointless there is no point.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, but photos of the backs of strangers doing nothing in particular are not 'street photography'. Can you imagine such images in an exhibition or book?

 

Nor am I a fan of sneaky shots, with cameras on restaurant tables, photographers that work like that tend to get noticed, more so than being up front about what they're doing.

 

There are times when hip shots and the like are called for, but if the end result is pointless there is no point.

 

Street photography does not have hard and fast rules and if you look through books and attend exhibitions there are images of 'backs of strangers doing nothing in particular' which have pictorial/artistic merit; that 'merit' might depend on what the subject is wearing or the context in which the photo was taken - but the 'merit' is there. To dismiss such images as being 'not street photography' is rather short sighted and a failure to acknowledge the work of certain photographers held in high esteem by galleries and collectors and agencies.

 

Take a walk down the Kings Road and you will see lots of photogenic views of people's backs. Go to Speakers' Corner and Covent Garden and look at the spectators standing and listening to the speakers and performers - their back views can be worth recording.

 

Seek and you will find them.

 

But if you think they are not worth a glance or are taboo so be it.

 

dunk

[earleygallery]

I'm referring in particular to some of the images people have displayed in this thread, presumably as examples of excellent street photography.

 

An image has to be interesting - someone sitting having a spot of lunch could be interesting I grant you, but that isn't the case here. This is a little better I think you'd agree http://michaelarobinson.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/henri_cartier-bresson04.jpg

 

My theory is that people who generally don't do 'street' muster up the courage to point their camera at a total stranger (be it from the hip or table) and think they have a great photo, just because they stressed themselves out doing it, and feel they've been as brave as McCullin or Capa in the process.

[Guest badbob]

My theory is that people who generally don't do 'street' muster up the courage to point their camera at a total stranger (be it from the hip or table) and think they have a great photo, just because they stressed themselves out doing it, and feel they've been as brave as McCullin or Capa in the process.

 

Most of those will eventually give up and go back to what they did before that, and a very few will stick with it and make some art. But unless you restrict yourself to galleries that filter out all of the amateur attempts, then you get to see all of those failed attempts. I suppose what that really means is, you are functioning as a first-level filter for what eventually makes it through the process to success. I don't know that the eventual artists appreciate the efforts you're making, but there you are.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I'm referring in particular to some of the images people have displayed in this thread, presumably as examples of excellent street photography.

 

An image has to be interesting - someone sitting having a spot of lunch could be interesting I grant you, but that isn't the case here.

 

My theory is that people who generally don't do 'street' muster up the courage to point their camera at a total stranger (be it from the hip or table) and think they have a great photo, just because they stressed themselves out doing it, and feel they've been as brave as McCullin or Capa in the process.

 

That's pure piffle and wishful thinking. And courage or bravery does not come into the method or quest for the candid photograph. Awareness and technique determines the potential success of the type of photograph taken by my friend. If walking in the street we take a photo whilst walking. If sitting in a restaurant ( an equally public place) why not take a photo(s) whilst sitting?

 

dunk

[colonel]

I'm referring in particular to some of the images people have displayed in this thread, presumably as examples of excellent street photography.

.

 

the pictures I displayed here were off the bat to display fast usage of the camera.

your extrapolation to gibbering attack is childish to say the least.

[AlanG]

MF, AF, street shooting, bravery, experience, skills, timing... So can anyone provide evidence showing which aspects from any of these far flung arguments will determine if the X Vario will or won't sell well?

[CaptZoom]

Next time there's a new 'controversial' camera, maybe each critic could say whether their judgement is based on pro or semi-pro use for certain jobs, or whether it's based purely on personal/hobby use, or something in between. I couldn't imagine at the beginning of this that users were judging the XV on the basis of its performance for professional use, and if they were basing on that, why they weren't prepared to compensate for any performance issues, such as making sure to have camera supports handy when shutter speeds are very slow.

 

Event and studio photographers would use the camera with strobes, making camera support devices a choice rather than requirement.

[Guest badbob]

MF, AF, street shooting, bravery, experience, skills, timing... So can anyone provide evidence showing which aspects from any of these far flung arguments will determine if the X Vario will or won't sell well?

 

Being able to chat up some of your subjects is probably a useful skill.

[AlanG]

Being able to chat up some of your subjects is probably a useful skill.

 

The X Vario can speak? And this will help sell the camera?

[Guest badbob]

The X Vario can speak?

 

I think it has a speaker, yes. And in fact, although my instincts say that I shouldn't approach strangers with a talking camera, it sounds (heh) like a great gimmick.

[IkarusJohn]

I think there's a lot of defensive justification going on here, with some attributing things that are not said simply so they can get their pet point across straying into really quite rude posting (what's new - this is the internet, after all).

 

Returning to the opening post:

 

In retrospect, after the release of the X Vario, and reviews by Steve Huff, LuLa, Ming Thein, and several hands on reports, one has to reflect on the role of this forum, and the mob function of hordes of arm-chair CEOs and self-imposed "experts" who doomed the camera without having touched or tried it.

 

How much harm has this forum made for this model, that seems to really be a gem?

 

Overpriced? Yes, like D-lux 3,4,5,6 etc. But it seems to really deliver on the most important factor: Picture quality. I am starting to want one myself...

 

But if I were Leica, I would look elsewhere for advice than this forum, which in my opinion has shown a total lack of judgement, despite several sensible voices.

 

Okay, perhaps this was a hand grenade lobbed into the room (something I am guilty of myself, I guess). But, let's be a bit objective about this (excuse the summary) - why are the people here underwhelmed?

 

Well, let's start with the forum members. They are mostly aficionados of slightly flawed, old fashioned looking manual focus, aperture priority only cameras; they have a fixation with legacy lenses and image quality; and they fuss over things like the sound of the shutter. This is an exacting group.

 

Leica raised the hopes of members that this would be a mini-M. It isn't, so members were disappointed.

 

The camera is underwhelming on paper.

 

So, the Colonel and others say you can't judge the camera without trying it (why, I don't know - I have tried it, but the images taken in a shop prove nothing). I don't feel the need to take out and try a camera I have decided is not for me.

 

So, let's look at the images available of and by the camera and explain (arm-chair ceo style, if you like) why I think the camera is a dud (okay, not for me):

 

• side by side, this camera is not much smaller than my M9 - compact, it ain't, so maybe the mini-M label is accurate?
  
• it has an APS-C sensor, which means it isn't a mini-M afterall
  
• coupled with that small sensor and slow lens, it has a huge depth of field. Look at the Colonel's images, and look at the object in the photos aganst the background.
  

 

Now, I know the Colonel will take my comment as a personal criticism of his new love, and my comment about his photos as a personal attack (particularly after all the "nice shot" comments) - I'm sorry, that is not my intention, and I would make the same observation regardless who the photographer was. Maybe a different composition would alleviate the issue (God knows, my own composition is something I need to work on) and a shallow depth of field probably wouldn't help; but one of the great pleasures for me using my Leica cameras and lenses is being able to select a shallow depth of field as part of my image composition.

 

So, yes, I have tried the camera, and I am none the wiser for having done that.

 

I am a lot wiser from having looked at reviews of the camera (most of us do this), and looking at images taken with it. The camera is not what i was hoping for, nor is it what Leica advertised, and that was disappointing. After looking at it further, the camera is not for me. It will suit some, but I am concerned that the whole concept is flawed.

 

I would have bought the hoped for mini-M.

 

Cheers

John

[colonel]

I think there's a lot of defensive justification going on here, with some attributing things that are not said simply so they can get their pet point across straying into really quite rude posting (what's new - this is the internet, after all).

 

Returning to the opening post:

 

Okay, perhaps this was a hand grenade lobbed into the room (something I am guilty of myself, I guess). But, let's be a bit objective about this (excuse the summary) - why are the people here underwhelmed?

 

Well, let's start with the forum members. They are mostly aficionados of slightly flawed, old fashioned looking manual focus, aperture priority only cameras; they have a fixation with legacy lenses and image quality; and they fuss over things like the sound of the shutter. This is an exacting group.

 

Leica raised the hopes of members that this would be a mini-M. It isn't, so members were disappointed.

 

The camera is underwhelming on paper.

 

So, the Colonel and others say you can't judge the camera without trying it (why, I don't know - I have tried it, but the images taken in a shop prove nothing). I don't feel the need to take out and try a camera I have decided is not for me.

 

So, let's look at the images available of and by the camera and explain (arm-chair ceo style, if you like) why I think the camera is a dud (okay, not for me):

 

• side by side, this camera is not much smaller than my M9 - compact, it ain't, so maybe the mini-M label is accurate?
  
• it has an APS-C sensor, which means it isn't a mini-M afterall
  
• coupled with that small sensor and slow lens, it has a huge depth of field. Look at the Colonel's images, and look at the object in the photos aganst the background.
  

 

Now, I know the Colonel will take my comment as a personal criticism of his new love, and my comment about his photos as a personal attack (particularly after all the "nice shot" comments) - I'm sorry, that is not my intention, and I would make the same observation regardless who the photographer was. Maybe a different composition would alleviate the issue (God knows, my own composition is something I need to work on) and a shallow depth of field probably wouldn't help; but one of the great pleasures for me using my Leica cameras and lenses is being able to select a shallow depth of field as part of my image composition.

 

So, yes, I have tried the camera, and I am none the wiser for having done that.

 

I am a lot wiser from having looked at reviews of the camera (most of us do this), and looking at images taken with it. The camera is not what i was hoping for, nor is it what Leica advertised, and that was disappointing. After looking at it further, the camera is not for me. It will suit some, but I am concerned that the whole concept is flawed.

 

I would have bought the hoped for mini-M.

 

Cheers

John

 

You have listed why the camera is not for you.

Nice. Fine no problem

 

Some people in this forum feel that no one is allowed to disagree with them. Clearly evident from some posts here as you point out.

 

Good summary of some of the people here.

 

You might extend your underwhelming comment to the X2 and M240 compared to the market they were launched into. Leica never has competed on specs. alone.

 

I think its a beautifully made camera that is a great size and weight and takes fantastic pictures whilst being very light when carried all day. It also has great handling and is very quiet.

 

I tend to take photos that are either very large or very thin DOF, as you will be able to see from many of my FF pictures. If you study the f settings of this lens you will see that's its perfectly capable of thin DOF, 3 feet at 70mm.

 

I was part of the "underwhelmed group" until I held it in my hands and saw the pictures it could take. I was looking for a walk about zoom. Walk about fixed primes are two a penny.

 

The only competition for this camera is the Fuji 18-55mm X-E1, which is half the price, and an excellent camera. But I value the build, feel and handling more of the XV.

 

Fixed lens zoom FF would be nice, maybe but I am betting that the lens would be more then twice the size/weight to maintain the same quality, and that's at the same aperture.

 

In summary, I don't care if anyone doesn't like or can't afford this camera, that's for them, but I know enough about cameras to know a good one. And I would like to think that you can trust me not to waste my money. I mean what would be the point of buying a pup and trying to convince others to like or buy it ? makes no sense.

 

I like the colours from XV better then the RX1 BTW, which is a difficult camera to obtain the right colour balance from.

[iforum]

I have to admit that for the following photographic styles Leica's offering works quite adequately

 

*colonel rabbits on about using a zoom I guess that is his way of getting up there and personal

 

*dunk champions the sneaky and voyeur style

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

In summary, I don't care if anyone doesn't like or can't afford this camera, that's for them, but I know enough about cameras to know a good one. And I would like to think that you can trust me not to waste my money. I mean what would be the point of buying a pup and trying to convince others to like or buy it ? makes no sense.

 

 

But you do seem to care, I don't have any interest in how you spend your money, and I don't understand why you're trying to convince others to buy it.

 

Otherwise, nice post.