More confused than ever.... X2 or X Vario??????

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you really want to get down to it, cost to cost, dollar for dollar, 35mm (or MF) film is the best deal going. You have a full frame "sensor", you can get a "reasonable" scanner that you can print 24X36, no problem, one can't bitch about colour because that is up to the person operating the machine --and their skill at doing it.

 

Quite frankly, I think the day we realize most of this stuff is just bullshit, is the day we have actually learned something.

 

 

... because it is... bullshit.

 

On the contrary, film is much more expensive. Processing, archive, scanning, storage.etc.

Not to mention slowness and quality.

[sfage]

Nah. Processing is three bucks. Second, the "cost in" for the gear is a lot of hooie. There are plenty of lenses that can compete with Leica for a quarter the money. Bodies? Meh, whatever. Scanning? Still big deal. I own two scanners that I am able to print at 24X36. Pixel peep all you like. Expose it properly -and do the math properly- and Bob's your uncle.

 

The cost of the film plus the cost of processing minus the cost of the dollars spent on a Leica body and lens and you still win.

 

... and we haven't even begun to compare an XV with medium format film. That's a boat that's dead in the water.

[FosterKay]

It seems that struggeling about technical features, optical limits and brands is kind of a "must" here

Just wanted to know whether the XV could be the better allround camera - compared to the X2.

I know that there are other cheaper cameras with the same quality (or maybe even better) - but I will stay with Leica (I'm German.....what can I say....).

I know that using analog stuff can be very interesting - but not for me (anymore).

Trying to get a XV now

[NZDavid]

...from time to time I miss a zoom. Especially with portraits.....

 

You may have got the XV by now, but if not...think again! What do you want from the camera? Can you get good portraits with the X2? It has the faster lens and even at 35mm-equivalent you can get a good environmental portrait. Or you could crop up close. I don't think the XV blurs the background by a huge amount or has lots of bokeh, even at 90mm. What else do you need a zoom for? Landscapes? 35 is also very useful. For interiors and wideangle, then 28 -- or wider than the XV -- is good.

 

It may well be that you find the XV is the better all-rounder, but the X2 will still provide excellent results with just the one focal length. If I were to use just the one focal length, that would be it.

[Guest badbob]

I like Ken's lens reviews but his body reviews are suspect, in that the "best camera ever" is usually the next one he reviews.

He however says things that are just not true, eg. Only use evaluative metering and never use spot, refused to review the M8 and says its rubbish, never use a tripod, the RX1 is no good (doesn't like Sony), etc. The best reviewer is Sean Reid by far.

 

Agree about the 'best ever' - he pushes gear for a living, so I suppose a lot of his readers are gear junkies and have to have whatever he sells. The other opinion things shouldn't matter as long as the readers test those things properly. I wish I could afford Reid Reviews.

 

Most people in the U.S. and elsewhere aren't conversant with "The OC" as they call it, i.e. Orange County California, but Ken is one of its exemplary citizens, with more OC in his personality than most, and it greatly offends most progressive-minded people. I still work in The OC, so am quite familiar with it. You may find, if you dig a little, that Ken's "bad" reputation sources mainly from his liberal enemies in the media spreading rumors and other bad vibes, and not nearly as much from people who have read his blog.

[Guest badbob]

Nah. Processing is three bucks. Second, the "cost in" for the gear is a lot of hooie. There are plenty of lenses that can compete with Leica for a quarter the money. Bodies? Meh, whatever. Scanning? Still big deal. I own two scanners that I am able to print at 24X36. Pixel peep all you like. Expose it properly -and do the math properly- and Bob's your uncle. The cost of the film plus the cost of processing minus the cost of the dollars spent on a Leica body and lens and you still win. ... and we haven't even begun to compare an XV with medium format film. That's a boat that's dead in the water.

 

I never worked with color film, but I loved b&w. I've half a mind to set up a darkroom and do my own from A to Z. It was much easier to control contrast and avoid problems with b&w film. Digital is so hyper-sensitive, you have to work hard in PP to get it right, if you can. With b&w film you just shoot for the shadows and develop for the highlights, which sounds like a cliché, only because it's been said a million times. We used the term 'latitude' to describe how much you can vary exposure on film without losing the image, but latitude in digital is something that comes from PP, not so much exposure, and I'm not convinced that digital PP is such a great thing. With film you need to get the exposure and composition right - with digital anything goes since you have an unlimited roll of 'film', but then you have to work your way through the frames and hope you get a good one. A lot of people shoot tethered to try and get it right on the exposure end, adding even more to the workload.

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nah. Processing is three bucks. Second, the "cost in" for the gear is a lot of hooie. There are plenty of lenses that can compete with Leica for a quarter the money. Bodies? Meh, whatever. Scanning? Still big deal. I own two scanners that I am able to print at 24X36. Pixel peep all you like. Expose it properly -and do the math properly- and Bob's your uncle.

 

The cost of the film plus the cost of processing minus the cost of the dollars spent on a Leica body and lens and you still win.

 

... and we haven't even begun to compare an XV with medium format film. That's a boat that's dead in the water.

 

Disagree with everything you say.

But it's the slowness and quality that kills film

The XV produces better pictures then any film camera ever made.

 

I respect people who enjoy the workflow. I enjoyed until recently shooting off a few rolls every so often, but I recently sold my eos 3 and M6 as the hassle factor and quality doesn't cut it any more for me.

[vcs700s]

You may have got the XV by now, but if not...think again! What do you want from the camera? Can you get good portraits with the X2? It has the faster lens and even at 35mm-equivalent you can get a good environmental portrait. Or you could crop up close. I don't think the XV blurs the background by a huge amount or has lots of bokeh, even at 90mm. What else do you need a zoom for? Landscapes? 35 is also very useful. For interiors and wideangle, then 28 -- or wider than the XV -- is good.

 

It may well be that you find the XV is the better all-rounder, but the X2 will still provide excellent results with just the one focal length. If I were to use just the one focal length, that would be it.

 

I own both cameras. The XV is a better camera that can shoot at 46mm (70 FF) with excellent bokeh. I have posted many pics here and elsewhere that show that repeatedly.

 

I wish people would stop making statements that are not factual in general and specifically about the XV.

Especially the bashers that don't own one but "they have held one in a store."

 

Give me a break!

[Ecaton]

I own both cameras. The XV is a better camera that can shoot at 46mm (70 FF) with excellent bokeh. I have posted many pics here and elsewhere that show that repeatedly.

 

I wish people would stop making statements that are not factual in general and specifically about the XV.

Especially the bashers that don't own one but "they have held one in a store."

 

Give me a break!

 

"Excellent bokeh" or thin dof are two different things. You seem to like its oof rendering but it still has no thin dof with a speed of f6.3 @ 46mm, not even close. I don`t see portraits on your blog with the XV with blurred backgrounds. You like your XV, fine. But it does not change the laws of physics, no matter your passion for it.

[saibaiwei]

I own both cameras. The XV is a better camera that can shoot at 46mm (70 FF) with excellent bokeh. I have posted many pics here and elsewhere that show that repeatedly.

 

I wish people would stop making statements that are not factual in general and specifically about the XV.

Especially the bashers that don't own one but "they have held one in a store."

 

Give me a break!

 

Likewise, but our wishes will probably never be fulfilled.

 

vcs700s, did you read the "Modern Pentathlon" article on the X Vario in the October LFI yet? Think the doubters should read it, but I guess the doubters will continue to doubt no matter what.

[Ecaton]

Likewise, but our wishes will probably never be fulfilled.

 

vcs700s, did you read the "Modern Pentathlon" article on the X Vario in the October LFI yet? Think the doubters should read it, but I guess the doubters will continue to doubt no matter what.

 

As long as I read posts like the one from beewee :"Until Leica fixes the AF glitches and other firmware bugs, I'd avoid it.

 

I have one and it's sat in the drawer for the last 3 months. Each time I need a camera, I grab my M8.2. YMMV:" or the many other ones about AF issues .....................

[sfage]

Disagree with everything you say.

But it's the slowness and quality that kills film

The XV produces better pictures then any film camera ever made.

 

 

Really? National Geographic and Magnum Photography might not agree with you.

 

... and second, cameras do not produce "anything".

 

And also, the XV will not compete with medium format. Not a hope in hell. The discussion of print sizes alone, kills that competition. Can you guarantee me, unquestioningly, that I can print 24X36 inches with a file from the XV? Can you guarantee me that I will be able to bill a client $750 -for an art print- from that sensor size?

[vcs700s]

Likewise, but our wishes will probably never be fulfilled.

 

vcs700s, did you read the "Modern Pentathlon" article on the X Vario in the October LFI yet? Think the doubters should read it, but I guess the doubters will continue to doubt no matter what.

 

And some will bash no matter how good the files are.

 

It is easier to bash and criticize without putting out the money to try the camera for themselves!

[vcs700s]

"Excellent bokeh" or thin dof are two different things. You seem to like its oof rendering but it still has no thin dof with a speed of f6.3 @ 46mm, not even close. I don`t see portraits on your blog with the XV with blurred backgrounds. You like your XV, fine. But it does not change the laws of physics, no matter your passion for it.

 

Portraits are on the to do list but I only have so much time. Food shoot is probably up next and more testing of the Toshiba Flashair SD card for my X Vario blog.

 

Until then, I personally think the portrait of this flower has pleasing bokeh- IMHO. :-)

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!

[NZDavid]

I own both cameras. The XV is a better camera that can shoot at 46mm (70 FF) with excellent bokeh. I have posted many pics here and elsewhere that show that repeatedly.

 

I wish people would stop making statements that are not factual in general and specifically about the XV.

Especially the bashers that don't own one but "they have held one in a store."

 

Give me a break!

 

Lovely flower pic. Thank you for your input and I am puzzled why you should be angry. The bokeh is great close-up. It would also be instructive to look at some portraits taken with both the X2 and XV.

 

One thing I find very hard with autofocus is nailing the focus on the eyes. This is why I prefer manual rangefinder focus in because I find, for me anyway, there is more precise control.

[vcs700s]

Lovely flower pic. Thank you for your input and I am puzzled why you should be angry. The bokeh is great close-up. It would also be instructive to look at some portraits taken with both the X2 and XV.

 

One thing I find very hard with autofocus is nailing the focus on the eyes. This is why I prefer manual rangefinder focus in because I find, for me anyway, there is more precise control.

 

No anger here at all. Blessed in many ways and one of those is owning the X Vario.

[vcs700s]

Likewise, but our wishes will probably never be fulfilled.

 

vcs700s, did you read the "Modern Pentathlon" article on the X Vario in the October LFI yet? Think the doubters should read it, but I guess the doubters will continue to doubt no matter what.

 

I would like to read that article. What is on the cover of that issue?

 

Thanks, Vic

[barjohn]

I just down loaded and read the article on my iPad. Excellent article. The first time I have seen published MTF charts and they are truly excellent. No wonder the images are as detailed as they appear to be. (Issue No 7/2013) October issue.

[euston]

One thing I find very hard with autofocus is nailing the focus on the eyes. This is why I prefer manual rangefinder focus in because I find, for me anyway, there is more precise control.

 

I posted a portrait taken with the XV in the photo forums: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/301055-portrait-sunlight.html#post2511381

 

I make no claims for it as a photograph but the background is blurred enough to isolate the subject and the near eye is reasonably sharp. I used AF for this one but I more often use MF because I like the way it works on this camera.

 

The XV is no substitute for a manual rangefinder but, for me, it is a more than acceptable alternative on those occasions when its excellent zoom lens is more convenient. Actually, I think the XV is a rather good camera for informal portraits, as long as you don't want your backgrounds smudged to oblivion Noctilux-style. I should add that I have not experienced the problems with AF that others have reported. It is not especially fast but I have found it reliable.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

Thanks Euston, that's nice and sharp with a non-distracting background. Sometimes, of course, the background is informative and attractive, but requires careful composition.