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

[saibaiwei]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

Thanks, Vic

 

Its a bw shot of Jan Grarup by his 12 yr daughter. Interesting reads in this issue. It's the October 7/2013 issue.

[saibaiwei]

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.

 

Nor have I experienced any problems using AF on the X Vario. Thanks for pointing that out. I like using the MF on it though.

[vcs700s]

Its a bw shot of Jan Grarup by his 12 yr daughter. Interesting reads in this issue. It's the October 7/2013 issue.

 

I found it. Informative article. As I have said before- great lens too!

[saibaiwei]

I found it. Informative article. As I have said before- great lens too!

 

Yeah, what a lens it turned out to be (as we knew it be to, from looking at our files from the X Vario), and some are still pretty much saying that it is a dud, oh well.

[colonel]

Yeah, what a lens it turned out to be (as we knew it be to, from looking at our files from the X Vario), and some are still pretty much saying that it is a dud, oh well.

 

some people are looking for any excuse to back up their assertions against the X Vario based on rage at its launch that it wasn't the camera they wanted at the price they wanted.

 

Leica has an attractive range of compact cameras, fixed and variable APS-C and FF M series.

 

All produce excellent pictures and have exemplary build and handling.

(For those that don't know the Panasonic compact cameras that have Leica lenses are jointly designed with Leica)

 

If you want to buy another brand that is absolutely fine. Many of us shoot with multiple brands (Fuji, Canon and Leica myself). If I have the choice I always pick up a Leica.

[saibaiwei]

some people are looking for any excuse to back up their assertions against the X Vario based on rage at its launch that it wasn't the camera they wanted at the price they wanted.

 

Leica has an attractive range of compact cameras, fixed and variable APS-C and FF M series.

 

All produce excellent pictures and have exemplary build and handling.

(For those that don't know the Panasonic compact cameras that have Leica lenses are jointly designed with Leica)

 

If you want to buy another brand that is absolutely fine. Many of us shoot with multiple brands (Fuji, Canon and Leica myself). If I have the choice I always pick up a Leica.

 

ditto on everything you said.

 

Don't know about others, but I never thought Leica would have produce a "mini" systems camera which was capable of mounting a M lens on it. If they did, it wouldn't be at this price.

 

Not sure why many took the "mini-M" ad so seriously, it was a teaser, no more. Besides, personally, I'm still in love with the digital and analog M bodies that I don't yearn for another "mini-M" system.

 

So glad the X Vario turned out to be what the X Vario is, so awesome!

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't know about others, but I never thought Leica would have produce a "mini" systems camera which was capable of mounting a M lens on it. If they did, it wouldn't be at this price.

 

So glad the X Vario turned out to be what the X Vario is, so awesome!

 

I actually thing the X-Vario with its build quality and design is an excellent base for Leica to create another interchangeable lens camera line.

 

I suspect the body only would be pretty much the same price as the complete X-Vario.

I also think the X-Vario is not so expensive. It's a similar price, for example, to the very nice Olympus E-P5 + Panasonic 12-35mm lens (f3.7 FF equivalent) but produces better picture quality and better low light performance.

 

Rgds

[euston]

A nice shot, but as close up as this one was taken, a 28mm f2.8 throws the background oof as much. Concerning thin dof,46mm @ f6.3 simply can`t do miracles. And the red dot can`t change physics, but only pricing.

 

 

I’m pleased you like the picture. It’s inappropriate to deal with your other points in the photo forum, so I’m responding to them here. I think you and I may be looking for different things from this camera. I haven’t come across any of your pictures, so I can’t gauge whether it would be a sound choice for the kind of photography you like to do.

 

Thin depth of field appears to be especially important for you but it isn’t for me. To be frank, I find the indiscriminate and excessive blurring of backgrounds to be rather cliché. It has its place but can all too readily be overdone. The X Vario can achieve the restricted dof I want most of the time and the quality of the background blurring is very much to my taste.

 

I don’t see any point in repeatedly criticising a lens for not being able to do something it was not designed to do. The head of Leica’s optical development department, who probably understands the laws of optics almost as well as you and I, has outlined the compromises on which the design decisions were based - Peter Karbe: A Look through the Vario-Elmar Lens You don’t like the way this lens was designed, that’s fine but forgive me if I put my trust in Karbe’s design judgment in preference to yours.

 

You ought to accept that what you’re looking for in a camera of this type may not be what other people are looking for. Thin dof and low price may be at the top of your list of criteria but they aren’t at the top of mine. What I look for from the XV is good image quality, decent build and handling, and a measure of versatility in the medium focal length range. That’s what I want and that’s what it gives me. If it doesn’t deliver the thin dof that is important to you at a price you’re willing to pay, why waste your time and energy worrying about it?

 

Fast lenses of the optical quality that Leica is known for are expensive. If you’re waiting for Leica to produce a significantly faster zoom lens on an APS-C body at a lower price than the XV, I think you’ll have a long wait. If you don’t need the zoom, the X2 may be the better choice for you. And, unless you have an irrational attachment to the red dot, there are alternatives which might suit you even better.

[Ecaton]

I’m pleased you like the picture. It’s inappropriate to deal with your other points in the photo forum, so I’m responding to them here. I think you and I may be looking for different things from this camera. I haven’t come across any of your pictures, so I can’t gauge whether it would be a sound choice for the kind of photography you like to do.

 

Thin depth of field appears to be especially important for you but it isn’t for me. To be frank, I find the indiscriminate and excessive blurring of backgrounds to be rather cliché. It has its place but can all too readily be overdone. The X Vario can achieve the restricted dof I want most of the time and the quality of the background blurring is very much to my taste.

 

I don’t see any point in repeatedly criticising a lens for not being able to do something it was not designed to do. The head of Leica’s optical development department, who probably understands the laws of optics almost as well as you and I, has outlined the compromises on which the design decisions were based - Peter Karbe: A Look through the Vario-Elmar Lens You don’t like the way this lens was designed, that’s fine but forgive me if I put my trust in Karbe’s design judgment in preference to yours.

 

You ought to accept that what you’re looking for in a camera of this type may not be what other people are looking for. Thin dof and low price may be at the top of your list of criteria but they aren’t at the top of mine. What I look for from the XV is good image quality, decent build and handling, and a measure of versatility in the medium focal length range. That’s what I want and that’s what it gives me. If it doesn’t deliver the thin dof that is important to you at a price you’re willing to pay, why waste your time and energy worrying about it?

 

Fast lenses of the optical quality that Leica is known for are expensive. If you’re waiting for Leica to produce a significantly faster zoom lens on an APS-C body at a lower price than the XV, I think you’ll have a long wait. If you don’t need the zoom, the X2 may be the better choice for you. And, unless you have an irrational attachment to the red dot, there are alternatives which might suit you even better.

 

No disagreement from my side and for sure Leica`s lens design team understands laws of physics x times better than I do. My posts were answers to others confusing thin dof with pleasant oof rendering. The former is a function of physics, the latter one of taste and preferences. My point was that f6.3 @ 46mm can only do so much as far as thin dof is concerned. Nowhere did I say that background was more important to me, and particularly blurred one, than the content of a photograph.

[euston]

. . . . My point was that f6.3 @ 46mm can only do so much as far as thin dof is concerned. . . .

 

Which is what I would call a blinding flash of the bleeding obvious.

 

Here's another: often f/6.3 @ 46mm can do enough . . . .