X Vario reduced price

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I already had to delete posts. I would remind participants of the rules in the forum and more specifically the mission statement:

What the forum is not for

 

This isn’t the place for those who think that Leica, Leica products and Leica customers are inadequate, deceitful or stupid.

 

Some members, apparently, use the forum exclusively to express the same criticisms again and again, spoiling for others the enjoyment of their hobby.

 

This isn’t a forum for sycophants and fanboys but neither is it a Leica-bashing community. No-one in the Leica forum should ever have to justify their purchase of a Leica product or their enjoyment of it.

If this continues the thread will be closed

[Advertisement]

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

[papimuzo]

At last!!

[earleygallery]

James, I really don't consider myself in either of these categories., certainly not the former. I had a valid reason for adding the XV as a companion to my M9 in order to add a workable live-view close range capability and it is already fulfilling that role admirably.

 

David, I'm talking about the apparent target market for Leica, not individuals here. Of course every camera has its merits and we know that many M users on this forum have added an X or XV to their collection of gear, and - as I'm sure I've said before - the picture quality from them is excellent. It's just a shame IMHO that they don't make a version geared more obviously to the enthusiast/pro photographer.

 

However, Leica are trying to increase their market share, and introducing cameras like these to appeal to people who wouldn't think of buying an M range camera with manual focus lenses. The signs of where they are aiming are clear from some of the recent product launches and locations of the Leica shops.

 

Let's see just what they're thinking with the new T when it's announced.

[stunsworth]

I listed the price of the complete package of the Ricoh system. I am basically "in" for half the price...

 

 

Presumably that's because you already have the lenses to fit the Ricoh. If you didn't the Ricoh would be the more expensive option.

[jaapv]

 

I listed the price of the complete package of the Ricoh system. I am basically “in” for half the price, plus I have a viewfinder, plus their 16mp 24-70 lens, the manual focus assist on the Ricoh is probably the best I have ever seen (mode 2), I can use an entire array of R and M glass, it astonishingly light, the menu is one of the best -and most logical- I have ever seen and I could go on and on.

Well, I can hardly say this surprises me, as just about anything nowadays beats that old 5D you were using….

[tmldds]

Can anyone tell whether a shot was taken with a full-frame camera or one with APSC? Camera choice is personal and needs not to be justified, except to your better half, nor condemned by others. A lot of great shots have been made with so-so cameras and a whole lot of not-so-good (like mine) have been made with full-frame expensive ones! I know from personal experience:D.

[Gobdulm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not think Leica I reduce the price of a camera that just hit the market. If so we must demand a refund of the difference.

[andybarton]

No chance. That's not how the market works.

 

The camera has been on the market for months and if you want to be the first on your street with anything new, you pay the premium.

 

Plus you have had the enjoyment of using the camera for as long as you have had it. Someone buying one tomorrow hasn't had that.

[Gobdulm]

Reputable companies do not do that with their products at the first hurdle. But I repeat that I do not think so. Here in my country if you want to keep paying the same.

[imants]

a lot of squabble over a mediocre product it seems that Leica has moved on with a new supposed product ....... the colonel remains defiant....I wonder who will take up the tab er bill whatever or is it all too earl y

[thighslapper]

a lot of squabble over a mediocre product

 

here we go again ........

 

on what do you base this assessment of the XV ???

 

the only consistent criticism is about price/value for money....... and that is entirely dictated by personal choice.

[imants]

on what do you base this assessment of the XV ???

using the camera

[stuny]

When the D2 first came out I visited a dealer and tried it there. I was unimpressed. I have no idea why I bought a D2 a month or two later, but I still have it and value it highly. I suspect that some have tried the XV at the dealer, or perhaps even briefly a bit longer, and considering the price rejected it.

 

I tried an XV for several hours, liked it a great deal, felt that in many ways it was the heir to the orphaned D2, but felt that it would not replace or compliment my current cameras. Perhaps if I didn't have the D2 or others....

[sfage]

Well, I can hardly say this surprises me, as just about anything nowadays beats that old 5D you were using….

 

Fair enough Jaap! But, the 5d2 images will print at 24X36 easily and I sell those prints. That is all that matters. When we really think about it, that is ALL that matters.

 

I reference to me bringing up the Ricoh, the reason I did that is purely, simply one of price and value-for-money. There is no question that the XV is a very good camera. Both have the same-sized sensor, both use Leica glass. But in terms of "value" (meaning, do the upswings and advantages outweigh the disadvantges and how that equates to cost) the Leica is far behind. I can use an entire arsenal of primes and zooms whereas the Leica cannot. Neither has a viewfinder so I will grant you that argument against.

 

Let me put it this way: North America has had a really nasty winter. Owing to the frost heaves and potholes in the roads (because of this nasty winter), one can choose to buy a Ferrari. You won't be able to DRIVE the Ferrari because the state of the roads will rip the undercarriage out of the car. So, would this be a good investment? Of course it wouldn't.

 

So, the point we're "really" addressing is one of motivation. "Why did you buy that?" I guess we'll all have to reconcile our differences with -a lot of people in this world- trying to "keep up with the Jonses". A couple of other people in the thread have hinted that these sorts of consumers do not buy the camera to actually USE it. They buy it to be *seen with it*. It is a luxury item. And if they are seen with it, somehow, that equates to success in life, because they can afford it. Well, poor value-for-money does not make for a sophisticated investor. In fact, in circles that "are" sophisticated investors, they're fools.*

 

I think it is healthy to begin to understand what we're actually investing in. We need to begin to step back and think objectively (no pun intended). In one hand, I have an auto focusing 40mm Canon pancake. In the other, I have an Elmarit 28mm or Cron' 50. Either of the Leica lenses will run you the better part of 2500 to 3 thousand dollars. The Canon pancake is $178. Are the images one can produce with the Leica lenses "truly" 15 times better? Are they really worth 15 times the price?*

 

I have an answer to that question, but other people may not agree with it.

[sfage]

Can anyone tell whether a shot was taken with a full-frame camera or one with APSC? .

 

When it comes out of the printer?

 

Yup.

[sfage]

Presumably that's because you already have the lenses to fit the Ricoh. If you didn't the Ricoh would be the more expensive option.

 

Well, apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Even when the Ricoh was full pop (price), the Ricoh body along with the 24-70 A16 lensor unit (16mp f3.5-5.5) would be significantly cheaper. I am comparing 2 machines with a zoom lens, both of which have a good imaging pedigree. There is no question that the Leica's build quality is substantially better. I wouldn't argue that point, at all. But based upon that, is the 300% price premium balanced out by the (basically) similar image quality worth it?

 

Again, I know my answer. Others may differ.

 

And again, apples to apples... when we are talking about 2 machines that have been price-reduced (granted one discontinued, one not), I can buy the Ricoh body, the VF2, the 28mm, 50mm (both GR lenses), the 24-70mm, and the M mount for about $1000, maybe a touch more. How much is the XV now?

[MarkP]

I don't have an XV but have considered one. Just look at this camera's very impressive output and it's function in manual mode.

 

One of the Forum members, XVarior, is a professional fashion photographer and has used the camera in this role (photos to be found elsewhere in the Forum).

 

Albeit somewhat limited in what it can do and expensive (but about the price of a 50 Summicron-M), this camera is not just a rich photographic ignoramus' toy but more than capable of producing beautiful and high quality photographs.

[rosuna]

The high horses seem to be saddled and ready to dash off without their riders - all pretty childish.

 

In bill's defence (who?) - not something you will hear me say often (in fact, I'll deny it in future) - I seem to recall he has actually tried the XV.

 

I don't really think the quality of the camera has anything to do with it - I'm sure the images are good, and owners are happy, in the same way that Edsel drivers liked their cars (sorry, but I couldn't resist). The thing is that while the basics will be good (user interface, lens and image quality), too many fundamentals rule the camera out for me (and the new T is likely to be in the same boat):

 

• Sony APS-C sensor (I found this mediocre on previous cameras)
  
• I like my lenses to have the full frame proportions - a personal thing, but that's the way it is
  
• indifferent electronics
  
• slow zoom
  

 

Having said all that, I will look at the new T camera. But, as a compact second camera, I think I'll be sticking with my A7 - will visit B&H next week, and I'll either pick up the new Zeiss 24-70 OSS f/4 zoom (Tim Ashley speaks very highly of) or the 55mm/1.8 prime. I just don't think the new T, with new lenses, will do it for me.

 

Who knows, I might be wrong, but the A7 is an addition to the M system for me, whereas an APS-C Leica with new system lenses won't be.

 

Cheers

John

 

John:

 

I am sure that is not the intention of the T system. It is not a complementary body for the M set of lenses. It is a different product for a different niche market. Smaller and lighter, and cheaper, than any alternative in the M system. Based on AF lenses, and designed for them.

 

I agree with you in this: the M system could be expanded, by incorporating different bodies -an EVF based body, for instance- and when technology allows it, AF lenses with M mount. In the future, you might have a rangefinder system and a compact FF AF system based on the same mount. Who knows. I understand many Leica users ask for this expansion of the M system, and Leica knows this for sure.

 

But the T system is a different thing. There is no direct connection between this new system and the M. The T system is just a different offer placed between compact cameras and the M system.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tmldds]

Well, apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Even when the Ricoh was full pop (price), the Ricoh body along with the 24-70 A16 lensor unit (16mp f3.5-5.5) would be significantly cheaper. I am comparing 2 machines with a zoom lens, both of which have a good imaging pedigree. There is no question that the Leica's build quality is substantially better. I wouldn't argue that point, at all. But based upon that, is the 300% price premium balanced out by the (basically) similar image quality worth it?

 

Again, I know my answer. Others may differ.

 

And again, apples to apples... when we are talking about 2 machines that have been price-reduced (granted one discontinued, one not), I can buy the Ricoh body, the VF2, the 28mm, 50mm (both GR lenses), the 24-70mm, and the M mount for about $1000, maybe a touch more. How much is the XV now?

 

You will have to change lens and may miss that shot!

[jaapv]

Well, maybe not a Ferrari, assuming I could afford it. Nothing wrong with a Porsche Cayenne though. But I admit, a Toyota Bakkie will get you there as well, and will cost you 30% of the Porsche. Each to his own. I tried the Ricoh and thoroughly disliked it. Hated the ergonomics, the way it looked and was not impressed by the output with my lenses, although I understand it does well with some other ones.

I cannot quite see how it compares to the XV though. A high-level zoom compact to a - well, I cannot quite think of a category, I confess.

 

I don’t think it would be smart by anybody to buy a Leica for status - the number of people that are suitably impressed is rather small to nil in my experience. I advise a trophy wife. A Chanel bikini beats any Luigi case.

 

Liking a product does not equate to ineffective posing, although some people who are bothered by the price tag might erroneously think so. Usually Leicas are bought by people who like the camera and are unimpressed by a few dollars.

 

And I think you miss the principle of limited returns related to an exponential price increase in high-end technology in general.

 

Fair enough Jaap! But, the 5d2 images will print at 24X36 easily and I sell those prints. That is all that matters. When we really think about it, that is ALL that matters.

 

I reference to me bringing up the Ricoh, the reason I did that is purely, simply one of price and value-for-money. There is no question that the XV is a very good camera. Both have the same-sized sensor, both use Leica glass. But in terms of "value" (meaning, do the upswings and advantages outweigh the disadvantges and how that equates to cost) the Leica is far behind. I can use an entire arsenal of primes and zooms whereas the Leica cannot. Neither has a viewfinder so I will grant you that argument against.

 

Let me put it this way: North America has had a really nasty winter. Owing to the frost heaves and potholes in the roads (because of this nasty winter), one can choose to buy a Ferrari. You won't be able to DRIVE the Ferrari because the state of the roads will rip the undercarriage out of the car. So, would this be a good investment? Of course it wouldn't.

 

So, the point we're "really" addressing is one of motivation. "Why did you buy that?" I guess we'll all have to reconcile our differences with -a lot of people in this world- trying to "keep up with the Jonses". A couple of other people in the thread have hinted that these sorts of consumers do not buy the camera to actually USE it. They buy it to be *seen with it*. It is a luxury item. And if they are seen with it, somehow, that equates to success in life, because they can afford it. Well, poor value-for-money does not make for a sophisticated investor. In fact, in circles that "are" sophisticated investors, they're fools.*

 

I think it is healthy to begin to understand what we're actually investing in. We need to begin to step back and think objectively (no pun intended). In one hand, I have an auto focusing 40mm Canon pancake. In the other, I have an Elmarit 28mm or Cron' 50. Either of the Leica lenses will run you the better part of 2500 to 3 thousand dollars. The Canon pancake is $178. Are the images one can produce with the Leica lenses "truly" 15 times better? Are they really worth 15 times the price?*

 

I have an answer to that question, but other people may not agree with it.