I need advice please (X 113)

[asiafish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Highly recommend the X.  

[Advertisement]

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

[rchrd]

DrPix, I have the most recent Lightroom, default settings, most recent update, from their cloud based subscription. If I remember correctly from another post, you are using an older version of Lightroom, so you may be getting better results than me. (Jealous)

 

There isn't anything wrong with my camera because the in-camera jpgs are fine and are processed from the same raw info that Lightroom is using. If I am overexposing because I am an ignorant photographer, then there would be no way Leica's image processor can pull the overexposed parts (clipped data) that isn't captured and have it suddenly available to be processed and put it in their jpg. I am capturing the needed data for a perfectly exposed picture. Lightroom just loads that raw data funky, and it takes work to get the exposure right again. Many others have experienced this too. 

 

What I meant by jpg being "properly processed", is that the exposure in the image comes out perfect, the way you set it when you take the photograph. I do not mean properly processed in terms of color (since color is a subjective phenomena). I personally like Leica's neutral "desaturated" look, and find it isn't as desaturated as people make it out to be. I think Lightroom makes the X's pinks particularly oversaturated and with weird color hue. The color shifts from light to dark are less detailed in the jpgs too. But those are my eyes. This color problem is harder to fix than exposure.

 

It isn't my computer. I've used it on two different macbook retina screens, with true colors to srgb standards.

 

On a side note, I recommend watching a cool TEDtalks video by Beau Lotto: https://youtu.be/mf5otGNbkuc It makes me wonder why we focus on color so much when it is a subjective thing. Having your own "look" is impossible in a way, because what you intend others to see, is probably not what they actually see. How do we compensate aesthetically with colors for a color blind audience? But with Black and White photography, even a color blind person sees black and white just like us. In that aspect, black and white is superior since it doesn't lend itself to so much subjectivity. However, we live our lives in color, and color has so much meaning and beauty. So it is worthwhile to capture it, if only for ourselves. But what does this say about photography as an art form if I cannot transmit my particular aesthetic sense of color to you in such a way that you are seeing what I am seeing...Not to mention the philosophical problem that comes with color being qualia. What if my experience of green is blue for you? How do we know what I experience as red, is the same experience you have of red? Black and White is about form, shape, degrees of light. These are properties found in the objective world, and not the subjective part of my mind. A triangle for instance will always have 3 equal sides. Light is a measurable quantity of photons. Oh, the ancient dilemma of b+w vs color...

 

Sorry but I totally disagree with most of your "conclusions" (as "scientific" as they may sound/look). Something must be wring either with your X11, your screen (calibration) or LR version you´re using. LR "overexposes/saturates the colours"??? What LR profile are you talking about? Calibration: Embedded vs Adobe, or what? Strange you find Jpegs "properly" processed.. I find them (in default positon", dull, colourless and oversharpened! Still... we all have different tastes (and skills)

[Guest DrPix]

Do you really mean that LR changes the original exposure of dng files ("overexposes")? I´ve tried almost all LR versions (except 6), they differ a bit (layout) but basically are the same. Never experienced any of your, mentioned before, "issues" (including weird colours). I am talking Leica X1, X2, XVario and X113. To my knowledge there are NO screens which are properly calibrated from  the factory, Apple/Retina or not. Even my Eizo Color Edge had to be tweaked. Dull colours/contrast of Leica ooc "neutral" Jpegs is of course a matter of taste.

DrPix, I have the most recent Lightroom, default settings, most recent update, from their cloud based subscription. If I remember correctly from another post, you are using an older version of Lightroom, so you may be getting better results than me. (Jealous)

 

There isn't anything wrong with my camera because the in-camera jpgs are fine and are processed from the same raw info that Lightroom is using. If I am overexposing because I am an ignorant photographer, then there would be no way Leica's image processor can pull the overexposed parts (clipped data) that isn't captured and have it suddenly available to be processed and put it in their jpg. I am capturing the needed data for a perfectly exposed picture. Lightroom just loads that raw data funky, and it takes work to get the exposure right again. Many others have experienced this too. 

 

What I meant by jpg being "properly processed", is that the exposure in the image comes out perfect, the way you set it when you take the photograph. I do not mean properly processed in terms of color (since color is a subjective phenomena). I personally like Leica's neutral "desaturated" look, and find it isn't as desaturated as people make it out to be. I think Lightroom makes the X's pinks particularly oversaturated and with weird color hue. The color shifts from light to dark are less detailed in the jpgs too. But those are my eyes. This color problem is harder to fix than exposure.

 

It isn't my computer. I've used it on two different macbook retina screens, with true colors to srgb standards.

 

On a side note, I recommend watching a cool TEDtalks video by Beau Lotto: https://youtu.be/mf5otGNbkuc It makes me wonder why we focus on color so much when it is a subjective thing. Having your own "look" is impossible in a way, because what you intend others to see, is probably not what they actually see. How do we compensate aesthetically with colors for a color blind audience? But with Black and White photography, even a color blind person sees black and white just like us. In that aspect, black and white is superior since it doesn't lend itself to so much subjectivity. However, we live our lives in color, and color has so much meaning and beauty. So it is worthwhile to capture it, if only for ourselves. But what does this say about photography as an art form if I cannot transmit my particular aesthetic sense of color to you in such a way that you are seeing what I am seeing...Not to mention the philosophical problem that comes with color being qualia. What if my experience of green is blue for you? How do we know what I experience as red, is the same experience you have of red? Black and White is about form, shape, degrees of light. These are properties found in the objective world, and not the subjective part of my mind. A triangle for instance will always have 3 equal sides. Light is a measurable quantity of photons. Oh, the ancient dilemma of b+w vs color...

[Archiver]

I own an Olympus EM-5, Panasonic GH3 and GM1, a Leica M9, and have test driven the X Vario, X 113 and Sony RX1 in an attempt to find a camera that falls between the m43 camp and the M9.

 

The X Vario gestalt of handling and shooting is extremely pleasurable, with a sense of film M bodies due to the body shape and slightly longer shot to shot time compared with other digital cameras.  The lens is fantastic and can make for great images.  But I could not get past the fact that I was not seeing a significant step up in image quality and 'look' from the EM-5 and Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, or even the GM1 + 12-35, the latter having an even nicer look to its files when processed in Lightroom.

 

The same held for the X 113.  I loved how it felt and handled, and the AF was faster than the X Vario, but the images did not have the quality that I was hoping for.  I also have a Ricoh GR, which uses the same 16mp aps-c sensor as the X 113, and no matter how much I prodded and tweaked the raw files in Lightroom, I could not get an X113 image to 'zing' as much as the GR.  By comparison, the GR was sharper across the frame and rendered colours and highlights in a way that I could not get out of the X113 test shots I took.  Had the X113 produced images that made me go 'holy crap' like the GR does, I would have bought one.

 

The Sony RX1 was another 'almost but not quite'.  The image quality was wonderful but there was something oddly 'sterile' about the images that I just didn't like.  There were issues with skin tone not being quite acceptable to me, and I went through Lightroom, Raw Therapee and Capture One while testing the raw files.  The dynamic range and ability to recover highlights and shadows is like nothing I had seen in my M9 or Canon 5D Mark II.  I just wasn't getting the 'yes' from the files like I thought I would.

 

As for the whether the X113 could replace the EM-5: I use an array of Oly and Pana primes and zooms, including the usual suspects of the Oly 25/1.8, 17/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8.  I also use the Pana 12-35, 35-100, and three Voigtlander Nokton primes.  The Oly 17/1.8 and the EM-5 is a great combination and has snappy AF.  My preference is to leave it on Face Detection, and make it default to centre point focus if no face is in shot.  OP, I'm not sure if you have used the Oly 17/1.8, but I really like mine, and I consider it at least as sharp as the X113 I tested.  It will also enable you to get much closer images than the X113 wide open, although I'm not sure if this interests you.

 

My current favourite setup is the Panasonic GM1 with the Oly 25/1.8, and either the Ricoh GR or Panasonic LX7 as complementary, depending on the anticipated situations I'll be in.  I'll throw the Oly 45/1.8 in the bag for some extra reach, and I hardly notice it because it is so light.  If the X113 had shown me image quality that was a definite jump above the m43 cameras I own, something in the vicinity of the Ricoh GR, I would have bought one, but it did not.  I did not consider the feeling and handling to be worth the money when adding the good, but not superb, image quality to the mix.

[danmitch]

I own an Olympus EM-5, Panasonic GH3 and GM1, a Leica M9, and have test driven the X Vario, X 113 and Sony RX1 in an attempt to find a camera that falls between the m43 camp and the M9.

 

The X Vario gestalt of handling and shooting is extremely pleasurable, with a sense of film M bodies due to the body shape and slightly longer shot to shot time compared with other digital cameras.  The lens is fantastic and can make for great images.  But I could not get past the fact that I was not seeing a significant step up in image quality and 'look' from the EM-5 and Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, or even the GM1 + 12-35, the latter having an even nicer look to its files when processed in Lightroom.

 

 

 

Maybe it is just that the gap you are looking to fill between m43 and the M9 is actually pretty small, especially when you are looking just at image quality and set aside handling preferences. The gap between m43 and Leica S or say, the 36mp Nikon FX bodies would be significantly greater.

 

The X does not replace the purpose  a system of multiple lenses and bodies if that is your need. Your post is really interesting, I have looked at a number of those options and I do think the GR is a very close competitor to the X, I can't explain why but I have just never got on with the 28mm equiv focal length.

[Archiver]

Maybe it is just that the gap you are looking to fill between m43 and the M9 is actually pretty small, especially when you are looking just at image quality and set aside handling preferences. The gap between m43 and Leica S or say, the 36mp Nikon FX bodies would be significantly greater.

 

The X does not replace the purpose  a system of multiple lenses and bodies if that is your need. Your post is really interesting, I have looked at a number of those options and I do think the GR is a very close competitor to the X, I can't explain why but I have just never got on with the 28mm equiv focal length.

I know what you mean about the gap.  The Ricoh GR fits well into that space between m43 and the M9, and I hoped that the X113 would have a similar level of pizzazz, image quality wise.  As for 28mm vs the rest, I will also admit to a preference to the classic 28/50 combination, and I don't shoot at 35 very much, so that may be another factor.  While I have a first-gen Fuji X100 and enjoy it a lot, I don't shoot with it anywhere near as much as the GR or a m43 camera with the Oly 25/1.8, or the M9 with a 50 or 28/25/21, so my preferences lie in focal lengths other than 35, too.

 

As a tangent, the rumoured Leica Q, with a 28mm f1.7 lens on the M240 sensor, is already ringing my interest bells.

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Zeiss lens on the RX1® is not exactly a bad lens, but certainly not better than the Summilux on the Leica X. Neither is class leading; both have similar weaknesses.

 

You are paying the EUR 1000 (USD 1150) premium for the sensor, not the lens and certainly not build quality.

 

I'll have to disagree. The lens on the RX1 is considered by many reviewers, including Huff, Lloyd and others as the best 35mm f2 lens currently available. I certainly found it to be better then the 35mm Summicron in every aspect.

 

Also the unique tolerance of building the lens and camera together has given the RX1 a real boost.

 

Lastly the build quality is terrific, and better then the X series IMHO

 

Saying all that I think the X-Vario is very good and one of the most underated cameras at the moment. The X113 also seems to be producing beautiful pictures and I love the silver one. Almost bought one but will probably get a Q now

 

rgds

[pbizarro]

I have recently bought a Leica Typ 113, because I like the 35mm focal length a lot. This is my first digital Leica, and it is a very good fixed lens camera. Fast lens, easy to operate, IMO only misses the lack of integrated EVF. And the size is good for me, not too small as some cameras these days.

 

For someone looking at Sony FF sensor and small size, plus 35mm lens, I would also recommend the A7II with the Zeiss Loxia 35. Sweet combination.

 

As for the LR discussion, these days, one can make a file look as one wants very easily. Just calibrate the file and save a preset. Saying that a software "overexposes" a shot is meaningless, as defaults are no more than that, defaults.

[Carbon111]

The X 113 is fabulous. Nice and light, great image quality and an exceptionally sharp lens across the frame. I got it as a replacement "walking around camera" for the X2. Focus is faster and I like the fact the lens doesn't collapse. Image quality is about the same as the X2 IMO.

I notice some people are talking about the Sony RX1. I had one but didn't get on well with it - the colors were odd, tending too much toward blue, and hard to fix in LR. The RX1 also tended to miss focus about a third of the time. When it was right though, it was perfect. Expensive tough and, in the end, not worth me keeping.
The Sony A7, on the other hand, has better color and AF has been more accurate for me. Much bigger than the X and nowhere near the pleasurable shooting experience. Good price though.

I bought the X2 in lieu of the Fuji alternative and found it to be a good choice. The new X 113 is even better. My only complaint is I wish it had a built-in EVF. As it is I use a small Voigtlander 35mm optical viewfinder and find it to work very well.

As with anything, try all the alternatives before buying if you can.

[McGirton]

You´re comparing apples to oranges. Sony is a full frame camera (sensor) and costs much more. And dng files, produced by X113, are "easier accessible" than RAW (which have converted to dng for development in some applications). And if the Zeiss lens is really "better" can be disputed...

I wouldn't say disputed, I would say full on denied. The X113 has a Summilux, not much more to say.