The X2: a "real" Leica?

<p>Hi all<br>

Just wondering about the general opinion of the X2, which I handled recently. Is it compromised by it's form-factor/price or is it a 'real' Leica? </p>

<p>i think it's a real panasonic...</p>

<p>Designed by Leica, made at the Leica factory in Germany, no sign of Panasonic here. It would be better if it has interchangeable lenses but then it would cut into sales of the M9.</p>

<p>Yes it is a real Leica</p>

<p>"Leica is known for including the motivation you get from shooting something basic and simple like a Leica camera" <strong>SH</strong><br>

In his review of a wonderful little accessory from Fuji, he mentions the <strong>Leica X2</strong>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This little $350 addition helps push the X100, <em>for me at least,</em> into the <em>“<strong>I’m a better choice than the X2″ </strong></em>category. For $1,199 plus $349, you have an amazing little camera that is now much more versatile AND CHEAPER than the little<a title="The Leica X2 Camera Review – Can Leica still win us over with their charms?" href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/05/30/the-leica-x2-real-world-camera-review-can-leica-still-win-us-over-with-their-charms/"> Leica X2</a>. I’ve already shown in many comparisons that the X100 stands toe to toe with the X2 (minus the lens flare of the X100) in image quality so now it has even more going for it with this 28mm conversion lens. It’s a beautiful setup and I highly recommend it for those who have an X100. For those trying to decide on a camera and are eyeballing the X100 and X2 or other cameras, ANY of them will do the job. Pick the one that speaks to you the most" <em><strong>SteveHuff</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

Reportedly it takes good images, but it seems expensive for what it is -- basically a somewhat crippled entry into the

mirrorless camera group. Leica is apparently reluctant to put out a camera that could threaten the sales of the M9. You

might be better off with a NEX-7 with Leica lenses by means of an adapter. Cheaper too. And higher resolution, and more

versatile, and easier to focus with focus peaking and magnification in the EVF.

<p>It seems that time and time again this is the story with Leica. Good cameras with gorgeous skins which simply don't live up to the hype. Pay twice as much for 'build quality' (as if an X100, NEX-7 or GX1 is going to disintegrate in your hands) and a positive refusal to acknowledge that tech has moved on. $10,000 for a rangefinder with a 240k res screen anyone? (sigh)<br>

It's such a shame. I tried the X2 last week and it is a thing of great beauty.</p>

<p> </p>

Leica does have some advantages. Their user interface is minimalistic which has advantages. Usually image quality is

first rate. Their lenses are GREAT, but expensive. But they don't like to innovate. When they had their alliance with

Minolta, the CLE was, in many ways, the most advanced Leica anyone had ever seen. It's a pity they didn't pursue the X2

as a sort of advanced amateur version of the M line complete with M mount.

<blockquote>

<p>easier to focus with focus peaking and magnification in the EVF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the X2 is autofocus so does not require these things in order to shoot with the Leica lens permanently attached to it. It's far too expensive, but what isn't with Leica? Doesn't mean I wouldn't like one though.</p>

<p>Me too! I'm wondering if there is a distinctive look to images taken with it. Or if there would be an advantage in terms of longevity, q.c. or something else which would justify it in the long run. One of the reasons I am asking this is that I've recently bought a Panasonic GX1 and find the monochrome setting to be very Leica. I hope this isn't merely my imagination, but the B&W tonality from the three digital cameras I've owned so far have all been different, with the GX1 noticeably superior. The M9 I haven't handled- I am simply never going to buy one at that price, especially with only manual focus. So it's the X2 as a long-term goal (or X3?) or no Leica at all.</p>

<p>You Leica guys have loosened your standards a bit. I remember when you wouldn't even let the Leica CL/CLE into the club and forget about the Minolta based R series even applying for membership.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p >You Leica guys have loosened your standards a bit. I remember when you wouldn't even let the Leica CL/CLE into the club and forget about the Minolta based R series even applying for membership.</p>

</blockquote>

+1

 

<p>You guys should check out the Sony RX100. Zeiss lens,large sensor,20 megapixels,and it still will fit in your pocket. Did I mention it makes excellent pictures?</p>

<p>Leica is M3, M2, M1, M4, M4-2 and 4-P, M5, M6 and MP. All else is merely a Leica logo on a cheap camera that is only good for necklaces; yes, including M8 and M9, let alone X1 and X2 (M7 is only half-way). My wife and I have both M8 and M9, and DLux 4. Cheap workmanship: power suddenly is cut, screen is poor, buffer is awful, etc. The only reason one may convince oneself to choose a digital Leica over is the feel, shape, weight, and sound (which, admittedly, is viable enough to buy).<br>

As said by others as well, for a reliable non-DSLR digital, go for Lumix.</p>

<p>I remember being told that my M6, while a true German Leica, wasn't made in the RIGHT German city so it was considered slightly inferior to earlier Leicas. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I remember being told that my M6, while a true German Leica, wasn't made in the RIGHT German city so it was considered slightly inferior to earlier Leicas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the very first M6 (for about the first year) was built in the RIGHT German city (Wetzlar). Leica moved to the new Solms facility in about 1987. That being said, now the excuse for the M6 not being a 'true Leica' is the topcover material (zinc alloy) :-/. </p>

<p>And the fact is that all Leica M cameras now start off in Portugal (since the M6). When they arive in Solms, they're taken apart - the rangefinder is added - and reassembled. </p>

<p>Whala - 'Made in Germany' </p>

 

<p>Leitz is moving back to Wetzlar! For further info see Google ---> <em>Leitz Wetzlar New Headquarters</em></p>

<p>Quite right, glorious Wetzlar is the true home of Leitz and the Leica. I remember going to the Leica microsystems office once in Cambridge UK. They were totally ignorant of the cameras as they were no longer the same company. The Philistines!</p>

 

Nozar does not feel the older Barnack Leicas to be real Leicas? Hmmmm. I doubt Oscar would agree. I would also disagree on the Leica

CL. It was designed in Wetzlar, the critical assembly tools were built in Wetzlar, and Wetzlar staff were in the Minolta factory, working with

Minolta to insure quality control. And it has those great Leica ergonomics too.

<blockquote>

<p>Leitz is moving back to Wetzlar! ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, I have to say, <strong><em>Leitz</em></strong> has not existed as a going concern for more than 25 years. Second, <strong><em>Leica</em></strong> Cameras still originate in Portugal.</p>