What is the Audience for the Leica X Vario?

What is the audience for this camera? I mean it's not an entrance into the mirrorless cameras since it doesn't have interchangeable

lenses. My NEX-7 can use Leica M lenses, but this camera can't. My NEX has a very good 24MP APS-C sensor and even if this had the

same, it probably will cost more than my NEX too? Tell me why on earth I'd buy this thing.

 

 

I think Leica is terrified of producing a worthy mirrorless (EVIL) camera for fear of killing the M. Since people (like me) tend not to buy the

M on it's merits anyway, not sure why they bother. When leica built the original 35mm Leica, it was taking a chance on a new kind of

camera. Shame it doesn't do that these days.

<p>I reckon Leica is targeting the wealthy people who are not interested in photography, but want to take pictures with something other than their cell phones. They do not care for bulky SLR, and they do not want to carry a cheap camera.<br>

Hasselblad is entering into this "wealthy point-and-shoot" market with Lunar. Despite Lunar's higher price point, X Vario will probably do better because X Vario looks far more expensive than Lunar.<br>

I believe that Leica's product strategy and marketing are not communicating with each other very well. The marketing team mistakenly reached out to the photography enthusiasts, even though the product strategy team is trying to reach the wealthy individuals who want a "nice point-and-shoot" camera.<br>

Fuji cutting the prices of X-E1 and lenses in the US is likely not a coincidence. Given weaker yen, they must be trying to steal away those disillusioned Leica photography enthusiasts without significant loss in their profit margin.</p>

<p>The "audience" that considers the Leica "Mini M", will then seriously consider & appreciate the <strong>Sony RX1 </strong>pricing & performance...</p>

<p>Some very large part of the target "audience" for Leica has always been as jewelry (aka, bling) for people who do not want to be seen using some plebean camera. This applies to point and shoot as well as to larger cameras.</p>

<p>These people want, and can afford, to have what is in many senses the "finest" of whatever they buy. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think it was a fine idea, but they just couldn't deliver with the right lens apparently. The idea is a relatively compact camera with aps sensor with a fine feel and simple handling with one lens that you can do about whatever you want without any compromise in image quality. In other words, if making the lens fixed to the camera enabled them to offer say an equiv. 25 f2.8 to 75 f4 and a little smaller than what they have there that is essentially excellent at widest apertures, then they would have something pretty special. It would have to be better in other words than any body else's kit lens and smaller than anybody else's "high end" zoom. Of course I would then need to add the viewfinder, and all of it is too expensive, but what can you say about all that. Finally, if they could build a decent EVF into the camera I just described with the lens I just described, I wouldn't need much else ever....even if the af wasn't awesome...although that would be great too.</p>

<p>I doubt it will sell very well. The zoom is slow and a VF (EVF type) is an expensive accessory. Although made of better materials and possibly a good performer, its appearance could be mistaken for a Panasonic-Leica point and shoot. Had they given it an interchangeable mount (with adapter possibilities), as do the Sony NEX offerings, it might have appealed to M users. </p>

<p>"Veblen goods"?</p>

<p>The idea of a APS-C sized sensor, a fixed zoomlens in a relatively compact body sure has its appeal. The price is silly moneym but the biggest problem to me is really the lens in the end... f/6.4 at the long end?<br>

For a lot less money, the Fuji X-Pro1 with the 18-55 zoom looks a whole lot nicer to me. But I guess I am in the wrong target audience. Like the OP, I have no clue who the right audience would be, though....</p>

The fuji Xpro1 is a fine camera at a much lower cost. The 18 -55mm fuji lens is a fine lens and is interchangeable with other fine fuji

lenses. The Xpro1 takes Leica lenses. For those who want a mirror less camera it's a good choice. There are other good choices, eg

Sony. You may prefer to pay for the Leica name but that is what you are paying for here.

<p>I will defend the X Vario, partly because I think it can prove itself and partly because I like to force myself to think differently.</p>

<p>- Its construction is apparently no less sturdy than the M. The NEX cameras (etc.) are not up to that standard.</p>

<p>- The sensor will possibly never see a speck of dust.</p>

<p>- The sensor always knows what lens it's using and its output can be finely tweaked on the computer or even in the camera.</p>

<p>- The lens may be slow, but it will more than redeem itself if it performs to an excellent standard.</p>

<p>- It appears to have little of the gimcrack that infests most other cameras. I like the control dials - just like a real camera should have!</p>

<p>- This could pave the way a new series of lenses: M zooms. Imagine, realistically, a 24-75/4 M with none of the distortions or aberrations that plague the Nikons, Canons and Sigmas of similar focal length.</p>

<p>- This could be an excellent photojournalism tool. Sure, you could do great PJ with an iPhone, but small sensors don't give images that can be enlarged very much. Wedding photographers might like it, too. I suspect could successfully use it, but it would have to be supplemented with a camera that can accept a 200mm lens.</p>

<p>- It could be seen as an ideal travel camera with the right compromises between size, image quality, toughness, speed and flexibility.</p>

<p>- It's one object, not two. If you like the relationships between the compromises, you buy the camera and you don't look back. There is no question of which lens to take and which to leave behind.</p>

<p>- This could be the nicest camera you can buy with a fixed zoom and a 24x16mm sensor. If it is, you'll have to base that on what your eyes see, not just on test measurements.</p>

<p>- If the sensor does not have a low-pass filter in front of it, image resolution could be equal to that of cameras such as the NEX-7, based on past comparisons between the M9 and DSLRs with higher pixel counts. This has some beneficial side-effects such as providing equal effective resolution and/or sharpness in a smaller RAW file.</p>

<p>Let's move this question in a slightly different direction. Why would someone buy X Vario over the D-Lux 6? The D-Lux 6 is considerably less expensive and more pocketable. As I understand it most people are not savvy about camera sensors and look at price and size when it comes to this type of camera.</p>

<p>After having been very skeptical of this being a complete non-sense project, I second (some of) Karim's points. It seems very well made, and to my eye, attractive. Sean Reid's review, which is not going into image quality much, rave about the ergonomics and states that the lens is excellent but slow. The dimensions of the camera may have been limiting here - to keep it in the "X" size category and claim it's place among the "compacts". It is <a href="http://camerasize.com/compare/#461,289">slightly wider</a> then the OM-D and not quite as high, and I find the OM-D is a gem but its controls are crammed. My 12-35 mm f2.8 is very large, and that is for m4/3 so I think the zoom we all wanted on the X Vario would have been prohibitively huge.</p>

<p>What puzzles me is that it is quite heavy but that probably speaks to the materials used. </p>

<p>As others, I wanted them to make something exchangeable. Well, maybe next time.... For people that don;t care about price that much 9let's face it, the camera is cheaper than most of Leica's M lenses), this may be a good tool they can carry with them at all times. I am somewhat tempted, if it was not for thr hole that %2850 would leave in my checking....</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why would someone buy X Vario over the D-Lux 6?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting question - in a way they are similar in zoom range, fixed rear LCD, use EVF....... I have been a fan of the LX/D-LUX series, but image quality wise I don't think this will be a contest. And I would think (hope) that people spending $3k would know that (or its really just Leica bling)</p>

<p>Steve, if Sony made a compact general zoom that was truly excellent wide open, then that would make the Sony 6 a more viable alternative, but they don't make that. Of course this argue hinges on the new Leica lens being really excellent at 28 3.5, and I have no idea yet. Still, I agree that the long end of f6.something is just too slow either way.</p>

<p>While Sigma are launching f/1.8 APS-C zoom lenses (admittedly, whose performance are unknown), and when every kit zoom on the planet stops at f/5.6, an f/6.4 integrated zoom does seem to remove the point of having a large sensor. It looks awfully big for a compact camera, too - one advantage of the other fixed lens/large sensor cameras in that they actually fit in a pocket. Had Leica gone back to their 50mm roots and managed to integrate a collapsible lens (like the Panasonic 14-42 power zoom used on a micro 4/3 system), it might have portability benefits, but not with what they put on it. As for how good the optics are - and I'm sure they're fine - it's quite easy to make a lens that's decent at f/6.4. Making one that's good at f/2 is another matter, and where Leica have skills. Besides, f/6.3 and no stabilization makes this a daylight camera. As for ruggedness, the problem with a heavy camera with a big cantilevered lens is that it can put a lot of force on itself; my GF2/14-42 can whack into something quite hard and just bounce off, because it's light and plastic with not very much kinetic energy and there's no leverage on the lens. Even built like a tank, I'd worry more about this Leica. And I can afford to replace the GF2, of course.<br />

<br />

It's easy to criticize, but - other than the crowd who must own a red dot - it really seems like a camera that could have done either with a faster (even constant f/2.8) but shorter (both in range and size) lens, or a faster prime. As a mostly-Canon-and-Nikon shooter (with a rarely-used Bessa R), I'd love an M if someone donated one to me. This, I'd sell without a second thought. If they made one of these with a welded-on Noctilux, I'm sure they'd sell it for twice the price.<br />

<br />

Still, at least it's not as nuts as Hasselblad's latest. I look forward to the reviews - at least they're trying something different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David W. Griffen: What is the audience for this camera<br>

Alfred Schopf - I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I use an X100s<br>

:) </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The target market is China where it's irrelevant that cameras with simliar performance cost less. In the Chinese market conspicuous consumption is as important as avoiding anything made in Japan or by a Japanese company. I expect it will sell well. I doubt I'll buy one.</p>

<p>Nice list, Karim. Your brain has certainly gotten the daily workout that the expert's recommend, and I'm sure constructing this list was a lot harder than say, playing chess or proving mathematical theorems. May I suggest an exercise for tomorrow? Maybe something like "advantages of dial-up modems," or "why you should wear your eyeglasses upside down."<br>

By the way, I don't think your list is complete. You forgot "high price means less money for fatty foods and cigarettes," and "when you carry two, you won't have to remember which lens is which."</p>

<p>I am the first one to denounce that Leica habit of creating collector 'bling' pieces that will never actually be used (just waiting for an Elephant Skin Golden M 240)....</p>

<p>However, I still think this may be a useful camera. I don't think it's just for Chinese<em> nouveau riche</em>.... If Leica could have put a reasonably sized f2.8 to f4 zoom on there, they probably would have... at least they are not shy about charging people good money, so why hold back?</p>

<p>What irks me a bit for what could be a useful travel camera is the poor bracketing function (3 shots max) and lack of IS. Or rather it has what Leica calls "IS""</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"With this function, the camera automatically takes two pictures in</em><br /><em>succession (the shutter noise can be heard twice). It then com–</em><br /><em>bines the pictures into one by digital processing."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I mean, really ? :(<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Oh, go on then...</p>

 

<blockquote>- Its construction is apparently no less sturdy than the M. The NEX cameras (etc.) are not up to that standard.</blockquote>

<p>It's heavy and its lens sticks out a long way. Turn around in a hurry so it swings into a door frame and it has a good chance of getting hurt, even if it's solid metal. As I said above, my GF2 and 14-42 are light weight and there's no leverage to do nasties to the lens attachment. (The GF2/14-42 aren't perfect - and I'm not saying they'd survive being sat on any better than the Leica - but they have advantages, especially that they're lighter and much smaller, and I can mount different lenses - or a telescope - on it. And there's a touch screen!) The front element is exposed to knocks. It's not impervious, however well it's assembled.</p>

 

<blockquote>The sensor will possibly never see a speck of dust.</blockquote>

<p>Occasionally someone posts about a compact camera with dust on the sensor. This is a zoom with a moving (non-sealed) front end and a big sensor. If dust gets in, you can't get it cleaned easily.</p>

 

<blockquote>- The sensor always knows what lens it's using and its output can be finely tweaked on the computer or even in the camera.</blockquote>

<p>Ricoh tried that argument. It turns out that a sensor is a sensor, and "tuning it to the lens" actually doesn't tend to make much difference - it just means your cheap lenses have to include the cost of an expensive sensor.</p>

 

<blockquote>- The lens may be slow, but it will more than redeem itself if it performs to an excellent standard.</blockquote>

<p>Very few lenses are not "excellent" at f/6.4. For the price, it's going to have to be pretty special. Most kit zooms are actually pretty decent, since camera manufacturers rely on them to make their cameras review well. At the long end, the 18-46mm lens at f/6.4 has a 7.2mm effective aperture. That makes it slightly less capable of subject separation than a Panasonic DMC-LX7 (17.7mm lens, f/2.2 = 7.7mm). It's also less than a Sony DSC-RX100 (37.1mm at f/4.9 is 7.6mm) - and that camera has a higher resolution sensor and is tiny. (Personally I don't like the handling, but I admire the achievement.)</p>

 

<blockquote>- It appears to have little of the gimcrack that infests most other cameras. I like the control dials - just like a real camera should have!</blockquote>

<p>Like a Fuji X100S? Except the shutter speed and aperture are both under thumb control (at least, I <i>hope</i> you can move them with a thumb and don't need a finger as well) so you can't balance them against each other like a Nikon with thumb and middle finger dials, or the Fuji with right/left-hand operation. Though you probably do need two hands to change the ISO, and it appears that exposure compensation involves a bit of juggling too, ideally without dropping the camera - though admittedly you can spend an extra £100 fixing the grip.</p>

 

<blockquote>- This could pave the way a new series of lenses: M zooms. Imagine, realistically, a 24-75/4 M with none of the distortions or aberrations that plague the Nikons, Canons and Sigmas of similar focal length.</blockquote>

<p>The issues that can be mostly fixed in software, and that manufacturers are deliberately leaving in place in order to prioritize absolute sharpness? That's slightly devil's advocate - there's no substitute for good glass. But this lens isn't a 24-75 equivalent f/4. Starting at 28mm in a compact is a bit 2011, even before the aperture.</p>

 

<blockquote>- This could be an excellent photojournalism tool. Sure, you could do great PJ with an iPhone, but small sensors don't give images that can be enlarged very much. Wedding photographers might like it, too. I suspect could successfully use it, but it would have to be supplemented with a camera that can accept a 200mm lens.</blockquote>

<p>Or a Nokia Pureview 808. That's facetious, the Vario ought to be better - but so would any of the compacts mentioned above. Would you really shoot a wedding with a compact camera? Without image stabilization and with a slow lens? Out of interest, anyone know if it has a leaf shutter? (The flash sync speed on some of the competition is actually a good reason for a fixed lens system.)</p>

 

<blockquote>- It could be seen as an ideal travel camera with the right compromises between size, image quality, toughness, speed and flexibility.</blockquote>

<p>The compromises being that it's definitely bigger and less flexible than the alternatives; I remain to be convinced by the toughness (even if you couldn't replace other cameras several times at this price), Leica don't have a good record on speed. Of course, we don't know about image quality yet.</p>

 

<blockquote>- It's one object, not two. If you like the relationships between the compromises, you buy the camera and you don't look back. There is no question of which lens to take and which to leave behind.</blockquote>

<p>I'm not going to dignify that with a response. Okay, I will: wouldn't you rather have one of the prime compacts rather than a zoom, by that argument? (Seriously, there are superzoom cameras. There are certainly cameras with a wider zoom range than this with a decent image quality and far more portability.)</p>

 

<blockquote>- This could be the nicest camera you can buy with a fixed zoom and a 24x16mm sensor. If it is, you'll have to base that on what your eyes see, not just on test measurements.</blockquote>

<p>I've never believed in buying a camera based on what it looks like (sorry, Hasselblad), but I'm not going to buy that it looks nicer than an X100s, especially in black. If you mean image quality, it's the <i>only</i> camera you can buy with a fixed zoom and a 24-16mm sensor, so that's pretty safe. It doesn't mean you should. As for handling... well, I've mentioned a few concerns above, but I've obviously not tried one, so maybe I'm inventing problems that aren't there.</p>

 

<blockquote>- If the sensor does not have a low-pass filter in front of it, image resolution could be equal to that of cameras such as the NEX-7, based on past comparisons between the M9 and DSLRs with higher pixel counts. This has some beneficial side-effects such as providing equal effective resolution and/or sharpness in a smaller RAW file.</blockquote>

<p>Sort of, yes. As is true of the Nikon, Ricoh and Fuji alternatives (without most of the colour aliasing issues in the latter case). Though by f/6.4 you're almost beginning to throw away resolution to diffraction. Now, it won't keep up with a D7100, but I'll admit that's a different class of camera.<br />

<br />

I'm actually not quite as anti-this camera as that all makes me sound, but I still remain to be convinced. I worry that it's a Leica for the sake of it being a Leica and nothing else (as Douglas suggests). If I see someone in the UK using a Leica rangefinder, I think a combination of "huh, expensive kit" and "that's probably someone who knows how to use their camera and who will spend money on the optics they want"; others may think "what a weird old camera". If I see someone with a Leica Panasonic clone, I tend to think they're mildly financially foolish or wedded to some JPEG handling. I don't think "wow, Leica, they must be affluent" - I try to hide my Nikon strap so it's less obvious that my camera is worth stealing, and have no truck with cameras looking expensive for the hell of it. If I saw someone with this camera, I'd probably think they were an idiot unless they really looked wedded to the handling. Though if they looked friendly, I might put on a friendly face and try to learn what I was missing.</p>

 

<p>They forgot the viewfinder (again). Add the EVF and it's close to the price of a secondhand M9. For my money, Fuji are making the compact cameras that Leica should be making below the M series. Rework this into something a bit more like the X100s, with a built-in optical finder and a fast lens, and they might have something interesting and very marketable.</p>

For $2000'ish you can get a used M8 that is an APS-H sensor (only 10.1MP) and is a real M that uses real M lenses. I

never understood the other X's either. And between the Sony NEXs, designed to use manual lenses very well and the

Fuji mirrorless cameras it's hard to fathom. I'll bet a shoot-off between a Nex-7 with a Leica 35/2 ASPH against this

camera wouldn't go well for this camera. And I'll bet the same would be true of the Fuji's.

<p>Agreed, David. The prices on the X2 are getting more (relatively) reasonable, but Leica basically have the problem that they're trying to make a compact camera, and they're not an electronics company. Neither are Nikon, which is why Canon keep outselling them in the compact market. They can't make it cheap or make the electronic interface easy to use, but there's a recession and if they try to make another RX1, they may not actually sell many. (I wonder how many Sony have shipped?) And people might notice how much Leica charge to stick an M mount on the back of their lenses instead of a whole digital camera.<br />

<br />

Unfortunately, Leica can't have that much to spend on R&D, and rewarming the existing (and some people seem to like it, even if I'm dubious) X1 design may be all they can do. But the X1 had a moderately fast lens and was actually pocketable; the Vario has neither benefit.<br />

<br />

What the market would apparently like is a big-sensor compact with a fast lens, that's still portable. Unfortunately, making it bigger and more expensive than a system that can swap lenses makes it hard to justify, and giving it less light gathering and DoF control than a small sensor compact removes the only benefit of the big sensor. At least the RX1 is small, even if it's silly money.<br />

<br />

But kudos to Leica for trying something, even if other manufacturers (with a faster turn-around) have got to what they probably <i>should</i> have been doing first. They can't just "me too". It's just a shame that the execution seems to have produced a camera that doesn't have obvious technical merits over the competition in any obvious area. Though I'm sure I'll be eating my words when the thing turns out to have some amazing secret sauce.</p>

<p>"<strong> If I saw someone with this camera, I'd probably think they were an idiot unless they really looked wedded to the handling. Though if they looked friendly, I might put on a friendly face and try to learn what I was missing.</strong><strong>"</strong></p>

<p>Or you could skip the first step.</p>

<p>It's for people who have an appreciation for the finer things, such as German engineering combined with Leica's legendary optical expertise. No doubt the haptics are top-notch, so that when one picks up the X Vario one will find that the shutter release is sharp as a trigger, placing the user into the mood of a hunter or an active sportsman anticipating the moves of the other players. (The XE-1 and 18-55 on the other hand are known to give no feedback, thus lulling the user into passivity, becoming a mere spinner of dials and wheels rather than the active driver of the car.) The X Vario is targeted to the sort of person who likes to enjoy a glass of Romanée-Conti (with a just splash of Diet Coke to make it palatable) while reviewing images on the 3-inch, 920k dot LCD by the fireplace in the evenings after a busy day of HCB-inspired street photography.</p>